In our last articles, we saw that the motto “All Languages are Equally Complex” (ALEC) is a myth, and described several ways in which language complexity can be measured. It is time to turn to another extremely controversial topic that, in my view, affects not only the entire field of Linguistics, but also our observations about what it means to be human.
What we discussed regarding language can be expanded to human beings: Are all societies (and individuals) equally complex? And is there a correlation between the level of complexity in each society and the language that they utilize?
What is a “primitive society”?
Although often considered politically incorrect in many anthropological circles, the fact remains that there exist “primitive” (or sometimes called “traditional”) societies, which share the following characteristics:
1. They are usually small populations, composed of several dozen to a few thousand members.
2. They live in relative isolation, hardly interacting with strangers.
3. Other than considerations of age and gender, they usually have a very low division of labor. Nobody is a “specialist” in anything, and each member contributes to the smooth running of the community.
4. Their technology is of a simple subsistence type.
5. Their social institutions are relatively simple.
6. There is usually neither literacy nor schooling. Children simply learn by observing, then joining in the adults’ activities. No direct instruction is provided.
7. Communication takes places almost exclusively in oral contexts.
8. Reciprocation is more common than money as a means of exchange.
Among these societies, there can be more or less complexity. For example, some of them don’t have any rituals or spiritual practices, while others do. Some don’t have any hierarchy, while some do. Some are hunter-gatherers, while others practice agriculture to different degrees. We will explore this further later on, but for now, you already have a good idea of what we are talking about. By “primitive” no moral judgment whatsoever is implied! It is simply what they have been traditionally called.
Language with Chu is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
What is a “primitive language”?
If you are thinking that a primitive language must be very basic, you are probably imagining examples where you heard people speaking your mother tongue as a foreign language. “Me sleep here”, and such. In those cases, the problem is not their native tongue, but the fact that they have a very basic level in YOUR language. Imagine yourself dropped into Holland with no knowledge of Dutch, and only a dictionary to get by. Well, you too, would sound “primitive” when you ask for a room at a hotel: “Me sleep here?” would convey the message, but your Dutch would leave much to be desired. (This was, however, the way in which “primitive languages” used to be viewed, up until the sixties!)
Linguist Guy Deutscher writes:
If we define a “primitive language” as something that resembles the rudimentary “me sleep here” type of English – a language with only a few hundred words and without the grammatical means of expressing any finer nuances – then it is a simple empirical fact that no natural language is primitive. Hundreds of languages of simple tribes have now been studied in depth, but not one of them, be it spoken by the most technologically and sartorially challenged people is on the “me sleep here” level. […] Linguistic “technology” in the form of sophisticated grammatical structures is not a prerogative of advanced civilizations, but is found even in the languages of the most primitive hunter-gatherers. [i]
Ok, so we have way more complex systems in all languages, but are they all similar in complexity?
[That said,] two languages can both be way above the “me sleep here” level, but one of them could still be far more complex than the other. As an analogy, think of the young pianists who are admitted to the Juillard School. None of them will be a “primitive pianist” who can only play “Mary Had a Little Lamb” with one finger. But that does not mean that they are all equally proficient. […] it soon emerges that [languages] vary greatly in complexity of specific areas in their grammar. […] The more challenging question is whether the differences in the complexity of particular areas might reflect the culture of the speakers and the structure of their society.[ii]
So, the answer is, once again, that in specific areas, languages can vary greatly in complexity. But notice as well that Deutscher is not taking the more extreme view, that language directly affects culture and society (and thought), or vice versa. The key word here is “reflect”. I tend to think of language as a “magnifying glass” for some details of our reality, rather than about an entire worldview being determined by it. Languages may affect how we think about details and how we organize certain parts of reality in our minds, but they don’t change how human we are, and they don’t limit the thoughts we are able to have, if given the right stimulus or faced with the right needs. They just zoom in and out on certain aspects, and give us more or less freedom in others.
Just to give you a simple example, in English, if you say “Yesterday I slept at my neighbor’s”, your neighbor’s gender is not highlighted, and people can interpret your sentence as they wish. In other languages, where neighbors have obligatory genders, you are forced to specify if your neighbor is a he or a she, which might lead to your interlocutors making certain assumptions that weren’t there in English. That is the kind of “magnifying” that languages do.
So, back to Deutscher’s question, do the differences in complexity of particular areas of language reflect the culture of the speakers and the structure of their society? The answer seems to be yes. There are many correlations. What is not so sure is what causes them.
There are several ways in which to study this problem, and we will focus on two in particular, with the caveat that, as much as some “experts” claim that there is a clear-cut answer, nobody really knows! Perhaps language and society are closely linked, or perhaps it has to do with other factors that are often ignored in Linguistics, Anthropology, Biology and Psychology. So, remember the characteristics of a primitive society for the next installment!
[i] Deutscher, Guy, Through the Language Glass, Metropolitan Books, 2023, p.103.
[ii] Ibid, p. 103.
Recent Comments