Words Don't Count, People Do
According to research performed by by some cognitive scientists, we don't need words in order to count, subtract and divide, to perform basic arithmetic, otherwise known as enumeration. How do we do it? One, two, three, four -- that's about as far as some cultures go with words for numbers. Oh, they may have a word for the concept of "many" or "more than three or four", but nothing specific like five or six.Take English-speaking people and Warlpiri or Anindilyakwa, Australian aboriginal groups that fit the parameters described. Drs. Brian Butterworth and Robert Reeve tested children from these groups in various tasks with tokens. They tried out simple number memory, nonverbal addition and division with various amounts. Their results, while not terrifically conclusive, support the theory that, as Dr. Butterworth said, "...humans posess an innate system for enumeration that doesn't rely on words."
The project was reported in Tuesday's publishing of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, concluding that words for numbers are "useful but not necessary". Read the AP story for details. Scary! What's next, discovering we don't need language to communicate at all?
Labels: words
posted by Georganna Hancock M.S. | 9:55 AM
2 Comments:
Hi Georganna,
Using numbers/figures goes back to the first known civilizations in Egypt, China.... The fact that cultures independent of each other created pictures/symbols to decide if a journey was three suns away also tells social scientists that, like language, (Chomsky et al.) there are certain innate human learning abilities.
As a researcher, I would want more information and studies to confirm that these children did/didn't understand the idea of numbers more than 3-4. Perhaps it was unfamiliar testing materials, different languages, and expectations.... As Mark Twain wrote, "There are lies, damn lies and then there are statistics."
Thanks for commenting, maryotten. Do I know you from somewhere? Your Blogger profile seems to be vacant.
As a writer/reader, I found the information quite interesting.
For the researcher, I provided a link to a long AP article, the names of the major researchers involved, the name and date of the professional scientific journal in which the report of the research was published.
I even hedged my post a bit with the statement, "Their results, while not terrifically conclusive, support the theory ...". I didn't say they proved it irrefutably.
Still, there's no call to assume this was a sloppy, uncontrolled, thoughtless project promoted for the greater glory of those named. And I didn't even mention statistics -- do you want my readers eyes to glaze over?
Post a Comment
<< Home