The relation between linguistic categories and cognition: The case of numeral classifiers

The classifier grammar system categorises things in the world in a way that is drastically different from the way nouns do. Previous research revealed amplified similarity among objects belonging to the same classifier category in Chinese speakers, but how this amplified classifier similarity effect arises was still an open question. The present research was conducted to address this question. For this purpose, we compared speakers of Chinese, Japanese (classifier languages), and German (nonclassifier language) on a range of cognitive tasks including similarity judgements, property induction, and fast-speed word-picture matching. Although Chinese and Japanese classifier systems are similar in their semantic structures, classifier classes for nouns are marked more systematically in Chinese than in Japanese. The amplified classifier similarity effect was found in Chinese but not in Japanese speakers. We explore the nature of the amplified classifier similarity effect and propose an explanation for how it may arise.

[1]  W. Bruce Croft.  Typology and Universals , 1990 .

[2]  B. Meek.  Rethinking Linguistic Relativity , 1998 .

[3]  Gunter Senft.  Classificatory particles in Kilivila , 1995 .

[4]  David A. Zubin,et al.  Gender and Folk Taxonomy: The Indexical Relation Between Grammatical and Lexical Categorization , 1986 .

[5]  Noam Chomsky.  Language and thought , 1993 .

[6]  D. Krantz,et al.  The use of statistical heuristics in everyday inductive reasoning , 1983 .

[7]  Willem J. M. Levelt,et al.  The interplay between meaning and syntax in language production , 2004 .

[8]  P. Wolff,et al.  Words and the Mind , 2010 .

[9]  G. Murphy,et al.  The Big Book of Concepts , 2002 .

[10]  P. Wolff,et al.  Words and the mind : how words capture human experience , 2010 .

[11]  S. Levinson,et al.  Opinion TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences Vol.8 No.3 March 2004 Can language restructure cognition? The case for space , 2022 .

[12]  E. Hunt,et al.  The Whorfian Hypothesis: A Cognitive Psychology Perspective , 1991 .

[13]  Susan Ervin-Tripp,et al.  Language Acquisition and Conceptual Development. , 2004 .

[14]  David P Vinson,et al.  Role of grammatical gender and semantics in German word production. , 2004, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[15]  Lera Boroditsky,et al.  Do English and Mandarin Speakers Think Differently About Time , 2008 .

[16]  Reiko Mazuka,et al.  Linguistic Relativity in Japanese and English: Is Language the Primary Determinant in Object Classification? , 2000 .

[17]  Silvia P. Gennari,et al.  Talking About Walking , 2008, Psychological science.

[18]  Bernd H. Schmitt,et al.  Language-dependent classification: The mental representation of classifiers in cognition, memory, and ad evaluations , 1998 .

[19]  David A. Zubin,et al.  Gender and Folk Taxonomy , 1986 .

[20]  Yu Matsumoto,et al.  Acquisition of Some Japanese Numeral Classifiers: The Search for Convention. , 1985 .

[21]  P. Kay,et al.  Language, thought, and color: Whorf was half right , 2009, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[22]  L. Gleitman,et al.  Turning the tables: language and spatial reasoning , 2002, Cognition.

[23]  Colette G. Craig.  Jacaltec Noun Classifiers: A Study in Language and Culture , 1986 .

[24]  P. Kay,et al.  1 Language and thought : Which side are you on , anyway ? , 2008 .

[25]  L. Boroditsky,et al.  Do English and Mandarin speakers think about time differently? , 2011, Cognition.

[26]  Silvia P. Gennari,et al.  Knowing versus Naming: Similarity and the Linguistic Categorization of Artifacts , 1999 .

[27]  B. Malt,et al.  Mental representation and cognitive consequences of Chinese individual classifiers , 2009 .

[28]  Mutsurni Irnai,et al.  A cross-linguistic study of early word meaning : universal ontology and linguistic influence , 1994 .

[29]  Z. Ye,et al.  Semantic integration processes at different levels of syntactic hierarchy during sentence comprehension: An ERP study , 2010, Neuropsychologia.

[30]  Pamela A. Downing.  Numeral Classifier Systems: The Case of Japanese , 1996 .

[31]  A. Majid.  Words for parts of the body , 2010 .

[32]  M. Imai,et al.  Scope of linguistic influence: does a classifier system alter object concepts? , 2007, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[33]  J. PETER DENNY,et al.  Semantic analysis of selected Japanese numeral classifiers for units , 1979 .

[34]  William Croft,et al.  Semantic universals in classifier systems , 1994 .

[35]  G. Vigliocco,et al.  Grammatical gender effects on cognition: implications for language learning and language use. , 2005, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[36]  J. Lucy.  Language Diversity and Thought: A Reformulation of the Linguistic Relativity Hypothesis , 1992 .

[37]  G. Lakoff.  Women, fire, and dangerous things : what categories reveal about the mind , 1989 .

[38]  J. G. Snodgrass,et al.  A standardized set of 260 pictures: norms for name agreement, image agreement, familiarity, and visual complexity. , 1980, Journal of experimental psychology. Human learning and memory.

[39]  Miriam Van Staden,et al.  The semantic categories of cutting and breaking events: A crosslinguistic perspective , 2007 .

[40]  Mutsumi Imai,et al.  Are Chinese and German Children Taxonomic, Thematic, or Shape Biased? Influence of Classifiers and Cultural Contexts , 2010, Front. Psychology.

[41]  Mutsumi Imai,et al.  Language-Relative Construal of Individuation Constrained by Universal Ontology: Revisiting Language Universals and Linguistic Relativity , 2007, Cogn. Sci..

[42]  J. Davidoff,et al.  Color categories: Evidence for the cultural relativity hypothesis , 2005, Cognitive Psychology.

[43]  Terry Malone,et al.  Reviews 2004-005 Classifiers : A typology of noun classification devices , 2013 .

[44]  Dorota Garczarczyk,et al.  Keeping track of motion events in translation. A case of Spanish translation of J.K. Rowling’s Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets , 2012 .

[45]  Debi Roberson,et al.  Relatively Speaking: An Account of the Relationship between Language and Thought in the Color Domain , 2010 .

[46]  S. Levinson,et al.  Rethinking Linguistic Relativity , 1991, Current Anthropology.

[47]  Mutsumi Imai,et al.  Revisiting language universals and linguistic relativity: Language-relative construal of individuation constrained by universal ontology , 2007 .

[48]  C. Craig.  Noun classes and categorization , 1986 .

[49]  P. Kay,et al.  Language, thought and color: recent developments , 2006, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[50]  G. Lakoff,et al.  Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind , 1988 .

[51]  Asifa Majid,et al.  Do language-specific categories shape conceptual processing? Mandarin classifier distinctions influence eye gaze behavior, but only during linguistic processing , 2010 .

[52]  M. Erbaugh.  Taking Stock: The Development of Chinese Noun Classifiers Historically and in Young Children , 1986 .

[53]  Gunter Senft,et al.  What do we really know about nominal classification systems , 2000 .

[54]  D. Gentner,et al.  Language in Mind: Advances in the Study of Language and Thought , 2003 .

[55]  William B Estes,et al.  Similarity , Frequency , and Category Representations , 1988 .

[56]  Anthony S. Bryk,et al.  Hierarchical Linear Models: Applications and Data Analysis Methods , 1992 .