
‘Anumeric’ people: when a language has no words for numbers - wormold
https://theconversation.com/anumeric-people-what-happens-when-a-language-has-no-words-for-numbers-75828
======
bwang29
Is it just me or someone else thought about the 2016 movie Arrival talking
about time in languages (no spoiler - I think it is a great film for NLP
folks)

I remember there was a research claiming babies have innate ability to perform
simply addition and subtraction (1+1=2 for example), and here is a reference
to babies innate ability predicts their math skills

[https://today.duke.edu/2013/10/babymath](https://today.duke.edu/2013/10/babymath)

P.S. I was also told the hardest part of researching babies is to get
clearance and approval from their parents

So it seems like we as human have the basic building block for math built-in,
and it takes practices and further development to create complex concepts
based on those simple blocks.

~~~
theo-m
Referring to your baby ability remark, it is in fact true of most mammals and
most birds. You can check out the works of Stanislas Dehaene on the subject.

~~~
lawpoop
I'll be honest, I'm not going to look up the work.

Do those experiments show definitively that babies and animals understand that
1 + 1 = exactly 2 and nothing else? Or do they understand that 1-ish + 1-ish
is more than 1 -- because this isn't that much different from what anumeric
groups understand. Less and more are different from discrete arithmetic,
strictly speaking.

For instance, 1 fish + 1 fish might be > 3 fish, if the first two fish we're
talking about are 20 and 40 lbs respectively, and then the second set of three
fish are ten pounders each. In the "real world", hunter-gatherers deal with
continuous mass problems at least as often as they deal with standardized,
discrete units.

Did these babies and animals understand that 1 + 1 = 2 and only 2, and not
2.5? Or 3?

The abstract idea of arithmetic is something on the scale of reasoning about
an idealized circle, say, which doesn't exist in nature on a day-to-day basis.

~~~
bwang29
The experiment involved putting teddy bears behind a blue screen. Two bears
enter the screen and when the screen is lifted with one bear or three bears,
the baby will express a lot more anxiety than seeing two bears

~~~
ChristianGeek
That just shows that they understand different or more than/less than.

------
Mister_Snuggles
> This and many other experiments have converged upon a simple conclusion:
> When people do not have number words, they struggle to make quantitative
> distinctions that probably seem natural to someone like you or me.

This kind of thing has always fascinated me. It's not just about numbers, it's
about how language shapes thought.

If a language lacked the ability to express the concept of sadness, would its
people be sad? Or would they just be angry because they can't explain how they
feel to anyone?

If we had four digits on each hand, as some cartoon characters have, would we
think in octal?

~~~
Tade0
My take is that it's not the language that shapes thought, but something else
that shapes both language and thought.

Case in point: There are a few particular feelings which I experience
sometimes that I recognize every time - I just find it impossible to describe
them using any language I know.

Example: A sudden feeling of not recognizing the people next to you. I mean, I
am consciously aware that these are my e.g. relatives, but for a split second
this feeling of familiarity fades. It is clearly different than the one I get
when I look at people I don't know.

I can't even tell if I'm the only one I know who experiences this, because
there are no words that could describe it accurately.

~~~
getoj
I think your example describes a type of jamais vu[1]. It happens to me (and
presumably everyone else) too.

[1]"A sense of unfamiliarity with, or of never having experienced or seen
before, something that should be familiar."
[https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/jamais_vu](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/jamais_vu)

------
lazyasciiart
This conclusion is refuted by the existence of Australian Aboriginal groups
with no number words who count perfectly well -
[http://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/news-articles/news-releases-
archiv...](http://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/news-articles/news-releases-
archive/aboriginal).

Even Everett Sr doesn't agree that the piraha can't count -
[http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/001387.h...](http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/001387.html)

~~~
panglott
It's worth reading some of the papers where they discuss performance at
counting tasks among the Pirahã. IIRC there were some people who seemed
understood there was a difference in the quantity but struggled to quantify or
articulate it; and there were other people who didn't struggle to articulate
it at all, they just didn't bother with it or think it important.

"Number as a cognitive technology: Evidence from Pirahã language and
cognition"
[http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010027708...](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010027708001042)

------
dalbasal
The interesting (to me) part of all this is cognitive impacts. To what extent
does thinking in numbers impact how you think about stuff.

There are northeastern Australian languages without words for relative
directions (behind you, left, right). They use absolute/cardinal directions
instead. Reportedly, this fosters an unbelievable sense of direction and an
instinctive internal compass.

I wonder if what other basics we could add to language and what that would
give us.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
I wonder how that reflects on considerations of self and environment. Using
your locality as prime rather than yourself.

------
caio1982
Interesting, it seems the Everett family is still obsessed with the Pirahã.
This is both a nice thing (indigenous languages and societies are poorly
studied) as a bad one (it doesn't help them with more linguistic authority at
all, others should study the Pirahã instead). As a linguist I used to feel a
bit of shame for liking the Everett's research, oh well...

~~~
derriz
I'm curious, why is it shameful for liking their research?

~~~
caio1982
Among many linguists the whole study of the Pirahã language is sort of bogus
because it goes against a few core ideas of Chomsky that they love so much,
almost like a dogma. I've never heard a linguist describing Everett's work as
anything other than "cute, but wrong". Personally, I think that's all sad
scientifically speaking.

~~~
panglott
You must hear from relatively a lot of generativist linguists and
syntacticians. The linguists at Language Log and elsewhere regularly praise
Everett's scholarship in descriptive linguistics. And there is literally no
important dispute left, except non-Pirahã specialists claiming Pirahã has
subordinate clauses. Getting Everett banned from working with the Pirahã is
just sad and pathetic.

[http://www.chronicle.com/blogs/linguafranca/2012/03/28/poiso...](http://www.chronicle.com/blogs/linguafranca/2012/03/28/poisonous-
dispute/)
[http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=3857](http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=3857)

------
jfries
That article ended too early. I was looking forward to reading about how
anumeric people see the world, and what happens when they encounter situations
where seeing exact quantities would be helpful. Also some example of this: "I
was continually impressed by their superior understanding of the riverine
ecology we shared."

~~~
dcwca
I was interested to see a comparison of cultures with varying degrees of
numerology in their language. I've heard that certain languages make math much
easier to understand, as factors and products are self evident in the way
words for numbers are constructed.

~~~
liberte82
Any examples of languages like this? Are you speaking about the number base
that the language works in? I have heard that a base-12 system would be much
more useful than base 10 due to its greater factoring potential (2x6, 3x4).
This is why there are 12 inches in a foot, and 12 hours in a day, it makes
working with thirds and quarter units much easier. Wouldn't it be even greater
if we worked in base 12 and 12 was represented as 1-0?

I've wondered if Chinese and other Asian languages make math a little bit more
straightforward with their more consistent logic in the naming of numbers. 11
= 10+1, 21 = 2x10+1, etc. European languages are logical to a decent extent
but we absolutely have more exceptions.

My favorite numbers language quirk has always been French with its preserving
the 'four-score' in its numerology. i.e. 95 = 4x20+15

------
jurasource
I'm a bit sceptical about the explanation for base10, especially in Europe.
The UK changed from a base 12 money system in my lifetime, and the history of
the metric system doesn't go back all that far:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_metric_system](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_metric_system)
More info here:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duodecimal#Origin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duodecimal#Origin)

------
derriz
I'm assuming the author is the son of Daniel Everett?

The depressing end to the documentary about the nativist argument with
Chomisky -
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcOuBggle4Y](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcOuBggle4Y)
\- suggests that the Pirahã - one of the peoples mentioned in the article -
have been thought numeracy through a government program.

~~~
caio1982
I didn't quite get the numeracy thing, Derriz.

~~~
derriz
At about 44 minutes, it states that they are being taught to count? Or do you
mean something else?

I found it sad because their previous life/existence was fascinating; it
seemed to be an example of a successful (as measured by happiness) human
society that was amaterialistic.

~~~
nandemo
So your fascination with their way of life is more important than kids getting
basic education?

FIY, mandatory schooling doesn't apply to indigenous people. But they're still
Brazilian citizens, and our government is obligated by law to offer education
to all citizens. Indigenous people (including the Piraha) may also be entitled
to e.g. retirement benefits, so it makes sense to learn arithmetic.

~~~
derriz
I'm sad because the opportunity to study and learn from a unique human culture
and society is being lost and that officials representing the Brazilian
government seemed to actively block attempts at further study - which was the
point of the documentary.

I also somewhat fear, from what was shown in the documentary, for their future
as in many cases, suddenly introducing a more modern/western way of life to an
isolated people often seems to result in social breakdown.

I believe it's best to err on the side of caution in cases like this when you
are interacting with a complex delicate system.

While I would consider myself a western liberal, fully appreciative of the
benefits of a western scientific education and the use of modern technology to
improve human existence, I would still expect great sensitivity when
introducing such benefits to a people like this.

I'm not a relativist generally but in this case, the absolutist belief that
these peoples' lives will be improved by exposing them to a modern education
and technology reminds me that missionaries also had an absolute belief that
introducing such people to the Bible (for example) would "improve" them and we
know that the results were mixed in the latter case.

~~~
nandemo
> the absolutist belief that these peoples' lives will be improved by exposing
> them to a modern education

I haven't seen the documentary, did anyone say that? My point is if you get
monetary benefits, then you need to be able to read, write, and do arithmetic.
This isn't a controversial idea. We aren't talking about uncontacted tribes.
And it's voluntary. Some people want to get education, and they should be able
to. The idea the that the government should somehow deny them that is
untenable.

And if you think the government should not offer them social security at all
then you have a bigger problem.

------
barbs
Related: Humans Naturally Think In Logarithms
[https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-natural-
log/](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-natural-log/)

I'm not sure if this is the article I originally saw - I seem to remember
reading a longer one.

------
aaron695
Theories as amazing as this based on one researcher I'll always default to
bullshit.

It makes for good quips in Hollywood movies I guess. Not so great for science.

[http://muse.jhu.edu/article/270906](http://muse.jhu.edu/article/270906)

~~~
nandemo
Everett's reply here:

ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/000427/current.pdf

~~~
aaron695
Everett defending Everett.

It get that's a common thing, but would prefer an external party to agree with
some of his outlandish claims.

