Take a photo of a barcode or cover
176 reviews for:
Das glücklichste Volk: sieben Jahre bei den Pirahã-Indianern am Amazonas
Daniel L. Everett
3.8 AVERAGE
176 reviews for:
Das glücklichste Volk: sieben Jahre bei den Pirahã-Indianern am Amazonas
Daniel L. Everett
3.8 AVERAGE
A book of two halves. First half more anthropological and interesting. Second half linguistic and less interesting. At least he was cured of religion...
fast-paced
The book offers an interesting perspective on how culture impacts one's perception and language.
adventurous
challenging
hopeful
informative
slow-paced
I don't like reading "revolving door" narratives in which people describe coming to faith or leaving it. But in the context of the rest of the book I understand why Everett includes his story of doubt and the eventual loss of his perhaps overly simplistic Christian faith. However, the more compelling parts of this book for me were the discussions of the influence of culture on Pirahã linguistic structure via what Everett calls the Immediacy of Experience Principle: if you didn't experience it or know someone who did, it's probably not worth talking about. I find myself reflecting on the kinds of cultural constraints on the use of English in the communities I belong to and wondering about cultural constraints on linguistic behavior in the communities I work with professionally as a linguist.
Because his intended audience is a lay audience not versed in the minutiae of linguistic theory, his critique of Chomskyan linguistics doesn't always work. Using the example of a barking dog as part of an argument refuting the centrality of recursion in human language comes across as simplistic and dismissive. I've read his academic work, and there he lays out his case much more carefully. If your opinion of the intellectual worth of Everett's claims are based on this book, you might want to withhold judgment and consult the academic literature first. There are plenty of opportunities there for intellectual discomfort with Everett's claims, and you'll be better informed concerning the nature of the controversies.
As it is, though, this book is a compelling account of a field linguist at work, and I wouldn't hesitate to recommend it to others who are interested in what linguists do (or should be doing) and why it matters.
Because his intended audience is a lay audience not versed in the minutiae of linguistic theory, his critique of Chomskyan linguistics doesn't always work. Using the example of a barking dog as part of an argument refuting the centrality of recursion in human language comes across as simplistic and dismissive. I've read his academic work, and there he lays out his case much more carefully. If your opinion of the intellectual worth of Everett's claims are based on this book, you might want to withhold judgment and consult the academic literature first. There are plenty of opportunities there for intellectual discomfort with Everett's claims, and you'll be better informed concerning the nature of the controversies.
As it is, though, this book is a compelling account of a field linguist at work, and I wouldn't hesitate to recommend it to others who are interested in what linguists do (or should be doing) and why it matters.
Despite the two-star ranking, I did find parts of this book incredibly interesting regarding the formation of language and the intersection of language and culture. That said, parts of it were also very dry, academic and techno-babbly about linguistic theory. I think he forgot for the last 50 pages or so that he was writing a book for an audience that is not necessarily either versed or interested in the minutiae of the development of linguistic theory and field studies over the past three decades. When he does remember, though, it is often to provide an unfortunate and clunky metaphor for the concept he is trying to elucidate, so I generally would rather slog through the jargon-y prose than endure figurative language that your average six-year-old would wince to hear. Also, he basically glosses over his transition from his initial purpose of going to the Amazon as a Christian missionary to his eventual renunciation of all religious faiths with a couple of frustratingly vague paragraphs. Half of my interest in reading this came from the desire to hear about how he went from a missionary to a person with a 'non-theistic view of the world.' That's a pretty big leap, and while I understand wanting to keep certain things private, particularly as regards his family, I think if you are going to write a book like this, you need to be prepared to spill your guts a little bit more. Otherwise, you might as well keep it to yourself and stick to writing articles for academic journals. In case it isn't obvious, I was disappointed in this book - mostly because it had such potential to be utterly absorbing, but only achieved this for mere paragraphs at a time.
informative
reflective
slow-paced
adventurous
informative
slow-paced
I enjoyed this book more than I expected to. I knew next to nothing about indigenous Amazonian people, let alone the Pirahãs, before reading this book. I found the descriptions of their language and culture, especially the immediacy of experience theory, very interesting. I thought the linguistics was explained very well and although it was quite technical, was comprehensible for a lay person.
I thought the way the book was structured could have been better, but that is down to the editor more than the writer.
I also wouldn't have minded the culture section of the book being longer, as I found I wanted to know more about the way the Pirahã people live. Also, as other reviewers have mentioned, it would have been interesting to hear Dan's family's experience.
Also, considering on the blurb it specifically mentioned that he lost his faith as a result of learning more about Pirahã culture, I was expecting there to be more about that in the book as well.
I thought the way the book was structured could have been better, but that is down to the editor more than the writer.
I also wouldn't have minded the culture section of the book being longer, as I found I wanted to know more about the way the Pirahã people live. Also, as other reviewers have mentioned, it would have been interesting to hear Dan's family's experience.
Also, considering on the blurb it specifically mentioned that he lost his faith as a result of learning more about Pirahã culture, I was expecting there to be more about that in the book as well.
"The best account of the origin and nature of language is more complex than any simple dichotomy."
I couldn't agree more, and as this book moved from the personal to the philosophical and the linguistic, I found myself agreeing more and more with Everett's cultural interpretations of the language systems he encountered among the Pirahas.
Especially exciting for the linguistics nerd are 1.) his concept of culturally imposed limits on grammar systems, especially the IEP and its restriction against recursion. 2.) His attack on Chomsky's Universal Grammar. 3.) The implications discussed of esoteric and exoteric communication systems, and their impact on culture, cognition, and grammar. (and vice versa)
Nevertheless, there was plenty here to make me uncomfortable. What was the purpose of the one-sided personal narratives about himself, his family, and his faith? Mentioning key figures such as his wife and children but declining to include any of their first hand experiences, impressions, and opinions made for a very one-sided and biased sounding narrative. Talking about his loss of faith and his rejection of missionary philosophy felt incredibly manipulative. I continuously got the impression that I was supposed to respect him more, trust him more, because he had come to reject Christian mores. It felt like his change of mind was being offered as credentials to prove his ability to think critically. (or maybe to prove just how sincere and influential the Piraha's culture could be? "Everett was so impressed with their peaceful way of life that he eventually lost faith in the God he'd hoped to introduce to them." Well, gosh, if that isn't proof I don't know what is!) Also, it doesn't hurt to point out that abandoning a judgmental and prejudiced cultural practice doesn't exclude you from being judgmental and prejudiced in other cross-cultural interactions. There is no carte blanche on prejudice, no matter how subtle.
His experiences are thrilling, his cultural immersion fascinating, and his theories groundbreaking, (and his love of the Pirahas culture and people is warm, honest, and indisputable) but his inclusion of personal religious beliefs felt stagey and detracted from my experience of what turned out to be hugely engaging and fascinating research and theory.
I couldn't agree more, and as this book moved from the personal to the philosophical and the linguistic, I found myself agreeing more and more with Everett's cultural interpretations of the language systems he encountered among the Pirahas.
Especially exciting for the linguistics nerd are 1.) his concept of culturally imposed limits on grammar systems, especially the IEP and its restriction against recursion. 2.) His attack on Chomsky's Universal Grammar. 3.) The implications discussed of esoteric and exoteric communication systems, and their impact on culture, cognition, and grammar. (and vice versa)
Nevertheless, there was plenty here to make me uncomfortable. What was the purpose of the one-sided personal narratives about himself, his family, and his faith? Mentioning key figures such as his wife and children but declining to include any of their first hand experiences, impressions, and opinions made for a very one-sided and biased sounding narrative. Talking about his loss of faith and his rejection of missionary philosophy felt incredibly manipulative. I continuously got the impression that I was supposed to respect him more, trust him more, because he had come to reject Christian mores. It felt like his change of mind was being offered as credentials to prove his ability to think critically. (or maybe to prove just how sincere and influential the Piraha's culture could be? "Everett was so impressed with their peaceful way of life that he eventually lost faith in the God he'd hoped to introduce to them." Well, gosh, if that isn't proof I don't know what is!) Also, it doesn't hurt to point out that abandoning a judgmental and prejudiced cultural practice doesn't exclude you from being judgmental and prejudiced in other cross-cultural interactions. There is no carte blanche on prejudice, no matter how subtle.
His experiences are thrilling, his cultural immersion fascinating, and his theories groundbreaking, (and his love of the Pirahas culture and people is warm, honest, and indisputable) but his inclusion of personal religious beliefs felt stagey and detracted from my experience of what turned out to be hugely engaging and fascinating research and theory.