Language, thought, and real nouns

We test the claim that acquiring a mass-count language, like English, causes speakers to think differently about entities in the world, relative to speakers of classifier languages like Japanese. We use three tasks to assess this claim: object-substance rating, quantity judgment, and word extension. Using the first two tasks, we present evidence that learning mass-count syntax has little effect on the interpretation of familiar nouns between Japanese and English, and that speakers of these languages do not divide up referents differently along an individuation continuum, as claimed in some previous reports [Gentner, D., & Boroditsky, L. (2001). Individuation, relativity, and early word learning. In M. Bowerman, & S. Levinson (Eds.), Language acquisition and conceptual development (pp. 215-256). Cambridge University Press]. Instead, we argue that previous cross-linguistic differences [Imai, M., & Gentner, D. (1997). A cross-linguistic study of early word meaning: Universal ontology and linguistic influence. Cognition, 62, 169-200] are attributable to "lexical statistics" [Gleitman, L., & Papafragou, A. (2005). Language and thought. In K. Holyoak, & R. Morrison (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 633-661). Cambridge University Press]. Speakers of English are more likely to think that a novel ambiguous expression like "the blicket" refers to a kind of object (relative to speakers of Japanese) because speakers of English are likely to assume that "blicket" is a count noun rather than a mass noun, based on the relative frequency of each kind of word in English. This is confirmed by testing Mandarin-English bilinguals with a word extension task. We find that bilinguals tested in English with mass-count ambiguous syntax extend novel words like English monolinguals (and assume that a word like "blicket" refers to a kind of object). In contrast, bilinguals tested in Mandarin are significantly more likely to extend novel words by material. Thus, online lexical statistics, rather than non-linguistic thought, mediate cross-linguistic differences in word extension. We suggest that speakers of Mandarin, English, and Japanese draw on a universal set of lexical meanings, and that mass-count syntax allows speakers of English to select among these meanings.

[1]  Linda B. Smith,et al.  The importance of shape in early lexical learning , 1988 .

[2]  James D. McCawley,et al.  Adverbs, Vowels, and Other Objects of Wonder , 1979 .

[3]  R. Brown,et al.  A First Language , 1973 .

[4]  David Barner,et al.  The Interpretation of Functional Heads: Using Comparatives to Explore the Mass/Count Distinction , 2009, J. Semant..

[5]  Linda B. Smith,et al.  Linguistic Cues Enhance the Learning of Perceptual Cues , 2005, Psychological science.

[6]  Linda B. Smith,et al.  From the lexicon to expectations about kinds: a role for associative learning. , 2005, Psychological review.

[7]  Ernest Lepore,et al.  The compositionality papers , 2002 .

[8]  Willard Van Orman Quine,et al.  Word and Object , 1960 .

[9]  David Parkin,et al.  Language, Culture and Communication , 1972 .

[10]  J. Lucy,et al.  Grammatical categories and cognition: References , 1992 .

[11]  Gottlob Frege,et al.  Collected Papers on Mathematics, Logic, and Philosophy , 1991 .

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

[13]  Justin Halberda,et al.  Acquisition of English Number Marking: The Singular-Plural Distinction , 2006 .

[14]  David Barner,et al.  Finding one’s meaning: A test of the relation between quantifiers and integers in language development , 2009, Cognitive Psychology.

[15]  David Barner,et al.  On the relation between the acquisition of singular-plural morpho-syntax and the conceptual distinction between one and more than one. , 2007, Developmental science.

[16]  K. Allan,et al.  Nouns and Countability , 1980 .

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

[18]  L. Gleitman,et al.  Language and thought , 2005 .

[19]  Brendan S. Gillon,et al.  The Lexical Semantics of English Count and Mass Nouns , 1999 .

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

[21]  James D. McCawley,et al.  Lexicography and the Count-mass Distinction , 1975 .

[22]  Linda B. Smith,et al.  Syntactic context and the shape bias in children's and adults' lexical learning , 1992 .

[23]  Linda B. Smith,et al.  Early noun vocabularies: do ontology, category structure and syntax correspond? , 1999, Cognition.

[24]  Mutsumi Imai,et al.  Children's Theories of Word Meaning: The Role of Shape Similarity in Early Acquisition , 1994 .

[25]  D. Gentner,et al.  A cross-linguistic study of early word meaning: universal ontology and linguistic influence , 1997, Cognition.

[26]  Evelyne Viegas,et al.  Breadth and depth of semantic lexicons , 1999 .

[27]  J. Lucy,et al.  Language acquisition and conceptual development: Grammatical categories and the development of classification preferences: a comparative approach , 2001 .

[28]  Carolyn B. Mervis,et al.  Acquisition of the plural morpheme : a case study , 1991 .

[29]  David Barner,et al.  Events and the ontology of individuals: Verbs as a source of individuating mass and count nouns , 2008, Cognition.

[30]  V. Gathercole,et al.  ‘He has too much hard questions’: the acquisition of the linguistic mass–count distinction in much and many , 1985, Journal of Child Language.

[31]  Max Black,et al.  On concept and object , 1892 .

[32]  H. Borer In name only , 2005 .

[33]  Mutsumi Imai,et al.  Re-evaluating linguistic relativity: Language-specific categories and the role of universal ontological knowledge in the construal of individuation , 2003 .

[34]  M. Tomasello,et al.  Variability in early communicative development. , 1994, Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development.

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

[36]  J. Snedeker,et al.  Quantity judgments and individuation: evidence that mass nouns count , 2005, Cognition.

[37]  David Barner,et al.  Classifiers as Count Syntax: Individuation and Measurement in the Acquisition of Mandarin Chinese , 2008, Language learning and development : the official journal of the Society for Language Development.

[38]  David Barner,et al.  Children's Early Understanding of Mass-Count Syntax: Individuation, Lexical Content, and the Number Asymmetry Hypothesis , 2006 .

[39]  C. Cazden The acquisition of noun and verb inflections. , 1968, Child development.

[40]  Linda B. Smith,et al.  Object Shape, Object Function, and Object Name , 1998 .

[41]  B. Partee Lexical semantics and compositionality. , 1995 .

[42]  Brendan S. Gillon,et al.  Towards a common semantics for english count and mass nouns , 1992 .

[43]  G. Chierchia,et al.  Reference to Kinds across Language , 1998 .

[44]  Suzanne Gaskins,et al.  Interaction of language type and referent type in the development of nonverbal classification preferences , 2003 .

[45]  S. Levinson,et al.  Language Acquisition and Conceptual Development , 2001 .

[46]  Bernard Comrie,et al.  Language Universals and Linguistic Typology: Syntax and Morphology , 1981 .

[47]  E. Spelke,et al.  Ontological categories guide young children's inductions of word meaning: Object terms and substance terms , 1991, Cognition.

[48]  Peggy Li,et al.  Of substance: The nature of language effects on entity construal , 2009, Cognitive Psychology.

[49]  D. Gentner,et al.  Language acquisition and conceptual development: Individuation, relativity, and early word learning , 2001 .

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

[51]  V. Gathercole,et al.  Function as a criterion for the extension of new words. , 2001, Journal of child language.