Pirahãs Grammar, Essay Example

The Piraha language has dared to challenge simplistic applications of universally accepted design elements of human linguistic interactions. Some of these attributes which borders on displacement, productivity, and  interchangeability could be easily restrained on cultural aspects. Basically, Piraha traditions are known to restrain communication to non-abstract subjects which are found within the immediate experience of interlocutors. This said constraint defines diverse but surprising aspects of Piraha grammar as well as culture: lack of mathematical or any given counting concepts including quantification; lack of color identification terms, absence of embedding. In reality they lack what is defined as relative tenses. Despite that the Piraha customs seems to be delinked from the traditional norms of having generational passage of myths, creation fable, as well as ethic heroes (Be n e d i c t 144). Considering that this community is seen as being monolingual for being in close proximity with other cultures such as Brazilians and the Tupi-Guarani communities. Thus, the way this groups explains itself is in itself strange, according anthropologists as well as phonetic and phonology experts such as Professor Everett. From generation to generation no documented evidence is available concerning the history of this people. There artifacts too are unknown to the greater communities and his places them in a very primitive situation.

By exploring the dynamics of linguistics, it would be instrumental to delve into the various aspects of language and culture in regard to Piraha. This is due to the fact that the scope of constraint is adverse in as far as Piraha language and grammar is concerned. As is established by language scholars this aspect has crating what is explained to be a gap in relation to their morph syntax. Hence, Hockett (295) elements of human language, including those highly embraced by linguistics ought to be revised due to the challenges they face from Pirahas linguistic limitations. This approach thus calls for the re-evaluation of conventional language symmetry as well as the assessment of the innate linguistic elements which are compound to cultural constraints which cannot be defined by the proposed universal grammar model.

Language being the principal mode of communication is made up of diverse elements borrowed from all existing ethnic communities. It is thus essential o understand that grammar in addition to other features allied to living are constrained to actual, abrupt ,and immediacy of happenstances as reflected by urgency or immediacy of information, or events per remark. Exploring the core attributes of cultural dynamics in relation to grammar, it is evident that the Piraha language is thus constraint by cultural barriers which have evolved over the years. And this has compactly affected the trend of linguistics as well as the tenets of cultural evolution and integration.

As is agreed by most linguistic scholars language is employed for descriptive purpose. It is from such a stance it is valued as an emergent phase of human culture and psychology. Thus, in such instances most features allied to Piraha are defined as elements of formal including functional linguistic approaches but were sometimes back abandoned by scholars. Comparing the modern linguistic needs, it would be pivotal to point that the influence of both culture and linguistic cognition are essential in understanding the development of any ethnic language (B a s s o 244). For instance, after examining the Piraha linguistic and grammar components most scholars have over the years opted to revisit this community’s intricate grammar mystery. Hence, the absence of conventional linguistic features explains why the community existed and survived in with the absence of numbers, counting, as well as numerals. And this is well testified by lack of other basic counting procedures in their semantics and traditions. It is no strange that Piraha is the only known ethnic language without counting concepts, numerals or any known numbers. More so, it doesn’t have such counting attributes as each, most, all, every, and some. Not forget that Piraha has no history of embedding, that is placing one phrase inside another of the similar intensity; for instance, nouns expressions into noun expressions in a statement or a sentence. However, it has some of the simplest pronoun registry known, and this testifies that its entire pronominal could be a product of borrowing from other languages. This is supported by the fact that Piraha language has no known perfect tense. In a similar stance, it is widely accepted that it has also the simplest kinship configuration ever recorded. Piraha can be said to be a language that employs the immediate happenings to reflect or explain a situation and this denies it the much anticipated linguistic wealth. It is thus common in Piraha to assert that it draws much from individual experiences rather than collective involvedness.

From such an observation Piraha though in existence for over 200 years has failed to progress on the realm of grammar. Considering that such elements as Portuguese grammar and communication contravenes its cultural constraints in regard to grammar and living, it is also a fact that it touches its cultural values, identity, and this explains which it has continued to be flourish on the plane of monolingualism.

From a linguistic and anthropological perspective this explains why these strange properties calls for cautious consideration, while their manifestation in a solo language indicates there is an existence of a general unifying generalization behind. Piraha is thus a language that is inadequate in terms of common phrase –structures. Perhaps this explains why Piraha culture rarely delves or navigates in the broad region of knowledge particularly if it goes beyond individual concern or understanding.  What this indicates is that Piraha culture and language goes against the concept of linguistic relativity as well as determination which alone cannot explore the linguistic considerations. More so, according to Everett, this culture has shown that the unidirectionality which is inherent in linguistic relativity is inadequate in explain the scope or intent of language cognition correlated to fundamental aspects of culture roe in shaping of any given language.

The above gaps witnessed in Piraha: the absence of drawing apart from exceedingly crude stick ?gures in lieu of the spirit world asserted to have been unswervingly experienced follow from the hypothesize of the cultural significance of propinquity of experience that holds back grammar and living, the lack of implanting, perfect tense, the lack of number, numerals, or a impression of counting and of terms for quanti?cation, in addition to the excessive plainness of the pronoun range, the minimalism of the relationship system, the lack of creation legends, lack of personal or collective reminiscence of consecutive generations illustrate the raw nature of this culture in regard to language and social integration. In essence this indicates that their exists a striking confirmation for the existence as well as the influence of culture on the major structures, disagreeing with B a k e r (153)claim that “virtually all linguistics today” have no optimism of linking a languages gross grammatical properties within the tenets of socio-cultural attributes relating to its speakers. Hence, Piraha exposes that gross linguistic properties are not only linked to socio-cultural aspects but can be determined by the same attributes.

What this indicates in regard t the nature of human language, or at least, in regard to Piraha is that, this language as it is, is as normal as any other human language. This can be supported by the designs explored by Hockett in his study of human language, that is ;vocal-auditory channel, displacement, rapid fading, interchangeability, total response, specialty, semanticity, randomness, discreteness, efficiency, duality of patterning, in addition to traditional transmission (244). The principal elements that stand out in this regard are linked to displacement, productivity as well as interchangeability.

To the extent in which this culture lacks any numeric or counting concepts is disproportionate in that semantic as well as cognitive sphere are typically modeled on language concepts. Noting that Piraha lacks other concepts which are paramount in regard to language interchageability,it ought to be noted that it in one way or the other tends to violate the design concepts of uniformity. Pertaining to displacement, it is evident that Piraha is tightly constrained to its own grammar and linguistic dimensions. And this scope of displacement is well exposed in the manner its people describe existing or absence from the context of time and reality. The inability in principle to discuss issues alienated from personal perspective is another confirmation. Similarly, productivity is also restricted within the Piraha culture, simply because there are some things which the culture cant talk about due to the limitations caused by content or form, or the immediate state of the language.

In conclusion what this demonstrates is that if a culture is causally implicated in grammatical forms,the concerned individuals ought to learn the dynamics of the given culture grammar dynamics (Chomsky 197). According to linguistic scholars grammar is gradually developed among the societies populace. That is why linguistic investigations should be explored and the cultural community is involved, by investigating the culture along the lines of grammar is instrumental in understanding both the people and their language. Thus, the Piraha unique narratives testify as, other languages such as Portuguese grammar cannot correlate with Piraha in different ways and is culturally incompatible, as is with many of the Western languages.

Works cited

Baker, M . The atoms of language. New York: Basic, 2001.

Basso, E . The last cannibal. Austin:  University of  Texas  Press,1995.

Benedict , R . Patterns of culture. Boston: Houghton,1934.

Chomsky, N  . On nature and language. Cambridge:Cambridge,2002.

Hockett, F .  A course in general linguistics. NewYork: Macmillan,1960.