Everett Pi Rah A

7/31/2019 Everett Pi Rah A

1/26

621

C u r r e n t A n t h r o p o l o g y Volume 46, Number 4, AugustOctober 2005 2005 by The Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research. All rights reserved 0011-3204/2005/4604-0006$10.00

Cultural Constraintson Grammar andCognition in Piraha

Another Look at the DesignFeatures of Human Language

by Daniel L. Everett

The Piraha language challenges simplistic application of Hock-etts nearly universally accepted design features of human lan-guage by showing that some of these features (interchangeability,displacement, and productivity) may be culturally constrained. Inparticular, Piraha culture constrains communication to nonab-stract subjects which fall within the immediate experience of in-terlocutors. This constraint explains a number of very surprisingfeatures of Piraha grammar and culture: the absence of numbersof any kind or a concept of counting and of any terms for quanti-fication, the absence of color terms, the absence of embedding,the simplest pronoun inventory known, the absence of relativetenses, the simplest kinship system yet documented, the ab-sence of creation myths and fiction, the absence of any individ-ual or collective memory of more than two generations past, theabsence of drawing or other art and one of the simplest materialcultures documented, and the fact that the Piraha are monolin-

gual after more than 200 years of regular contact with Braziliansand the Tupi-Guarani-speaking Kawahiv.

d a n i e l l . e v e r e t t is Professor of Phonetics and Phonologyin the Department of Linguistics at the University of Manches-ter (Manchester M13 9PL, U.K. [[email protected]]).Born in 1951, he received a Sc.D. from the State University ofCampinas, Brazil, in 1983 and has taught linguistics there(198186) and at the University of Pittsburgh (198899). Hispublications include A lingua piraha e a teoria da sintaxe (Cam-pinas: Editora da UNICAMP, 1992), (with Barbara Kern) WariDescriptive Grammar (London: Routledge, 1997), and CoherentFieldwork, in Linguistics Today, edited by Piet van Sterkenberg(Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2004). The present paper was sub-mitted 12 iv 04 and accepted 4 iii 05.

[Supplementary material appears in the electronic edition of this

issue on the journals web page (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/CA/home.html).]

It does not seem likely . . . that there is any directrelation between the culture of a tribe and the lan-guage they speak, except in so far as the form of thelanguage will be moulded by the state of the cul-ture, but not in so far as a certain state of the cul-ture is conditioned by the morphological traits of

the language.f r a n s b o a s , 1911

In the early days of American descriptive linguistics, lan-guage was seen as an emergent property of human cul-ture and psychology.1 Except for small pockets of re-searchers here and there, for various reasons bothso-called formal and functional linguistics abandonedthe investigation of culture-language connections.2 In re-cent years there has been a welcome revival of interestin the influence of language on culture and cognition,especially in more sophisticated investigations of the lin-guistic-relativity/determinism hypothesis (e.g., Lucy

1. I thank the Piraha for their friendship and help for more thanhalf of my life. Since 1977 the people have taught me about theirlanguage and way of understanding the world. I have lived for oversix years in Piraha villages and have visited the people every yearsince 1977. I speak the language well and can say anything I needto say in it, subject to the kinds of limitations discussed in thispaper. I have not published on Piraha culture per se, but I haveobserved it closely for all of these years and have discussed mostof my observations, including those reported on here, with the Pir-aha themselves. My wife, Keren, is the only non-Piraha to havelived longer among the Piraha than I. She has offered invaluablehelp, strong criticism, and inspiration in my studies of the Pirahalanguage over the years. Peter Gordons enthusiasm for studyingPiraha counting experimentally has challenged me to consider theabsence of Piraha numerals in a wider cultural and linguistic con-text. I thank David Gil of the Max Planck Institute for EvolutionaryAnthropology in Leipzig for organizing the Numerals conference

there (March 28 and 29, 2004) and the Institutes Linguistics De-partment for offering me ideal circumstances in which to roughout the bulk of this paper. I also thank (in no particular order) RayJackendoff, Lila Gleitman, Timothy Feist, Bill Poser, Nigel Vincent,Keren Everett, Arlo Heinrichs, Steve Sheldon, Pattie Epps, TonyWoodbury, Brent Berlin, Tom Headland, Terry Kaufman, Grev Cor-bett, Peter Gordon, Sally Thomason, Alec Marantz, Donca Steriade,Craige Roberts, Mary Beckman, Peter Culicover, and Iris Berent forcomments of varying detail on this paper and Paul Kay for askingchallenging questions about my statements on color terms thathelped me sharpen my thinking about this enormously. Tom Head-land deserves special mention for giving me detailed help on howto make my ethnographic summary more intelligible to anthro-pologists. This paper supersedes any other publishedor unpublishedstatement by me on those aspects of Piraha grammar here ad-dressed. No one should draw the conclusion from this paper thatthe Piraha language is in any way primitive. It has the most

complex verbal morphology I am aware of and a strikingly complexprosodic system. The Piraha are some of the brightest, pleasantest,most fun-loving people that I know. The absence of formal fiction,myths, etc., does not mean that they do not or cannot joke or lie,both of which they particularly enjoy doing at my expense, alwaysgood-naturedly. Questioning Pirahas implications for the designfeatures of human language is not at all equivalent to questioningtheir intelligence or the richness of their cultural experience andknowledge.2. It is ironic that linguists of the functional persuasion shouldignore cultures potential impact on grammar, given the fact thatfunctional linguistics inherited from generative semantics the viewthat form is driven largely by meaning (and, more recently, by gen-eral cognitive constraints as well) because the locus and source ofmeaning for any human are principally in the culture.


2/26

622 F c u r r e n t a n t h r o p o l o g y Volume 46, Number 4, AugustOctober 2005

1992a, b; Gumperz and Levinson 1996; Gentner and Gol-din-Meadow 2003). However, there has been insufficientwork on the constraints that culture can place on majorgrammatical structures in a language, though Pawley(1987) and the contributors to Enfield (2002), among oth-ers, have produced some important results.

This paper looks in detail at various aspects of theculture and language of the Piraha of Brazil that suggestthat Piraha culture severely constrains Piraha grammarin several ways, producing an array of otherwise inex-plicable gaps in Piraha morphosyntax. These con-straints lead to the startling conclusion that Hocketts(1960) design features of human language, even morewidely accepted among linguists than Chomskys pro-posed universal grammar, must be revised. With respectto Chomskys proposal, the conclusion is severesomeof the components of so-called core grammar are subjectto cultural constraints, something that is predicted notto occur by the universal-grammar model. I argue thatthese apparently disjointed facts about the Piraha lan-guagegaps that are very surprising from just about anygrammarians perspectiveultimately derive from a sin-gle cultural constraint in Piraha, namely, the restrictionof communication to the immediate experience of the

interlocutors.Grammar and other ways of living are restricted to

concrete, immediate experience (where an experience isimmediate in Piraha if it has been seen or recounted asseen by a person alive at the time of telling), and im-mediacy of experience is reflected in immediacy of in-formation encodingone event per utterance.3 Less ex-plicitly, the paper raises the possibility, subject to furtherresearch, that culture constrains cognition as well. If theassertion of cultural constraint is correct, then it hasimportant consequences for the enterprise of linguistics.

Before beginning in earnest, I should say somethingabout my distinction between culture and language.To linguists this is a natural distinction. To anthropol-ogists it is not. My own view of the relationship is thatthe anthropological perspective is the more useful, butthat is exactly what this paper purports to show. There-fore, although I begin with what will strike most an-thropologists as a strange division between the form ofcommunication (language) and the ways of meaning (cul-ture) from which it emerges, my conclusion is that thedivision is not in fact a very useful one and that Sapir,Boas, and the anthropological tradition generally have

this right. In this sense, this paper may be taken as anargument that anthropology and linguistics are moreclosely aligned than most modern linguists (whetherfunctional or formal) suppose.

This study began as a description of the absence ofnumerals, number, and counting in Piraha, the only sur-

3. The notion of event used in this papera single logical pred-icatecomes from the standard literature on lexical semantics.Such predicates can be modified but are represented as solitaryevents (see Van Valin and LaPolla 1997 for one model). This is notto say that a single event cannot be expressed by more than oneutterance but merely that multiple events are not expressed in asingle utterance/sentence.

viving member of the Muran language family. However,after considering the implications of this unusual featureof Piraha language and culture, I came to the conclusiondefended in this paper, namely, that there is an importantrelation between the absence of number, numerals, andcounting, on the one hand, and the striking absence ofother forms of precision quantification in Piraha seman-tics and culture, on the other. A summary of the sur-prising facts will include at least the following: Pirahais the only language known without number, numerals,or a concept of counting. It also lacks terms for quan-tification such as all, each, every, most, andsome. It is the only language known without colorterms. It is the only language known without embedding(putting one phrase inside another of the same type orlower level, e.g., noun phrases in noun phrases, sentencesin sentences, etc.). It has the simplest pronoun inventoryknown, and evidence suggests that its entire pronominalinventory may have been borrowed. It has no perfecttense. It has perhaps the simplest kinship system everdocumented. It has no creation mythsits texts are al-most always descriptions of immediate experience or in-terpretations of experience; it has some stories about thepast, but only of one or two generations back. Piraha ingeneral express no individual or collective memory ofmore than two generations past. They do not draw, ex-cept for extremely crude stick figures representing thespirit world that they (claim to) have directly exper-ienced.

In addition, the following facts provide additionalovert evidence for ways in which culture can be causallyimplicated in the linguistic structure of the language:The phonemic inventory of Piraha women is the small-est in the world, with only seven consonants and threevowels, while the mens inventory is tied with Rotokasand Hawaiian for the next-smallest inventory, with onlyeight consonants and three vowels (Everett 1979). ThePiraha people communicate almost as much by singing,whistling, and humming as they do using consonantsand vowels (Everett 1985, 2004). Piraha prosody is veryrich, with a well-documented five-way weight distinc-tion between syllable types (Everett 1979, 1988; Everettand Everett 1984).

A final fascinating feature of Piraha culture, which Iwill argue to follow from the above, is that Piraha con-tinue to be monolingual in Piraha after more than 200years of regular contact with Brazilians and other non-

Piraha. What we will see as the discussion progresses isthat Portuguese grammar and communication violatethe Piraha cultural constraint on grammar and living, aprofound cultural value, leading to an explanation forthis persistent monolingualism.

Any of these properties is sufficiently unusual in itselfto demand careful consideration, but their manifestationin a single language suggests the existence of a commonunifying generalization behind them. They are suffi-ciently disparate formally (i.e., in terms of potentialphrase-structure realizations) that any unifying principleis almost certainly to be found in their meaning, andthat in the broadest sense of a constraint on cultural


3/26

e v e r e t t Cultural Constraints on Piraha Grammar F 623

function. What I propose, again, is that Piraha cultureavoids talking about knowledge that ranges beyond per-sonal, usually immediate experience or is transmittedvia such experience. All of the properties of Piraha gram-mar that I have listed will be shown to follow from this.Abstract entities are not bound by immediate personalexperience, and therefore Piraha people do not discussthem.

In developing the arguments to support these theses,I also argue against the simple Whorfian idea that lin-guistic relativity or determinism alone can account forthe facts under consideration. In fact, I also argue thatthe unidirectionality inherent in linguistic relativity of-fers an insufficient tool for language-cognition connec-tions more generally in that it fails to recognize the fun-damental role of culture in shaping language. In whatfollows I describe the properties of Piraha grammar men-tioned above, consider the facts in light of Piraha culturalvalues, and discuss the lessons to be drawn from the caseof Piraha for linguistic theory. I do not claim that mythesis or its relation to the facts has been proven; rather,I suggest that the relation has been supported and thatthere is no other obvious relation. Any other approachwould render the above-mentioned observations coin-cidental.

Number, Numerals, and Counting

There is no grammatical number in Piraha (Everett 1983,1986; Corbett 2000). There are therefore no number con-trasts on nouns, pronouns, verbs, or modifiers for number( p high tone; no mark over vowel p low tone; p

glottal stop):

1. hiaitih hi kaoabogi bai -aagaPiraha people he evil spirit fear -beThe Piraha are afraid of evil spirits, A Piraha is

afraid of an evil spirit, The Piraha are afraid of anevil spirit, or A Piraha is afraid of evil spirits.

2. koo, kohoibihai, hi pai, aaibga,name name he also, namehi pai, hi koabaiphe also, he dieKoo, Kohoibihai, and aaibiga died.

3. koo hi koabaip name he dieKoo died.

4. baigipohoaa i ooo kobai -baaname:feminine she tarantula watch -intentlyBaigipohoaa watched the tarantula[s] closely. (This

can refer to one woman named Baigipohoaa orseveral.)

This feature of Piraha is itself very rare (see Corbett2000:50). There may be no other language that lacks thegrammatical category of number.

There are three words in Piraha that are easy to confusewith numerals because they can be translated as nu-merals in some of their uses:4hoi small size or amount,

ho somewhat larger size or amount, and ba a gi so lit.cause to come together (loosely many). Some exampleswhich show how Piraha expresses what in other cultureswould be numerical concepts are as follows:

5. a. t tiisi hoi hii abaagio oogabagaI fish small predicate only wantI only want [one/a couple/a small] fish. (This

could not be used to express a desire for onefish that was very large except as a joke.)

b. tiobahai hoi hiichild small predicatesmall child/child is small/one child

6. a. t tiisi ho hii oogabaga I fish larger predicate wantI want [a few/larger/several] fish.

b. t tiisi baagiso oogabagaI fish many/group want

I want [a group of/many] fish.c. t tiisi ogi oogabaga

I fish big wantI want [a big/big pile of/many] fish.

Interestingly, in spite of its lack of number and nu-merals, Piraha superficially appears to have a count-ver-sus-mass distinction (examples preceded by an asteriskareungrammatical, and those preceded by a question markwould be considered strange):

7. a. aooi aabai aoaaga o kapioioforeigner many exist jungle other

There are many foreigners in another jungle.b. /? aooi apag aoaaga o kapioio

foreigner much exist jungle other?There are much foreigners in another jungle.

8. a. agasi apag aoaaga o kapioiomanioc meal much exist jungle otherThere is a lot of manioc meal in another jungle.

b. agasi aabai aoaaga o kapioiomanioc meal many exist jungle otherThere is many manioc meal in another jungle.

This distinction is more consistently analyzed, how-ever, as the distinction between things that can be in-

dividuated and things that cannot, thus independent ofthe notion of counting.

There are likewise no ordinal numbers in Piraha. Someof the functions of ordinals are expressed via body parts,in a way familiar to many languages:

4. The translation fallacy is well-known, but field linguists inparticular must be ever-vigilant not to be confused by it. Bruner,Brockmeier, and Harre (2001:39) describe it as the supposition thatthere is only one human reality to which all narrativesbe theyfiction or linguistic theories, saymust in effect conform.Throughout this paper I will urge the reader to be on guard againstthisthe mistake of concluding that language X shares a categorywith language Y if the categories overlap in reference.


4/26


9. ti apa kao bi ahaig I head fall same generation

hi tohioo/gaaba kaobi

he towards me/there stay fallI was born first then my sibling was born. (lit.

I head fall sibling to me/there at fall.)The expressions tohioo and gaaba here are inter-

changeable in most contexts. They refer both to inter-mediate points in a succession of participants, events,etc., or to the final position. But the word head doesnot really mean first, not if we assume that firstderives its meaning partially in opposition to second,third, etc., but overlaps with first in referring tosomething at the beginning of a spatial or temporalsequence.5

The Piraha language has no words for individual fin-gers (e.g., ring finger, index finger, thumb, etc.).Piraha occasionally refer to their fingers collectively ashand sticks, but only when asked by an insistent lin-guist. By the same reasoning, there is no word for last.Moreover, they tend not to point with individual fingers,at least when talking to me. Commonly, if they use anypart of their arms for pointing, they tend to extend a flathand turned sideways or an open palm facing up or down.More often, they point, as is common around the world,with their lower lip or jaw or a motion of the head. Whendiscussing a large quantity/number of objects, they donot make tallying motions on individual appendages. Ifthey use gestures, they hold the flat hand out, palmdown, varying the distance between hand and ground toindicate the size of the pile or amount under discus-sion. However, a seated Piraha man or woman (though

women rarely do this) will occasionally extend both feetand hands, with toes and fingers also extended, to in-dicate a large number of individual items (they woulddo this in my experience not for a nonindividuated quan-tity such as manioc flour but rather for bags of maniocflour, etc.). Other than these gestures, there is no use ofbody parts, objects, or anything to indicate a concept oftallying.

There are no quantifier terms like all, each, ev-ery, most, and few in Piraha. There are also noWH (information question)-quantifiers per se.6 Thefollowing examples show the closest expressions Pirahacan muster to these quantifiers:

10. hiaitih hi ogi -aagaPiraha people he big -be (permanence)

-o pi -o kaobi

-direction water -direction entered

5. Part of the conclusion of this paper, agreeing with Gordon (2004),is that much of Piraha is largely incommensurate with English andtherefore translation is simply a poor approximation of Piraha in-tentions and meaning, but we do as well as we can do.6. One reviewer has suggested that these Piraha words are quantifierwords but have different truth conditions from their English coun-terparts. But having different truth conditions simply means havingdifferent meanings in this context, and therefore if they have dif-ferent truth conditions then they are different words.

All the people went to swim/went swimming/areswimming/bathing, etc.

11. ti ogi -aagaI big -be (permanence)-o tiiisi ogi-direction fish big-o i kohoai-baa ,-direction she eat -intensivekoga hoi hinevertheless small amount intensivehi -i kohoiintensive -be eat-hiaba-notWe ate most of the fish. (lit. My bigness ate

[at] a bigness of fish, nevertheless there was asmallness we did not eat.)

The following is the closest I have ever been able to getto a sentence that would substitute for a quantifier likeeach, as in Each man went to the field.

12. igih hi ogiaagao ogaman he bigness fieldhapi; aikaibasi, ahoaapati po,went name, name also,tigi hi po, ogiaagao name he also bignessThe men all went to the field, aikaibasi, ahoaa-

pati, tigi all went.

13. gata -hai hoi hi -i

can -foreign object small intensive -beaba -a -gi -oremain -temporary -associative -locationao -aaga agaoa ko -opossession -be (temporary) canoe gut -directionThere were [a] few cans in the foreigners canoe.

(lit. Smallness of cans remaining associated wasin the gut of the canoe.) (abaagio can often betranslated as only, but the full morphologicalbreakdown shows that it is not really equivalent inmeaning to only, nor does it share the full rangeof meanings of only.)

There are, however, two words, usually occurring in

reference to an amount eaten or desired, baaiso wholeand giai part, which by their closest translation equiv-alents might seem to be quantifiers:

14. a. tobahai hi ba -achild he touch -causative-i -so kohoai-connective -nominalizer eat-soog -ab -aga -desiderative -stay -thusThe child wanted/s to eat the whole thing. (lit.

Child muchness/fullness eat is desiring.)b. tobahai hi gi -ai


5/26


child he that -therekohoai -soog -ab -agaeat -desiderative -stay -thusThe child wanted/s to eat a piece of the thing.

(lit. Child that there eat is desiring.)

Here baaiso and giai are used as nouns, but they canalso appear as postnominal modifiers:

15. a. tiobahai hi poogahia baaisochild he banana wholekohoai -soog -ab -agaeat -desiderative -stay -thusThe child wanted/s to eat the whole banana.

(lit. Child banana muchness/fullness eat isdesiring.)

b. tobahai hi poogahia giaichild he banana piecekohoai -soog -ab -agaeat -desiderative -stay -thus

The child wanted/s to eat part of the banana.(lit. Child banana piece eat is desiring.)

Aside from their literal meanings, there are importantreasons for not interpreting these two words as quanti-fiers. First, their truth conditions are not equivalent tothose of real quantifiers. In the following examples some-one has just killed an anaconda and upon seeing it, utters16a. Someone takes a piece of it, and after the purchaseof the remainder the content of 16a is reaffirmed as 16b:

16. a. aooi hi paohoaai iso foreigner he anaconda skinbaaiso oaboi -ha

whole buy -relative certaintyThe foreigner will likely buy the entire ana-conda skin.

b. aio hi baaiso oaobaffirmative he whole buy-aha hi ogio -complete certainty he bignessoaob -ahabuy -complete certaintyYes, he bought the whole thing.

In the English equivalent, where the same context isassumed, when the statement He will likely buy thewhole anaconda skin is followed by the removal of apiece in full view of interlocutors, it would simply bedishonest and a violation of the meaning of whole tosay, He bought the whole anaconda skin, but this isnot the case in Piraha.

Next, there is no truly quantificational-abstraction us-age of baaiso whole:

17. Ti si baaiso ogabagaiI animal whole want,giai ogi -hiabapiece want -negativeI prefer whole animals to portions of animals. (lit.

I desire [a] whole animal[s], not piece[s].)

Sentences like this one cannot be uttered acceptably inthe absence of a particular pair of animals or instructionsabout a specific animal to a specific hunter. In otherwords, when such sentences are used, they are describingspecific experiences, not generalizing across experiences.It is of course more difficult to say that something doesnot exist than to show that it does exist, but facts likethose discussed here, in the context of my nearly threedecades of regular research on Piraha, lead me to theconclusion that there is no strong evidence for the ex-istence of quantifiers in Piraha.

Given the lack of number distinctions, any nominalis ambiguous between singular, plural, and generic in-terpretation. This can lead to interpretations which seemquantificational:

18. t ibisi hi baiai -hiabaI blood-one he fear -negativeI am not afraid of beings with blood.

19. kaoabogi hi sab aagahaevil spirit he mean is (permanent)Evil spirits are mean.

On the surface it looks as if these were quantificationalphrases. They are of course ambiguous between singularreading (e.g., I am not afraid of that being with blood)and plural readings (Those evil spirits are mean) inaddition to the generic, more quantificational readingsgiven here. Although there is no word all in Piraha, itcould be countered that perhaps it is the constructionitself that produces the universal quantifier reading. Su-perficially this is appealing, but I think that it is anothermanifestation of the translation fallacy. Even though

there is a certain quantificational smell here, the truthconditions are not the same for generics as for quanti-ficational readings (see, e.g., Krifka et al. 1995). In fact,I and others who have visited the Piraha have misun-derstood statements like these and/or their literal trans-lations because we do translate them into Western lan-guages as generic, universal quantification. These nevermean that all beings with blood, for example, fail to in-spire fear. That there are always exceptions is understoodby the utterer and the hearer. It seems, though, that suchsets conform to the postulate of cultural constraint ongrammar and living because they are bounded by im-mediate experience (e.g., evil spirits I know about) andthus are not fully intensional. Rather, each member ofthe set has to be inspected to see whether it is an evilspirit or being with blood and, if so, whether it is likeother such beings.

In 1980, at the Pirahas urging, my wife and I began aseries of evening classes in counting and literacy. Myentire family participated, with my three children (9, 6,and 3 at that time) sitting with Piraha men and womenand working with them. Each evening for eight monthsmy wife would try to teach Piraha men and women tocount to ten in Portuguese. They told us that theywanted to learn this because they knew that they didnot understand nonbarter economic relations and


6/26


wanted to be able to tell whether they were beingcheated. After eight months of daily efforts, without everneeding to call them to come for class (all meetings werestarted by them with much enthusiasm), the people con-cluded that they could not learn this material, and clas-ses were abandoned. Not one learned to count to ten,and not one learned to add 3 1 or even 1 1 (if regularlyresponding 2 to the latter is evidence of learning)only occasionally would some get the right answer. Thisseemed random to us, as indeed similar experiences wereshown to be random in Gordons (2004) research.

Riverboats come regularly to the Piraha villages duringthe Brazil nut season. This contact has probably beengoing on for more than 200 years. Piraha men collectBrazil nuts and store them around their village for trade.They know all the traders by name and consider somemore honest than others (their judgments in this regardalways agreeing with judgments I formed later on myown) on the basis of the quantity of items they receive

for the nuts they trade. A Piraha man will present what-ever it is that he has to sell, whether Brazil nuts, rawrubber, sorva, or wood, to the owner of the riverboat.The Brazilian will ask in Portuguese, What do youwant, my son? The Piraha responds in Portuguese,Only Father [i.e., the riverboat owner] knows. The Pir-aha call all riverboat owners Papai, Father, when di-rectly addressing them but use Piraha names for them(which are usually pejorative, e.g., No Balls) when dis-cussing them.7 It is not clear that the Piraha understandeven most of what they are saying in such situations.None of them seems to understand that this exchangeinvolves relative prestige. Their Portuguese is extremelypoor, again, but they can function in these severely cir-

cumscribed situations. They will point at goods on theboat until the owner says that they have been paid infull.8 They will remember the items they received (butnot exact quantities) and tell me and other Piraha whattranspired, looking for confirmation that they got a gooddeal. There is little connection, however, between theamount they bring to trade and the amount they ask for.For example, someone can ask for an entire roll of hardtobacco in exchange for a small sack of nuts or a smallpiece of tobacco for a large sack. Whiskey is what thePiraha men prefer to trade for, and they will take anyamount in exchange for almost anything. For a largequantity (but usually after they are drunk) they will alsorent their wives or daughters to the riverboat ownerand crew (though, whatever transpires, the riverboatowner should not leave with any women). In this trade

7. Traders enjoy telling me how the Piraha call them Papai andlove them like a father, but the Piraha understand it quite differ-ently. For one thing, in Piraha Father can be used in reference tosomeone one is dependent on, as in this case, where there is de-pendency for trade items. Ultimately, to the Piraha, a foreignerwithgoods seems to be seen as something like a fruit tree in the forest.One needs to know the best way to get the fruit from it withouthurting oneself. There is no question of pride or prestige involved.8. This is the patron-client system common in Latin America. Thetrader always tells the Piraha that they have overspent, with theresult that they are constantly indebted to him.

relationship there is no evidence whatsoever of quan-tification or counting or learning of the basis of tradevalues. Piraha living near the Trans-Amazon Highwayare far from Brazil nut groves, so they trade fishto passingtruck drivers and some settlers. In these cases they tendto be much more aggressive because they know that theyare feared, and if they are not satisfied with the exchange(and they never are in this situation, in my experience)they simply return at night to steal produce from thesettlers fields or any possessions not locked away.

It should be underscored here that the Piraha ulti-mately not only do not value Portuguese (or American)knowledge but oppose its coming into their lives. Theyask questions about outside cultures largely for the en-tertainment value of the answers. If one tries to suggest(as we originally did, in a math class, for example) thatthere is a preferred response to a specific question, theywill likely change the subject and/or show irritation.They will write stories, just random marks, on paperI give them and then read the stories back to metelling me something random about their day, etc. Theymay even make marks on paper and say random Por-tuguese numbers while holding the paper for me to see.They do not understand at all that such symbols shouldbe precise (for examples, when I ask them to draw asymbol twice, it is never replicated) and consider theirwriting exactly the same as the marks that I make. Inliteracy classes, we were never able to train Piraha evento draw a straight line without serious coaching, andthey were never able to repeat the feat in subsequenttrials without more coaching (partially because they sawthe entire process as fun and enjoyed the interaction butalso because the concept of a correct way to draw wasprofoundly foreign).9

Finally, I agree that Piraha and English are incom-mensurate in several ways and that numbers and count-ing are one very obvious manifestation of this incom-mensurability, but it is not clear that linguisticdeterminism provides the explanation we need. The rea-son is that the absence of counting is simply one un-expected absence in Piraha language and culture. Thereare various others, partially enumerated above, that,when considered together, appear to result from a higher-level cultural constraint or constraints. The constraint(s)must be cultural, it seems to me, because, while theredoes not seem to be any linguistic or cognitive com-monality between the items, there is a cultural value

that they share, namely, the value of referring only toimmediate experience. If we accept this as a strong cul-

9. The end of the literacy classes, begun at the Pirahas request (andseparate from the math classes already described), was as follows.After many classes, the Piraha (most of the village we were livingin, about 30 people) read together, out loud, the word big ground/sky. They immediately all laughed. I asked what was so funny.They answered that whatthey had just said sounded like their wordfor sky. I said that indeed it did because it was their word. Theyreacted by saying that if that is what we were trying to teach them,they wanted us to stop: We dont write ourlanguage. Thedecisionwas based on a rejection of foreign knowledge; their motivation forattending the literacy classes turned out to be, according to them,that it was fun to be together and I made popcorn.


7/26


table 1World Color Survey Chart of Piraha Color Terms

Symbol Term Gloss Users Basic Color Term

# bio3pai2ai3 black (extended) 25 ko3biai3 white (extended) 25 bi3i1sai3 red/yellow 25 o a3hoa3saa3ga1 green/blue (green-

focused)25

tural constraint in Piraha, then the list of items is greatlyreduced because each involves quantification, which en-tails abstract generalizations that range in principle be-yond immediate experience, rather than qualification,which entails judgments about immediate experience.10

Color Terms

According to the entry for Piraha in Kay et al. (n.d.),basedon work by Steve Sheldon,

Mura-Piraha presents a stable stage IIIG/Bu system.All four terms for black, white, red/yellow, andgreen/blue are used by all speakers with clearly de-fined ranges and very high consensus (100% maxi-mum in all cases) in the term maps. There is alsoconsiderable uniformity in the individual naming ar-rays. No other terms were recorded in the naming

task.The term for black, bio3pai2ai3 [Kay et al.s foot-

note reads The raised numerals following each syl-lable indicate tone] extends strongly into brownand more weakly into purple, which may representthe vestiges of an earlier black/green/blue range forthis term. The white term bio3pai2ai3 [the termmeant is ko3biai3] and red/yellow term bi3i1sai3 (thelatter focused in red and extended into purple) are ofinterest in that they show signs of coextension inyellow, both in the aggregate naming arrays and intheir ranges on the term maps. While focal yellow(C9) is named bi3i1sai3 in the aggregates, both terms

include it in their ranges, as seen in the term maps.Individual speakers vary in preference between thesetwo terms for inclusion of yellow. Grue is nameda3hoa3saa3ga1. Its term map indicates a focus ingreen, and is extended into yellow by some speakers.

The proposed Piraha color terms of Sheldon are givenin table 1. In fact, these are not morphologically simple

10. Now, of course, human cognition must be able to range beyondimmediate experience, andtherefore my claim is notthat thePirahacannot do this. I have no basis for such a claim (though experimentsto test this ability should be conducted). My claim is rather thatthey do not express quantification in nearly as wide a range of

lexical or syntactic devices as in other languages.

forms. Three are not even words, as is shown by thefollowing morphological divisions and glosses:11

20. bii -o3pai2 ai3

blood -dirty/opaque be/doBlood is dirty.

21. k -o3bi ai3

object -see be/doIt sees.

22. bi3i1 -sai3

blood -nominalizerbloodlike

23. a3hoa3s aa3ga1

immature be:temporary

temporarily being immature

There are no color terms in Piraha. This conclusion isnot intended as an indictment of Sheldons claims. Whenone is armed with a set of categories (e.g., the Berlin andKay [1969] model for color terms) and no other, it isunderstandable that one finds what one can talk aboutthat is, that a degree of linguistic relativity colors theresearch of linguists. Also, because linguistics researchamong the Piraha is monolingual, there is no way to gettranslations of any precision whatsoever for color terms,number words, verb suffixes, etc. All meaning has to beworked out by correlating context with utterance (in themost extreme form of Quines [1960] gavagai-confront-

ing field researcher) and by simply learning enough ofthe culture and language oneself to develop incipientintuitions that guide further testing and reasoning.12

There is, however, a possible objection to the conclu-sion that there are no color terms in Piraha. Paul Kay(personal communication) suggests that if the Piraha usethese phrases regularly in normal speech to describe ex-

11. Sheldon analyzes Piraha as having three underlying tones.I haveargued elsewhere (Everett 1979) that it shouldbe analyzedas havingonly two tones, and I follow this analysis throughout the paperexcept for this section. For these examples, taken from Sheldonswork, I use his tones.12. This of course means that what I say about Piraha semanticsis largely unreplicable unless the replication linguist learns to

speak the language.


8/26


actly these colors and the related color space, then thephrases themselves count as color terms. This is a dif-ferent concept of color term from the one I had in mind(namely, morphologically simple terms for colors), buteven if we grant Kays point mine remains the same: notonly are these phrases not simple color words but thereis no use of color quantification in Piraha (e.g., I likered or I like red things. At the very least, this absenceof morphologically simple color words and of quantifi-cation (as in generalized quantifier theory, where nounphrases may be used to denote sets of properties) usingcolor indicates that Piraha color description is a verydifferent kind of thing from what our experience withother languages would lead us to expect.

There have been no controlled experiments to showwhether the Piraha distinguish colors as do speakers oflanguages with color terms. However, I have asked themabout different colors on many occasions, and I have notnoticed any inability to offer distinct descriptive phrasesfor new colors. Therefore, I expect that, in contrast tothe situation with numbers, the Piraha would show goodability to distinguish colors under controlled circum-stances. This is likely because color is different fromnumber cognitively and culturally. But since neithercolor nor number terms are found in Piraha, it is rea-sonable to ask what color terms have in common withnumbers. Both are used to quantify beyond immediate,spatio-temporally bound experience. If one has a conceptof red as opposed to immediate, nonlexicalized de-scriptions, one can talk about red things as an abstractcategory (e.g., Dont eat red things in the jungle [goodadvice]). But Piraha refer to plants not by generic namesbut by species names, and they do not talk about colorsexcept as describing specific objects in their own ex-perience.

Pronouns

Piraha has the simplest pronoun inventory known.Moreover, it appears that all its pronouns were borrowedrecently from a Tupi-Guarani language, either the LinguaGeral or Kawahiv (Tenharim or Parintintin) (see also Ni-muendaju 1925). [The argument for borrowing may befound in the electronic edition of this issue on the jour-nals web page.] Somehow the grammar seems to havegotten by without them,13 but even their current use

shows that they do not have the full range of uses nor-mally associated with pronouns in other languages. Forexample, Piraha pronouns function very differently indiscourse from most pronouns. In a narrative about thekilling of a panther, the word for panther is repeated

13. It is possible that tones were used rather than free-form pro-nouns, though the only use of tones currently on pronouns is todistinguish ergative from absolutive in the first person (ti pabsolutive; tp ergative). One reader of this paper found it in-conceivable that there would have been no first-versus-second-person distinction in the language at any point in its history. Infact, however, Wari (Everett n.d.) is a language that currently lacksany first-versus-second-person distinction.

in almost every line of the text. Only when the pantherdies is it replaced completely by the pronoun s-/is-,which is simply the first syllable (s- is how it comes outin rapid speech, like English snot either for It is noteither) of the word si animal/meat, which is what it

has become after death. This is strange in light of mostwork (e.g., Givon 1983) on topic continuity in discourse,and it is the common, perhaps exclusive pattern of pro-noun-versus-proper-noun occurrence in Piraha dis-course. The Piraha prefer not to use a pronoun to referto an entity, since this is using something ambiguous orvague in place of a proper name. Pronouns are used rel-atively little for marking the activities of discourse par-ticipants. They are also not used as variables bound byquantifiers. There is, for example, no Piraha equivalentto a donkey sentence (Everyone who owns a donkeybeats it). This reduced role for pronouns is striking. Notonly does it follow from the cultural constraint on gram-mar but the absence of pronouns prior to their borrowing

seems likely. What pronouns in Piraha are mainly usedfor is verb agreement (Everett 1987).

In spite of my claim that variables play no active rolein quantification or the grammar of pronominals, onereader has suggested that verbs and nouns are variablesbecause they are place-holders for large sets of objects.In fact, although this proposal might work for other lan-guages, it does not work for Piraha. First, there are only90 verb roots in the Piraha lexicon. In other words, verbsare a closed lexical class, and this means that, rather thanlearn them as variables, the Piraha can learn them asconstants, one by one. Moreover, the combination ofverbs is largely constrained by culture. Further, it is un-

necessary to consider nouns variables, since there is nonominal morphology and since the appearance of nounsin the syntax can be determined semantically rather thanmorphologically, meaning that the behavior of nounscould be determined by their individual meanings ratherthan their role as variables. Thus both nouns and verbsbehave more like constants than variables in Piraha.

Lack of Embedding

One more unusual feature of Piraha, perhaps the strang-

est of all, is the absence of clear evidence for embedding.Indeed, the evidence suggests that Piraha lacks embed-ding altogether. Let us begin by considering how thefunction of clausal complements is expressed in Pirahawithout embedding. English expresses the content ofverbs such as to say, to think, and to want asclausal complements (here the use of a subscript s labelsthe embedded clauses as theory-neutral): I said that[sJohn will be here], I want [syou to come], I think[sits important]. In Piraha the contents of such verbs,to the degree that equivalent verbs exist at all, are ex-pressed without embedding:


9/26


24. ti gai -sai koo hi kahap -i I say -nominative name he leave -intention

I said that Koo intends to leave. (lit. My sayingKoo intend-leaves.)

The verb to say (gai) in Piraha is always nominal-

ized. It takes no inflection at all. The simplest translationof it is as a possessive noun phrase my saying, withthe following clause interpreted as a type of comment.The complement clause is thus a juxtaposed clauseinterpreted as the content of what was said but not ob-viously involving embedding. Piraha has no verb tothink, using instead (as do many other Amazonian lan-guages [see Everett 2004]) the verb to say to expressintentional contents. Therefore John thinks that . . .would be expressed in Piraha as Johns saying that. . . .English complement clauses of other types are handledsimilarly in Piraha, by nominalizing one of the clauses:

25. a. hi ob -aaa kahai kai -saihe see -attractive arrow make -nominative

b. kaha kai -sai hi

arrow make -nominative he

ob -aaa

see -attractive

c. hi kaha kai -saihe arrow make -nominative

ob -aaa

see attractiveHe knows how to make arrows well. (lit. He

sees attractively arrow-making.)

There are two plausible analyses for this construction.

The first is that there is embedding, with the clause/verbphrase arrow make nominalized and inserted in direct-object position of the matrix verb to see/know well.The second is that this construction is the paratacticconjoining of the noun phrase arrow-making and theclause he sees well. The latter analysis seems to fitthe general grammar of Piraha better. This is because asan object the phrase arrow-making should appear be-fore the verb, whereas here it follows it. And, whereasnormally there is optional clitic agreement availablewith any direct object, there is never any clitic agreementwith such object complement clauses in Piraha (Ev-erett 1988). Further, although the order of complementand matrix clauses can be reversed, the embeddedclause can never appear in direct-object position.

Further evidence of the analysis is the correspondinginterrogative form:

26. hi go ig -ai

he information question associate -do/be

kai -sai hi ob -aaa

make -nominative he see -attractive

What [thing/kind of] making [does he] knowwell? (lit. He what associated making seeswell?)

27. hi go igi -ai ob -aaa kai -saiWhat thing [does he] know well to make? (lit.

What associated thing he knows well to make/making?)

In a question about 25, the order of the clauses must

be that in 26. This follows if there is no embedding,because the interrogative word must always be initial inthe phrase and because the appearance of the entireclause/phrase at the front of the construction means thatthe question of extraction from within an embedded orother phrase does not arise. We can, indeed should, in-terpret 26 as the questioning of a constituent of the ini-tial clause arrow-making and not of an embedded con-stituent of the clause he knows x well.

Some readers may still find it difficult to accept theidea of analyzing nominalized clauses of the type justmentioned apart from embedding because the two are soclosely associated in many languages (see KoptjevskajaTamm 1993). Nominalization is, however, neither a nec-

essary nor a sufficient condition for embedding, and anembedding analysis fails to account for multiple embed-dings (why cant multiple nominalized or other types ofsubordination occur in any sentence?) and for the ex-traction and word-order facts. At the same time, a closesemantic unit is formed by certain juxtaposed clauses,and the nominalization is accounted for by the principleof immediacy of information encoding, which is statedin terms of utterances rather than clauses.

Other subordinate clauses similarly show no evi-dence of embedding:

28. ti kobai -ba aooi hiI see -intensive foreigner he

kao -ap -ap -iig -a mouth -pull -up -continuative -declarativeI really watch[ed] the foreigner fishing [with line

and hook]. (lit. I watch the foreigner intently.He was pulling [fish] out by [their] mouths.)

29. hi go ighe information question associate-ai hi kaoapapiiga hi-do/be he fish hekobai -ba aooisee -intensive foreignerWhat did he pull out by the mouth you watched

intently?

30. hi go ig he information question associate-ai hi kobai -ba -do/be he see -intensiveaooiforeignerWhat did he see the foreigner do?/Why did he

watch the foreigner?

Example 29 is ungrammatical because there is no re-lation that can be understood to obtain between the twoclauses. It is asking a question about one clause and mak-


10/26


ing a statement with the other. Since they are not in thesame sentence, however, they just come across as un-related, at least to judge by the looks of incomprehensionand lack of interpretation that native speakers face insuch elicited constructions. In contrast, 30 is acceptablebecause it is simply asking about what someonewatched; the answer could be a clause or a noun phrase.

Now consider how temporal clauses are handled:

31. kohoai -kabaob -ao tieat -finish -temporal Ig ahoai -soogyou speak -desiderative-abaga-frustrated initiationWhen [I] finish eating, I want to speak to you.

(lit. When eating finishes, I speak-almost want.)

There is almost always a detectable pause between thetemporal clause and the main clause. Such clauses

may look embedded from the English translation, but Isee no evidence for such an analysis. Perhaps a bettertranslation would be I finish eating, I speak to you.The similar conditional that follows uses nominaliza-tion:

32. pii -boi -sai tiwater vertically move -nominalizer Ikahapi -hiab -ago -negative -declarativeIf it rains, I will not go. (lit. Raining I go not.)

Both 31 and 32 are best analyzed as simple juxtapo-sition of two clauses. There is a clear semantic depen-dency, but this does not necessarily translate into a syn-

tactic relation. The only ways I know to ask questionsabout them are When will you want to speak to me?and Why wont you go?

Piraha has no relative clauses proper. However, it doeshave a co-relative clause (Everett 1986, 1992):

33. ti baosa -ap is ogabaga. ChicoI cloth -arm want. namehi goo bag -aobahe what sell -completive

Here there is a full sentence pause between the verbogabaga want and the next clause. The two sentencesare connected contextually, but this is not embedding.Each is an independent, well-formed sentence. The sec-

ond sentence, on its own, would be a question, Whatdid Chico sell? In this context, however, it is the co-relative.

Finally, want-like embeddings are handled in Pirahaby a desiderative suffix on the verb, with no evidence ofbiclausality:

34. ipoihi g kobai -soogwoman she you see -want-abaga-frustrated initiationThe woman wants to see you.

Let us now consider two other potential cases of em-bedding in Piraha, possession and modification:

35. koo hoag kai gaihi ganame son daughter that trueThat is Koo s sons daughter.

36. kaoo igai hoagi kai gaihi gawho son daughter that trueWhose sons daughter is that?

Neither the declarative (35) nor the interrogative (36)form of recursive possession is acceptable. No more thanone possessor per noun phrase is ever allowed. Removingone of the possessors in either sentence makes it gram-matical. A cultural observation here is, I believe, im-portant for understanding this restriction. Every Pirahaknows every other Piraha, and they add the knowledgeof newborns very quickly. Therefore one level of pos-sessor is all that is ever needed. If further identification

is called for, say, in the case of a foreign family, then anextra phrase is juxtaposed:

37. saabi kai gaihi ganame daughter that truekoo hoag aisig -aname son the same -beThat is saabi s daughter. Koos son being the

same.

Here the juxtaposition makes it clear that saabi isKoos son.

Very rarely, one encounters multiple modification innatural discourse and elicited material. A typical ex-ample is as follows:

38. gahioo ogi bisai ho airplane big red two-hio ao -aaga there possess -beThere are two big red airplanes.

There seems no need to analyze this as embedding, how-ever. It is merely, as in previous cases, juxtaposition,stringing out a small number of adjectives in a specifiedorder (e.g., size color quantity). There is no ambig-uous modification resulting from multiple attachmentpossibilities as in English old men and women. Theambiguity here is usually understood as the result of

attaching old to either the noun phrase containingmen and women or the lower noun phrase containingonly men. Since there is no way for old to be at-tached uniquely to women, the third ambiguity (inwhich only women would be old) is ruled out. However,Piraha never allows such conjunction of noun phraseswith modifiers. Rather, the equivalent in Piraha wouldbe:

39. ogi -aag -ao toobig -be -thus old

-aaga igih ipoihi paii

-be man woman also


11/26


Everyone (lit. people bigness) is old. Men andwomen too.

Once again, 39 involves juxtaposition. This is furthersupported by the ability to repeat the modifier old inthe following construction:

40. ogiaagao tooaaga igih tooaagabig old man oldipoihi tooaaga paiiwoman old alsoEveryone (lit. people bigness) is old. Men and

women too.

There is likewise no evidence for embedding in Pirahamorphological structure. Although the complexity of theverb is very high, with perhaps more than 16 suffix clas-ses, there is nothing about its semantic composition,stress, or morphological attachment that requires re-course to the notion of embedding to account for Pirahamorphology. The system, however complex, can be ac-

counted for by a position class analysis along the linesof Everett (1986), in which individual morphemesoccupylinearly arranged, semantically distinguished slots.

If indeed there is no embedding in Piraha, how mightthis lack be related to cultural constraint? Embeddingincreases information flow beyond the threshold of theprinciple of immediacy of information encoding. Al-though Piraha most certainly has the communicativeresources to express clauses that in other languages areembedded, there is no convincing evidence that Pirahain fact has embedding, and, as we have seen, positing itwould complicate our understanding of question for-mation. This would follow from the principle of im-mediacy of information encoding, which I take to be the

iconic principle constraining the grammars conformityto cultural constraint.14

Tense

I have argued elsewhere (1993) that Piraha has no perfecttense and have provided a means for accounting for thisfact formally within the neo-Reichenbachian tensemodel of Hornstein (1990). This is an argument aboutthe semantics of Piraha tense, not merely the morpho-syntax of tense representation. In other words, the claimis that there is no way to get a perfect tense meaning inPiraha, not merely an absence of a formal marker for it.Piraha has two tenselike morphemes, -a remote and-i proximate. These are used for either past or presentevents and serve primarily to mark whether an event isin the immediate control or experience of the speaker(proximate) or not (remote).

In fact, Piraha has very few words for time. The com-plete list is as follows: ahoapio another day (lit. otherat fire), pi now, sooa already (lit. time-wear), hoaday (lit. fire), ahoai night (lit. be at fire), piiaiso low

14. Peter Culicover (personal communication) suggests that Pir-ahas lack of embedding is a kind of linguistic fossil.

water (lit. water skinny temporal), piibigaso high wa-ter (lit. water thick temporal), kahaiai ogiso fullmoon (lit. moon big temporal), hiso during the day(lit. in sun), hisoogiai noon (lit. in sun big be), hibi-

gbagaaiso sunset/sunrise (lit. he touch comes be tem-poral), ahoakohoaihio early morning, before sunrise(lit. at fire inside eat go).

Absolute tenses are defined relative to the moment ofspeech, which is represented as S in the Hornstein-Reichenbach system (see also Comrie 1985). The eventor state itself is shown as E. Relative tenses are rep-resented by the linear arrangment of S and E with respectto the point of R(eference) for E. Thus, for example, thetenses of English can be represented in this system asfollows (where a comma p simultaneous and __ p pre-cedes [see Hornstein 1990 and Everett 1993 for details]):S, R, E p present tense; S__R, Ep future tense; E, R__Sp past tense; E__R__Sp past perfect; S__E__Rp futureperfect; E__S, R p present perfect.

To account for Pirahas lack of the perfect, I have sug-gested that [R] is parameterized, with [-R] as the defaultvalue. Children would set it at [R] just in case theyheard a perfect-tense utterance or, perhaps, a perfect-tense interpretation. I have also pointed to the connec-tion between the absence of an R-point in the semanticsof Piraha tense system and the lack of concern withquantifying time in Piraha culture. I have argued thatformal grammars require that any noncoincidental con-nection in this regard be Whorfian; language must influ-ence culture, since otherwise children would have tolearn their culture in order to learn their grammar, anorder of acquisition proscribed in Chomskyan models.However, in the context of the present exploration ofculture-grammar interactions in Piraha, it is possible tosituate the semantics of Piraha tense more perspica-ciously by seeing the absence of precise temporal refer-ence and relative tenses as one further example of thecultural constraint on grammar and living. This wouldfollow because precise temporal reference and relativetenses quantify and make reference to events outside ofimmediate experience and cannot, as can all Piraha timewords, be binarily classified as in experience and outof experience.

When the Piraha hear a boat coming, they will line upon the riverbank and wait for it to come into sight. Theywill say, The boat ibipo (arrived). They will watcha boat disappear around the corner and say, The boat

ibipo (left). When a match is lit, they say that thematch ibipai (where -ai is the verb form and -o theincorporated form).15 They will repeat the same expres-sion when the match goes out. They especially use thisfor a flickering match and love to watch one, sayingKeep on ibipai . After discussions and checking ofmany examples of this, it became clearer that the Piraha

15. Verbal events are also culturally restricted in Piraha, but verbalincorporation (the stringing together of severalverb roots[Everett1986: section 18] to form another verb), is quite common. For ar-rival and some other events, there are always multiple verb rootsincorporated. For match flicker, however, there is only the singleverb ibipiai.


12/26


are talking about liminalitysituations in which anitem goes in and out of the boundaries of their experi-ence. This concept is found throughout Piraha culture.Pirahas excitement at seeing a canoe go around a riverbend is hard to describe; they see this almost as travelinginto another dimension. It is interesting, in light of thepostulated cultural constraint on grammar, that there isan important Piraha term and cultural value for crossingthe border between experience and nonexperience.

Kinship Terms

Pirahas kinship system may be the simplest yet re-corded. An exhaustive list of the kinship terms is thefollowing (unless specifically mentioned, there are nogender distinctions): ahaig egos generation, tiobahaiany generation below ego, bai any generation aboveego/someone with power over ego,16 ogi any gener-

ation above ego/someone with power over ego (lit.big), ibga usually two generations above ego or morebut overlaps with bai and igi (lit. to be thick),hoagbiological son (lit. come next to), hosai biologicalson (lit. going one),17 kaai biological daughter (ahouse is a kaaii daughter thing), piih child of at leastone dead parent/favorite child.18

Is it a coincidenceanother onethat this kinshipsystem is found in Piraha, given the other facts we havebeen discussing? Or could it be of a piece with all thatwe have seen, another effect of the cultural constrainton grammar and living? The latter seems the most eco-nomical and satisfying explanation. Kinship terms referonly to known relatives; one never refers to relatives

who died before one was born. During one four-weekperiod in 1995 I worked exclusively on trying to builda genealogy for an entire village. I could not find anyonewho could give the names of his/her great-grandparents,and very few could remember the names of all fourgrandparents. Most could only remember (or wouldonly give) the names of one or two grandparents. I wasable to include names back four generations for mymain informant, but that was only because there weretwo unusually old Piraha (both women) in the villagewho could remember two grandparents each. The sim-ple fact is that the kinship terms conform exactly tothe principle of immediacy of experience.

Since kinship and marriage constraints are closely

related in most societies, it is worth mentioning theeffects of this simple kinship system on Piraha marriagerelations. Not surprisingly, in light of this system, mar-

16. Whether this is related to the use of Portuguese Papai fatherin dealing with traders I do not know, though I suspect that it is.I am not sure which came first.17. These two terms for son appear to be synonyms; I have neverbeen able to discover any difference between them in texts, directquestions, indirect observations, etc., andthey seemto be usedwithequal frequency.18. It seems to have both of these meanings simultaneously, thoughdifferent people use it in different ways, some favoring the former,some the latter.

riage is relatively unconstrained. Piraha can marry closerelatives. I have seen adults I knew to share a biologicalparent marry and have been told that this is not rare,but I have never seen a marriage between full biologicalsiblings.

This raises the additional question of how the Pirahadistinguish between just anyone at their generation andbiological siblings, which they seem to do pretty welldespite the fact that children not uncommonly switchfamilies and are occasionally (especially orphans) raisedby the village. The nominal suffix gi real or true canbe added to most nouns, including kinship terms: aooiforeigner, aooi-gi Brazilian (lit. real foreignertheones they knew first), ahaig same generation,ahaiggi biological sibling (lit. real sibling).

Absence of Creation Myths and Fiction

The Piraha do not create fiction, and they have no cre-ation stories or myths. This contrasts with informationthat we have on the related language, Mura. Nimuen-daju (1948) is not the only one to have observed thatthe Mura people have a rich set of texts about the past.All of this field research, however, was carried out inPortuguese and is therefore difficult to evaluate. If wehad texts in the Mura language, it would be easier inprinciple to verify (e.g., by grammatical and topical de-vices) the authenticity of the texts or whether theymight have in fact been borrowed. In any case, it seemsunavoidable that Mura, a dialect closely related to Pi-raha, had texts about the distant past, perhaps fables,some legends, and other fiction (and, in Portuguese, ac-

cording to some anthropologists [see Oliveira 1978], itstill has such texts).19

I have attempted to discuss cosmology, the origin ofthe universe, etc., with the Piraha innumerable times.They themselves initiate many of these discussions, sothere is no question of any reluctance to discuss thetrue story with me as an outsider. In the early days,before I spoke Piraha, I would occasionally try to usePortuguese to elicit the information. Often this or that

19. The quality of anthropological research on Piraha varies. Severalanthropologists (see esp. Goncalves 1990, 2001; Oliveira 1978;Oliv-eira and Rodrigues 1977; Roppa 1977) have done a reasonable jobof describing aspects of Piraha culture, but a previous descriptionof the kinship system (Oliveira 1978), weakened by the researchers

inability to speak the language, contains confusions between cli-ticized possessive forms of a particular kinship term and distinctkinship terms. The longer-term studies of Piraha cosmology andnaming by Goncalves are the most reliable ever done by an an-thropologist, but one simply cannot come to the best conclusionsabout Piraha meanings working through the medium of the verypoor Portuguese of Piraha informants. Goncalves based much ofhis research on work with two Piraha informants whose Portuguesewas somewhat better than that of most Piraha because they hadbeen taken away from the village as boys and lived for several yearswith Brazilians along the Madeira River until they were discoveredand restored to their people, but even their Portuguese was insuf-ficient for getting at the meanings of terms as they emerge bothfrom the culture and especially from the very complex morpho-logical structure of Piraha.


13/26


Piraha informant would tell me (in Portuguese) thatthey had stories like this and would even tell me bitsand pieces, which I thought were similar to Christianstories or Tupi legends common in that part of Brazil(e.g., the widespread beliefs about river porpoises anddolphins, especially the pink dolphin, emerging fromthe rivers at night to take on human form and go insearch of women to marry, rape, and so on). Indeed, nowthat I speak Piraha, I know that even among themselvesthe Piraha repeat and embellish these stories. But thereare no indigenous creation myths or fiction any longer,if indeed they ever existed, and there is not a singlestory about the ancient past told by any Piraha otherthan bits and pieces of Tupi and Portuguese stories (notalways acknowledged as such). When pressed about cre-ation, for example, Piraha say simply, Everything isthe same, meaning that nothing changes, nothing wascreated. Their talking about the stories of other culturescan be best understood, it seems to me, as mention-ing texts that they have experienced qua texts ratherthan using them to discuss or explain anything inthe world around them or the ancient world. They arelike oral-literary theorists in their telling and discus-sion of the texts of others. Nimuendaju (1948), thougheasily collecting myths from the Mura, was unable tocollect them from the Piraha. No one ever refers to amythical figure, story, or concept in normal conversa-tion, and when questioned directly about creation Pi-raha claim that the way things are is the way they havealways been.

Discussion

We have seen that the gaps observed in Pirahathe ab-sence of number, numerals, or a concept of counting andof terms for quantification, the absence of color termsand embedding, the extreme simplicity of the pronouninventory, the lack of a perfect tense, the simplicity ofthe kinship system, the absence of creation myths, thelack of individual or collective memory of more thantwo generations past, and the absence of drawing exceptfor extremely crude stick figures representing the spiritworld claimed to have been directly experienced followfrom the postulate of the cultural value of immediacy ofexperience that constrains grammar and living. Pirahathus provides striking evidence for the influence of cul-

ture on major grammatical structures, contradictingNewmeyers (2002:361) assertion (citing virtually alllinguists today), that there is no hope of correlating alanguages gross grammatical properties with sociocul-tural facts about its speakers. If I am correct, Pirahashows that gross grammatical properties are not onlycorrelated with sociocultural facts but may be deter-mined by them.

What does this mean for the nature of human languageor, at least, for Piraha as a normal human language? Itis useful in this regard to review the well-known designfeatures of human language proposed by Hockett (1960):vocal-auditory channel, broadcast transmission and di-

rectional reception, rapid fading, interchangeability, totalfeedback, specialization, semanticity, arbitrariness, dis-creteness, displacement, productivity, duality of pattern-ing, traditional transmission. The three features thatstand out in particular here are interchangeability, dis-placement, and productivity.

To the degree that Piraha lacks a concept of counting,it is incommensurate in that semantic or cognitive do-main with languages that have such a concept. I suspectthat there are other domains of Piraha in which inter-changeability is also absent, but in the domain of count-ing the lack of interchangeability can be considered es-tablished (see Gordon 2004). I submit that the evidenceis sufficient in this case to conclude that this designfeature is not uniformly inviolable.

With regard to displacement, I believe that the factsabove show that it is severely restricted in Piraha as acultural principle. Piraha of course exhibits displacementin that people regularly talk about things that are absentfrom the context at the time of talking about them, butthis is only one degree of displacement. The inability inprinciple to talk about things removed from personalexperience (for example, abstractions of the type repre-sented by counting, numbers, quantification, multi-generational genealogies, complex kinship, colors, andother semantic/cultural domains discussed above) showsthat displacement in Piraha grammar and language isseverely constrained by Piraha culture.

Productivity is also shown to be severely restricted byPiraha culture, since there are things that simply cannotbe talked about, for reasons of form and content, in Pi-raha in the current state of its grammar.

The implications of all this for the enterprise of lin-guistics are as follows:

1. If culture is causally implicated in grammaticalforms, then one must learn ones culture to learn onesgrammar, but then, contra Chomsky (2002), a grammaris not simply grown.

2. Linguistic fieldwork should be carried out in a cul-tural community of speakers, because only by studyingthe culture and the grammar together can the linguist(or ethnologist) understand either.

3. Studies that merely look for constructions to inter-act with a particular thesis by looking in an unsophis-ticated way at data from a variety of grammars are fun-damentally untrustworthy because they are too farremoved from the original situation. Grammars, espe-

cially those of little-studied languages, need an under-standing of the cultural matrix from which they emergedto be properly evaluated or used in theoretical research.

4. Particulars can be as important as universals. Thisis so because each culture-grammar pair could in prin-ciple produce tensions and interactions found nowhereelse, each case extending our understanding of the in-teraction of culture and grammar.

Now let us consider a final unusual feature of Pi-rahathat the Piraha continue to be monolingual inPiraha after more than 200 years of regular contactwith Brazilians and other non-Piraha. New light isshed on this question by the preceding discussion,


14/26


conforming to many of the Pirahas own narrative ex-planations of this fact. Simply, Portuguese is incom-mensurate with Piraha in many areas and culturallyincompatible, like all Western languages, in that itviolates the immediacy-of-experience constraint ongrammar and living in so many aspects of its structureand use. The Piraha say that their heads are different.In fact, the Piraha language is called apaitis o astraight head, while all other languages are calledapagaiso a crooked head. Our discussion here, I be-lieve, helps us to understand this as more than a pa-rochial ethnocentrism. Given the connection betweenculture and language in Piraha, to lose or change oneslanguage is to lose ones identity as a Pira hahiaitih,a straight one/he is straight.

Conclusion

Though Piraha is an extre me case, it teaches us some-thing about the deep loss inherent in the death of anylanguage, even if the people survive. When Portu-guese-speaking Muras visit the Piraha today, the Pi-raha do not envy them. They see them as simply sec-ond-rate, false Brazilians. The Piraha say, We are notBrazilians. We are Piraha. Without their language ortheir culture, they would fail to be Piraha. Their lan-guage is endangered because they themselves are en-dangered by the ever more intrusive presence of set-tlers, Western diseases, alcohol, and the inexorablychanging world that we live in. This beautiful lan-guage and culture, fundamentally different from any-thing the Western world has produced, have much toteach us about linguistic theory, about culture, abouthuman nature, about living for each day and lettingthe future take care of itself, about personal fortitude,toughness, love, and many other values too numerousto mention here. And this is but one example of manyother endangered languages and cultures in the Am-azon and elsewhere with riches of a similar naturethat we may never know about because of our ownshortsightedness. The need is more urgent than everfor field researchers to document these languages andfor more individuals and foundations to follow thelead of the Hans Rausing Endangered Languages Doc-ument Project and donate to support research on them.

For advocates of universal grammar the arguments

here present a challengedefending an autonomouslinguistic module that can be affected in many of itscore components by the culture in which it grows.If the form or absence of things such as recursion,sound structure, word structure, quantification, nu-merals, number, and so on is tightly constrained by aspecific culture, as I have argued, then the case for anautonomous, biologically determined module of lan-guage is seriously weakened.

An alternative view that has been suggested by somereaders of this paper, namely, that the gaps in Pirahadiscussed above are a result of a lack of conceptualstructurein other words, that the Piraha are sub-

standard mentallyis easily disposed of. The sourceof this collective conceptual deficit could only be ge-netics, health, or culture. Genetics can be ruled outbecause the Piraha people (according to my own ob-servations and Nimuendajus have long intermarried

with outsiders. In fact, they have intermarried to theextent that no well-defined phenotype other than stat-ure can be identified. Pirahas also enjoy a good andvaried diet of fish, game, nuts, legumes, and fruits, sothere seems to be no dietary basis for any inferiority.We are left, then, with culture, and here my argumentis exactly that their grammatical differences derivefrom cultural values. I am not, however, making aclaim about Piraha conceptual abilities but abo ut theirexpression of certain concepts linguistically, and thisis a crucial difference.

As I mentioned in the beginning, the constraintagainst discussing things outside of immediate expe-

rience could have cognitive as well as grammaticaleffects. For example, cognition is directly implicatedin the claims of Gordon (2004) regarding the lack ofcounting in Piraha, and one could argue that cognitionmight be further implicated in each of the gaps andunusual features of Piraha grammar. One might alsoinvestigate the possibility that culture affects the cog-nitive abilities and/or schemas available to membersof Piraha society. Pending future research, I am pre-pared to make only two very modest claims about Pir-aha cognition. First, if I am correct that the Pirahacannot count (something that will require much moreexperimentation to determine), then it is likely that

this is due to the long-term effects of the cultural con-straints discussed above. Gordon (2004) alludes to aWhorfian approach to the matter by claiming that Pi-rahas lack of counting might derive from their lackof number words, but many societies in the Amazonand elsewhere have borrowed number words as theydevelop economic ties that require numerical abilities.The hypothesis of this paper, which explains both thelack of counting and the lack of borrowing, is thatPirahas counting deficiency and their failure to bor-row number words (in spite of commercial contactwith Brazilians and in spite of borrowing their pro-nouns) are due to cultural constraints. Second, if the

Piraha show additional cognitive deviations fromWestern expectations with regard to, for example,color identification, ability to interpret multiply em-bedded structures, or relative tense concepts (all mat-ters that require careful, culturally appropriate psy-chological experimentation), then these would seemmost economically understood in terms of culturalconstraints as well. Thus what the paper has laboredmost intensely to establish, namely, that Piraha cul-ture constrains Piraha grammar, also predicts that theeffect of this constraint could eventually affect cog-nition as well.


15/26


Comments

b r e n t b e r l i nLaboratories of Ethnobiology, Department of

Anthropology, University of Georgia, Athens, GA30602, U.S.A. ([email protected]). 21 iv 05

Everett argues that Piraha violates three of Hocketts(1960) universal design features of languageinter-changeability, displacement, and productivity. As im-portant as this suggestion might be, the major thrust ofhis article is that culture can be causally implicated inthe linguistic structure of the language. Seen in thislight, his paper is the most recent contribution to a grow-ing literature that challenges the dogma that there is nocausal correlation of a languages gross grammaticalproperties with sociocultural facts about its speakers

(Newmeyer 2002:361).The sociocultural facts in this case are drawn from thePiraha, a small indigenous society that exhibits one ofthe simplest cultures reported for lowland South Amer-ica. This cultural simplicity, Everett proposes, is mani-fest linguistically by what he calls gaps in the Pirahalanguagefor example, absence of a concept for countingand terms for quantification, of linguistically simpleterms for color of syntactic subordination, and of perfecttense. These features, among others, are commonlymarked in the languages of societies considered cultur-ally complex in terms of standard measures such as thoseof Carneiro (1970), Murdock and Provost (1973), Naroll(1956), Hays (2000), and Marsh (1956). However, Everett

is careful to point out that no one should draw theconclusion from this paper that the Piraha language isin any way primitive, calling attention to its highlycomplex verbal morphology and prosody (features thathe fails to note are also typical of the languages of small,local societies with simple cultures).

Everetts proposals make his paper one of the mostcontroversial to be published in anthropological linguis-tics in many years, perhaps since the appearance of Swa-deshs The Origin and Diversification of Language(1971). However, his general hypothesis has a long his-tory that can be traced to much of the nineteenth- andtwentieth-century literature on the languages of so-called primitive peoples. Levy-Bruhls chapter on nu-

meration in How Natives Think, for example, opens withthe observation that in a great many primitive peoples. . . the only names for numbers are one and two, andoccasionally three. Beyond these, the native says many,a crowd, a multitude (1926:181). The multiple cases hecites closely mirror the system described by Everett forPiraha and confirmed by Gordon (2004). Thus, Everettsclaim that Piraha is the only language known withoutnumber, numerals, or a concept of counting is probablyan overstatement. What is important is that Everettsand Gordons research is sure to lead to field studiesaimed at replicating it, providing new experimental (ver-

sus anecdotal) evidence on numerical cognition in pre-literate societies.

Piraha is also not the only language known withoutembedding. Foley (1986:177) describes the absence of re-cursion in Iatmul (New Guinea), where verbs do not

function as embedded parts within a whole, but arelinked to a fully inflected verb in a linear string, muchlike beads on a necklace. . . . Linking of clauses is at thesame structural level [nonhierarchical] rather than aspart within whole. This grammatical feature has alsobeen noted to be correlated with cultural complexity.The best-known work is Givons proposal of pragmaticand syntactic modes of speech that reflect changingfunctions of language with cultural evolution, leadinghim to conclude that certain types of languagesthosewhich have only coordination (clause chaining) but nosubordinationare found only in preliterate societies ofintimates (Givon 1979:306; for detailed discussion seeKay 1972; Mithun 1984; Kalmar 1985; Pawley 1987; De-salles 2004; Newmeyer 2002, 2004; Wray and Grace n.d.).

A final example of research that firmly supports Ev-eretts conclusions on the correlation of cultural com-plexity and specific properties of grammar is Perkinss(1992) important work on deixis. In a wide-ranging cross-linguistic study, Perkins demonstrates conclusively thatlanguages spoken in simpler societies commonly markdeictic distinctions by complex internal grammaticalprocesses while languages spoken by more complex so-cieties mark deictic distinctions syntactically.

The concrete specificity of obligatory deictic distinc-tions is also a distinguishing characteristic of the gram-mars of the languages of nonliterate societies. Examples

are seen in the Piraha evidentials for specific knowledge-hai hearsay, -xaagaua observed, -sibiga deduced,-ati uncertain, -ha relatively certain, -ha certain (Ev-erett 1986) and in Wari spatial demonstratives cwa this:m/f, ca this:n, ma that:prox:hearer, cwain that:m/f:distal, cain that:n:distal (Everett and Kern 1997,Everett n.d.).

Everetts paper will stimulate fieldwork on little-known languages spoken by societies with simple cul-tures. It will serve as a catalyst for new research thatwill contribute to nonuniformitarianist approaches oflanguage evolution (see Newmeyer 2002, 2004; Chris-tiansen and Kirby 2003; Hurford, Studdert-Kennedy, and

Knight 1998; Knight, Studdert-Kennedy, and Hurford2000; Wray 2002; Carstairs-McCarthy 1999) Perhaps itwill also lead those engaged in investigations of the lin-guistic relativity-determinism hypothesis to add an evo-lutionary dimension to their efforts at demonstrating theconstraints of culture on the grammatical properties oflanguage. As Hymes has stated, Only the renewal . . .of an evolutionary perspective can enable linguistic the-ory to connect languages and lives in a way that satisfiesthe concerns among linguists for relevance of their in-tellectual work and that satisfies the needs of mankind(1971:vvi).


16/26


m arco anto ni o gonc alve sPrograma de Pos-Graduacao em Sociologia e

Antropologia, Universidade Federal de Rio de Janeiro,Largo do Sao Francisco de Paula, 1, sala 420, Rio deJaneiro, Brazil ([email protected]). 25 iv 05

Pursuing the issues of cultural constraint, univer-sals, and absences would draw attention away fromwhat I take to be the central question in Everetts article,that of the role of experience in the construction of gram-mar and its possible transpositions to the Amazoniancultural and cosmological context. I shall seek to engagewith this question.

Seeger (1981:21), inspired by Levi-Strausss Mytholo-giques (especially 1964:chap. 1), identified the basis ofan Amazonian cosmology as follows: A cosmology isexpressed in more than the abstract thought of idleminds; material things and human relations are also ex-pressions of principles that may be expressed elsewhereas abstract thoughts. Viveiros de Castro (1986:252, 253;1992) also calls attention to a possible conceptualizationof cosmology specific to the Amazon, emphasizing thatcosmology does not necessarily imply a balanced andharmonious system saturated with meaning. Therefore,the idea of absolute postulates that would engenderfields of perception and modes of acting in and concep-tualizing the world or that presuppose existence withoutexperience would not be applicable to Amazonian cul-ture and cosmology. Overing (1996), in translating theconcept of performative to the Amazonian universe,proposes the term generative to accentuate the im-portance of experience for those ontologies, given that itis the appropriate act that generates relations. This is aparticular mode of constructing social relations and waysof thinking about the world that is based on a specificcapacityalways personalized, that is, derived from ex-perienceto produce culturally acceptable things. Basso(1995:149) pointed out that the importance of stories forthe Kalapalo consisted not in their representing collec-tively accepted images that animate social life but, onthe contrary, in their describing the experiences of in-dividuals exploring alternatives for their lives. Even innarratives that seem fixed, such as myths and songs, onecan discern an important process of individualizationthat accentuates experience as the basis of this percep-tion, frequently reflected in the first-person telling of thenarrative. Other writings, such as those of Oakdale (2002:

16566) and Lagrou (1998), demonstrate that for the Kay-abi and the Cashinahua understanding of the meaningof songs depends upon a contextualized interpretation ofthe metaphors used in them. Urban (1989:40) points outthat for the Xavante the first-person narratives of mythsproduce a trancelike state in which the narrator beginsto experience the narrative in an individualized way. Myresearch on the Piraha highlights the importance of ex-perience in the way that the Piraha represent the world.My book Unfinished World: Action and Creation in an

Amazonian Cosmology seeks to demonstrate that theworld is constituted through action and creation, de-pending structurally upon experience for its construc-

tion. For the Piraha, experience is fundamental to con-stituting a perception of the cosmos because it is thatwhich describes, links words and objects, observationsand their explanations, thought and act. Within this con-ception, to gain the status of an organized discourse thecosmos depends upon someone who lives it, who ex-periences it (Goncalves 2001:32). The importance of ex-perience in the constitution of Amazonian culturewassummarized very well by Gow (1991:151): I take lit-erally what native people say about distant ascendantkin, which is that they do not know anything about thembecause they never saw them. This is noted by numerousother ethnographers of Native Amazonian culture, butusually thought to show the shallow time frame ofthese societies. . . . The shallow time frame of thesesocieties is not a product of their failure to accumulateinformation in deep g

Documents

Everett Pi Rah A