Passage - General Questions

[Administrator]

Passage Discussion

VIEWSTAMP Analysis:


This explanation is still in progress. Please post any questions below!

[Shonan]

I have some difficulty understanding the last paragraph of Passage B.

The beginning of the second paragraph says the possession of the concept of number is not related to the possession of number words, and it is a language-independent view(non-Whorfian).

Then the author states another observation (which I think is also a part of the studies involving Pand M)and suggests this study can have multiple understandings? in other words, can this study be used to support both Whorifian theory and non-Whorifian theory? I'm not sure.

Another confusion is the last sentence. The non-Whorifian theory is learning number words directs attention to a concept of exact numerical equality. I think "direct attention to" means "to focus" or "to notice". It seems that concerning the development of the concept of exact numerical equality, language did help. Whorifian uses the word"create", while non-whorifian uses the word "direct attention to". I see them are more similar rather than totally different theories.

Thanks in advance!

[Jeremy Press]

Hi Shonan,

Good observations and questions!

There are two different things going on in the last paragraph of Passage B. First, when it comes to the issue of "approximate numerical magnitude" (being able to grasp, for example, that 9 is roughly much closer to 10 than to 1), the author of passage B admits that the studies support a non-Whorfian hypothesis. The subjects of the study have a concept of approximate numerical magnitude that compares favorably to numerate subjects, which suggests that the concept was not created by language.

The end of the paragraph, though, introduces some complexity into what we learn from the study by shifting focus to the issue of "exact numerical equality." On this issue (which is a different issue from approximate numerical magnitude), the numerate and innumerate subjects differ. The numerate subjects have a concept that 2+2 equals exactly 4, whereas the Piraha and Munduruku subjects do not have that concept (some of them think, for example, that 6-3 can equal 2). For this particular issue, the author of passage B admits that a strong, weak, or even non-Whorfian hypothesis might explain the result. This means that the study overall is indeterminate. The study gives some support to a non-Whorfian hypothesis on the issue of approximate numerical magnitude, but it is indeterminate with respect to the issue of exact numerical equality.

You're right that there's some subtlety in the author of passage B's articulation of the meaning of "strong Whorfian" versus "non-Whorfian." We don't need to get into those details (and none of the questions in this passage set asks about them). For purposes of answering questions, what you need to know is that the author thinks strong Whorfian means learning the words creates the concept and non-Whorfian means learning the words directs attention to the concept. Don't get too hung up on a perfect understanding of the nuance there. Just use the labels as your guide to any questions that might be asked about it (in this case, you'll come out fine because there aren't any!).

[menkenj]

This was a beast way to end the entire exam.