The last time I looked this up, all results on the Piraha language are due to a single anthropologist, Daniel Everett. There’s been some debate in the literature about whether or not he was actually correct about their innumeracy; see the “Further Reading” section on the wikipedia page for some examples.
On the object level, your belief-as-stated is not conclusively known. Everett sub 1986 believed that there were words for “one”, “two” and “many”; this belief was updated in 2008 when one speaker in an n=4 study used the word for “one” when there were six things presented to them.
On the meta-level, none of Everett’s results (as far as I know) have been replicated by an independent anthropologist, which means that your belief-as-stated has one point of failure. Given the surprising nature of his results, we should demand strong evidence that his results are true and not due to, e.g., cultural/linguistic misunderstandings. In fact, the linguistics community has indeed questioned the data closely.
No. The Pirahã, for example, have no concept of exact numbers, only of smaller and larger amounts.
The last time I looked this up, all results on the Piraha language are due to a single anthropologist, Daniel Everett. There’s been some debate in the literature about whether or not he was actually correct about their innumeracy; see the “Further Reading” section on the wikipedia page for some examples.
I see nothing there that contradicts what I said, but it does seem most of the links are dead.
On the object level, your belief-as-stated is not conclusively known. Everett sub 1986 believed that there were words for “one”, “two” and “many”; this belief was updated in 2008 when one speaker in an n=4 study used the word for “one” when there were six things presented to them.
On the meta-level, none of Everett’s results (as far as I know) have been replicated by an independent anthropologist, which means that your belief-as-stated has one point of failure. Given the surprising nature of his results, we should demand strong evidence that his results are true and not due to, e.g., cultural/linguistic misunderstandings. In fact, the linguistics community has indeed questioned the data closely.