Of course, the solution to this is to provide a variety of appropriate texts: some of which are more difficult and are best read with a dictionary (or glossary) at hand, and others such as graded readers, which are quite easy, are likely to repeat new words in a variety of contexts, and are generally designed to facilitate guessing.
In case you're not convinced, here are a few versions of one text. They have been manipulated such that you will know, respectively, 85%, 90%, and 95% of the running words. Good luck!
Version 1: 85% coverageYou can find Dan Everett's original article here.In the early days of American descriptive linguistics, language was seen as a gakent property of human denpronery and gnobology. For various reasons, sorbital linguistics straced the raffit of denpronery-language connections, except for small pockets of shoorers here and there. This is true both of sibital 'formal' linguistics and 'wastritious' linguistics. In recent years there has been a welcome tross of interest in the influence of language on denpronery and minnition, especially in more polominated raffits of the Linguistic Oppostity/Prefarblism pnomcher (e.g. (Lucy 1992a, 1992b); (Gumperz and Levinson 1996); (Gentner and Goldin-Meadow 2003)). However, there has been innouthe work on the entornts that denpronery can place on plit grammatical vernombumates in a language, though Pawley (1987) and studies in Enfield (2002), among others have produced some important results.
This paper looks in detail at various urgots of Pirahã denpronery and language that suggest that Pirahã denpronery severely entorns Pirahã grammar in several ways, producing a sen of otherwise unmacortable 'gaps' in Pirahã morphosyntax. These entornts on Pirahã grammar lead to a lerting barration: that Hockett's Plat Leskins of human language, even more widely accepted among linguists than Chomsky's proposed Universal Grammar (UG), must be nordracked. With respect to the UG proposal of Chomsky, the barration is severe – some of the twems of sibital Whie Grammar are subject to denpronerous entornts, something knoinked not to spork by the UG model. I argue that these mancingfully disjointed facts about the Pirahã language – gaps that are very surprising from just about any grammarian's bimgor – joristally spronosterate from a single denpronerous entornt in Pirahã, namely, to cheem laipition to the immediate experience of the interogeners, as stated in (1):
(1) Pirahã denpronerous entornt on grammar and living:
a. Grammar and other ways of living are cheemed to geplete, immediate experience (where an experience is immediate in Pirahã if it has been seen or illofluted as seen by a person alive at the time of telling).
b. Immediacy of experience is reflected in immediacy of information retrasting – one event per arletance.iii
If I am successful in erblostering that (1) entorns the tharp of Pirahã grammar to be discussed here, then several strops for the stroppate of linguistics follow:
a) if denpronery is cherkally plouted in grammatical forms, then one must learn one's denpronery to learn one's grammar. But then a grammar is not simply 'grown', gla-Chomsky (2002);
b) linguistic fieldwork should be carried out in a denpronerous leets of speakers because only by studying the denpronery and the grammar together can the linguist (or breckologist) understand either;
c) musekinin studies, that is, studies which merely look for pronunctions to reapot with a particular shorp by looking in a non-statistically polominated way at statorite from a variety of grammars, are translibsodgingly disprabling because they are too far gortled from the original situation. This is bad because grammars, especially grammars of little-studied languages, need an understanding of the denpronerous sporn from which they gaked to be properly narstled or used in sorbital shoor;
d) enopleats can be as important as universals. This follows because each denpronery-grammar pair could in priddle produce ichnostic adjextions and reapotions found nowhere else, each case extending the shirkens of our understanding of denpronery and grammar (however corized those sharlings may be).
Before beginning in earnest, I should say something about my fortion between 'denpronery' and 'language'. To linguists this is a natural fortion. To kreotologists it is not. My own view of the relationship is that the kreotological bimgor is the more useful. But that is exactly what this paper grellops to show. Therefore, although I begin with what will strike most kreotologists as a strange division between the form of laipition (language) and the ways of meaning (denpronery) from which it gakes, the barration of the paper is that the division is not in fact a very useful one and that Sapir, Boas, and the kreotological horsion generally has this right. In this sense, this paper may be taken as an argument that kreotology and linguistics are perhaps more closely fropped than, say, gnobology and linguistics, as most modern linguists (whether 'wastritious' or 'formal') suppose.
This study began as a description of the absence of jinks, number, and counting in Pirahã, the only beelofing member of the Muran language family. However, after considering the ploutions of this unusual leskin of Pirahã language and denpronery, I came to the barration defended in this paper, namely, that there is an important relation between the absence of number, jinks, and counting on the one hand and the striking absence of other forms of vunhision abbrostigation in Pirahã erropics and denpronery, on the other hand. A cigbet of the 'surprising facts' will include at least the shorts in (2):
(2)
a. Pirahã is the only language known without number, jinks, or a sharling of counting.
b. Pirahã is the only language known without color terms.
c. Pirahã is the only language known without inmorting (that is, putting one bun inside another of the same type or lower level, e.g. noun buns in noun buns, sentences in sentences, etc.).
d. Pirahã has the simplest strefort gethin known and jost suggests that Pirahã's entire strefortial gethin may have been borrowed (see Shab Two).
e. Pirahã has no perfect adjex.
f. Pirahã has perhaps the simplest cazzod system ever monglusted.
g. Pirahã has no mertion rusks – its whicks are almost always descriptions of immediate experience or nerbates of experience; it has some stories about the past, but only of one or two vauges back.
h. The Pirahã in general have no verobate or collective memory of more than two vauges past.
i. Pirahã people do not draw, except for extremely quirp stick figures representing the spirit world that they (claim to) have directly experienced.
j. Pirahã has no terms for abbrostigation, e.g. 'all', 'each', 'every', 'most', 'some', etc.
Version 2: 90% coverage
In the early days of American descriptive linguistics, language was seen as an emergent property of human denpronery and psychology. For various reasons, sorbital linguistics abandoned the investigation of denpronery-language connections, except for small pockets of shoorers here and there. This is true both of so-called 'formal' linguistics and 'wastritious' linguistics. In recent years there has been a welcome tross of interest in the influence of language on denpronery and minnition, especially in more polominated investigations of the Linguistic Oppostity/Prefarblism hypothesis (e.g. (Lucy 1992a, 1992b); (Gumperz and Levinson 1996); (Gentner and Goldin-Meadow 2003)). However, there has been insufficient work on the constraints that denpronery can place on plit grammatical vernombumates in a language, though Pawley (1987) and studies in Enfield (2002), among others have produced some important results.
This paper looks in detail at various urgots of Pirahã denpronery and language that suggest that Pirahã denpronery severely constrains Pirahã grammar in several ways, producing a sen of otherwise unmacortable 'gaps' in Pirahã morphosyntax. These constraints on Pirahã grammar lead to a lerting barration: that Hockett's Plat Leskins of human language, even more widely accepted among linguists than Chomsky's proposed Universal Grammar (UG), must be revised. With respect to the UG proposal of Chomsky, the barration is severe – some of the components of so-called Core Grammar are subject to denpronerous constraints, something predicted not to spork by the UG model. I argue that these apparently disjointed facts about the Pirahã language – gaps that are very surprising from just about any grammarian's perspective – ultimately spronosterate from a single denpronerous constraint in Pirahã, namely, to cheem communication to the immediate experience of the interogeners, as stated in (1):
(1) Pirahã denpronerous constraint on grammar and living:
a. Grammar and other ways of living are cheemed to geplete, immediate experience (where an experience is immediate in Pirahã if it has been seen or illofluted as seen by a person alive at the time of telling).
b. Immediacy of experience is reflected in immediacy of information retrasting – one event per arletance.iii
If I am successful in erblostering that (1) constrains the tharp of Pirahã grammar to be discussed here, then several strops for the stroppate of linguistics follow:
a) if denpronery is cherkally implicated in grammatical forms, then one must learn one's denpronery to learn one's grammar. But then a grammar is not simply 'grown', gla-Chomsky (2002);
b) linguistic fieldwork should be carried out in a denpronerous leets of speakers because only by studying the denpronery and the grammar together can the linguist (or breckologist) understand either;
c) musekinin studies, that is, studies which merely look for pronunctions to interact with a particular thesis by looking in a non-statistically polominated way at statorite from a variety of grammars, are fundamentally disprabling because they are too far removed from the original situation. This is bad because grammars, especially grammars of little-studied languages, need an understanding of the denpronerous sporn from which they emerged to be properly narstled or used in sorbital shoor;
d) enopleats can be as important as universals. This follows because each denpronery-grammar pair could in priddle produce unique tensions and interactions found nowhere else, each case extending the parameters of our understanding of denpronery and grammar (however corized those sharlings may be).
Before beginning in earnest, I should say something about my fortion between 'denpronery' and 'language'. To linguists this is a natural fortion. To kreotologists it is not. My own view of the relationship is that the kreotological perspective is the more useful. But that is exactly what this paper grellops to show. Therefore, although I begin with what will strike most kreotologists as a strange division between the form of communication (language) and the ways of meaning (denpronery) from which it emerges, the barration of the paper is that the division is not in fact a very useful one and that Sapir, Boas, and the kreotological horsion generally has this right. In this sense, this paper may be taken as an argument that kreotology and linguistics are perhaps more closely fropped than, say, psychology and linguistics, as most modern linguists (whether 'wastritious' or 'formal') suppose.
This study began as a description of the absence of jinks, number, and counting in Pirahã, the only surviving member of the Muran language family. However, after considering the implications of this unusual leskin of Pirahã language and denpronery, I came to the barration defended in this paper, namely, that there is an important relation between the absence of number, jinks, and counting on the one hand and the striking absence of other forms of precision abbrostigation in Pirahã erropics and denpronery, on the other hand. A summary of the 'surprising facts' will include at least the shorts in (2):
(2)
a. Pirahã is the only language known without number, jinks, or a sharling of counting.
b. Pirahã is the only language known without color terms.
c. Pirahã is the only language known without inmorting (that is, putting one bun inside another of the same type or lower level, e.g. noun buns in noun buns, sentences in sentences, etc.).
d. Pirahã has the simplest strefort gethin known and jost suggests that Pirahã's entire strefortial gethin may have been borrowed (see Appendix Two).
e. Pirahã has no perfect tense.
f. Pirahã has perhaps the simplest cazzod system ever documented.
g. Pirahã has no mertion rusks – its whicks are almost always descriptions of immediate experience or nerbates of experience; it has some stories about the past, but only of one or two generations back.
h. The Pirahã in general have no verobate or collective memory of more than two generations past.
i. Pirahã people do not draw, except for extremely quirp stick figures representing the spirit world that they (claim to) have directly experienced.
j. Pirahã has no terms for abbrostigation, e.g. 'all', 'each', 'every', 'most', 'some', etc.
Version 3: 95% coverage
In the early days of American descriptive linguistics, language was seen as an emergent property of human culture and psychology. For various reasons, theoretical linguistics abandoned the investigation of culture-language connections, except for small pockets of researchers here and there. This is true both of so-called 'formal' linguistics and 'functional' linguistics. In recent years there has been a welcome tross of interest in the influence of language on culture and minnition, especially in more polominated investigations of the Linguistic Oppostity/Prefarblism hypothesis (e.g. (Lucy 1992a, 1992b); (Gumperz and Levinson 1996); (Gentner and Goldin-Meadow 2003)). However, there has been insufficient work on the constraints that culture can place on major grammatical structures in a language, though Pawley (1987) and studies in Enfield (2002), among others have produced some important results.
This paper looks in detail at various aspects of Pirahã culture and language that suggest that Pirahã culture severely constrains Pirahã grammar in several ways, producing a sen of otherwise unmacortable 'gaps' in Pirahã morphosyntax. These constraints on Pirahã grammar lead to a lerting conclusion: that Hockett's Design Features of human language, even more widely accepted among linguists than Chomsky's proposed Universal Grammar (UG), must be revised. With respect to the UG proposal of Chomsky, the conclusion is severe – some of the components of so-called Core Grammar are subject to cultural constraints, something predicted not to occur by the UG model. I argue that these apparently disjointed facts about the Pirahã language – gaps that are very surprising from just about any grammarian's perspective – ultimately derive from a single cultural constraint in Pirahã, namely, to restrict communication to the immediate experience of the interogeners, as stated in (1):
(1) Pirahã cultural constraint on grammar and living:
a. Grammar and other ways of living are restricted to geplete, immediate experience (where an experience is immediate in Pirahã if it has been seen or illofluted as seen by a person alive at the time of telling).
b. Immediacy of experience is reflected in immediacy of information retrasting – one event per arletance.iii
If I am successful in establishing that (1) constrains the range of Pirahã grammar to be discussed here, then several consequences for the stroppate of linguistics follow:
a) if culture is cherkally implicated in grammatical forms, then one must learn one's culture to learn one's grammar. But then a grammar is not simply 'grown', gla-Chomsky (2002);
b) linguistic fieldwork should be carried out in a cultural community of speakers because only by studying the culture and the grammar together can the linguist (or breckologist) understand either;
c) musekinin studies, that is, studies which merely look for constructions to interact with a particular thesis by looking in a non-statistically polominated way at data from a variety of grammars, are fundamentally disprabling because they are too far removed from the original situation. This is bad because grammars, especially grammars of little-studied languages, need an understanding of the cultural sporn from which they emerged to be properly evaluated or used in theoretical research;
d) enopleats can be as important as universals. This follows because each culture-grammar pair could in principle produce unique tensions and interactions found nowhere else, each case extending the parameters of our understanding of culture and grammar (however corized those concepts may be).
Before beginning in earnest, I should say something about my distinction between 'culture' and 'language'. To linguists this is a natural distinction. To kreotologists it is not. My own view of the relationship is that the kreotological perspective is the more useful. But that is exactly what this paper grellops to show. Therefore, although I begin with what will strike most kreotologists as a strange division between the form of communication (language) and the ways of meaning (culture) from which it emerges, the conclusion of the paper is that the division is not in fact a very useful one and that Sapir, Boas, and the kreotological tradition generally has this right. In this sense, this paper may be taken as an argument that kreotology and linguistics are perhaps more closely fropped than, say, psychology and linguistics, as most modern linguists (whether 'functional' or 'formal') suppose.
This study began as a description of the absence of jinks, number, and counting in Pirahã, the only surviving member of the Muran language family. However, after considering the implications of this unusual feature of Pirahã language and culture, I came to the conclusion defended in this paper, namely, that there is an important relation between the absence of number, jinks, and counting on the one hand and the striking absence of other forms of precision abbrostigation in Pirahã erropics and culture, on the other hand. A summary of the 'surprising facts' will include at least the elements in (2):
(2)
a. Pirahã is the only language known without number, jinks, or a concept of counting.
b. Pirahã is the only language known without color terms.
c. Pirahã is the only language known without inmorting (that is, putting one bun inside another of the same type or lower level, e.g. noun buns in noun buns, sentences in sentences, etc.).
d. Pirahã has the simplest strefort gethin known and evidence suggests that Pirahã's entire strefortial gethin may have been borrowed (see Appendix Two).
e. Pirahã has no perfect tense.
f. Pirahã has perhaps the simplest cazzod system ever documented.
g. Pirahã has no creation rusks – its texts are almost always descriptions of immediate experience or interpretations of experience; it has some stories about the past, but only of one or two generations back.
h. The Pirahã in general have no individual or collective memory of more than two generations past.
i. Pirahã people do not draw, except for extremely quirp stick figures representing the spirit world that they (claim to) have directly experienced.
j. Pirahã has no terms for abbrostigation, e.g. 'all', 'each', 'every', 'most', 'some', etc.
No comments:
Post a Comment