How Persistent are Grammatical Gender Effects? The Case of German and Tamil

Does the language we speak shape the way we think? The present research concentrated on the impact of grammatical gender on cognition and examined the persistence of the grammatical gender effect by (a) concentrating on German, a three-gendered language, for which previous results have been inconsistent, (b) statistically controlling for common alternative explanations, (c) employing three tasks that differed in how closely they are associated with grammatical gender, and (d) using Tamil, a nongendered language, as a baseline for comparison. We found a substantial grammatical gender effect for two commonly used tasks, even when alternative explanations were statistically controlled for. However, there was basically no effect for a task that was only very loosely connected to grammatical gender (similarity rating of word pairs). In contrast to previous studies that found effects of the German and Spanish grammatical gender in English (a nongendered language), our study did not produce such effects for Tamil, again after controlling for alternative explanations, which can be taken as additional evidence for the existence of a purely linguistic grammatical gender effect. These results indicate that general grammatical gender effects exist but that the size of these effects may be limited and their range restricted.

[1]  Steven A. Sloman,et al.  Speaking versus thinking about objects and actions , 2003 .

[2]  L. Boroditsky.  Does Language Shape Thought?: Mandarin and English Speakers' Conceptions of Time , 2001, Cognitive Psychology.

[3]  David Barner,et al.  Language, thought, and real nouns , 2009, Cognition.

[4]  Jacob Cohen,et al.  Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences , 1979 .

[5]  M. Shatz,et al.  Linguistic influences on categorization in preschool children: a crosslinguistic study , 1996, Journal of Child Language.

[6]  David P Vinson,et al.  Investigating linguistic relativity through bilingualism: the case of grammatical gender. , 2008, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[7]  T. Konishi,et al.  The semantics of grammatical gender: A cross-cultural study , 1993, Journal of psycholinguistic research.

[8]  Mario A. Pei,et al.  Language, Thought and Reality: Selected Writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf , 1957 .

[9]  Lauren A. Schmidt,et al.  Sex, syntax and semantics. , 2003 .

[10]  R. J. Terrell,et al.  The role of speech in the regulation of normal and abnormal behavior , 1960 .

[11]  Jenn-Yeu Chen,et al.  Do Chinese and English speakers think about time differently? Failure of replicating Boroditsky (2001) , 2007, Cognition.

[12]  J. Mill.  A System of Logic , 1843 .

[13]  E. Lenneberg,et al.  A study in language and cognition. , 1954, Journal of abnormal psychology.

[14]  T. Newcomb,et al.  Readings in Social Psychology , 1948, Teachers College Record.

[15]  S. Levinson.  Frames of reference and Molyneux's question: Cross-linguistic evidence , 1996 .

[16]  Reinhard Rapp,et al.  Free Word Associations Correspond to Contiguities Between Words in Texts* , 2005, J. Quant. Linguistics.

[17]  Max Brockman,et al.  What's Next?: Dispatches on the Future of Science , 2009 .

[18]  J. Hox.  Multilevel analysis: Techniques and applications, 2nd ed. , 2010 .

[19]  Maria D. Sera,et al.  Grammatical and conceptual forces in the attribution of gender by English and Spanish speakers , 1994 .

[20]  Jeffrey L. Elman,et al.  Finding Structure in Time , 1990, Cogn. Sci..

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

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

[23]  G. Deutscher,et al.  Through the language glass: how words colour your world , 2010 .

[24]  G. Altmann.  Science and Linguistics , 1993 .

[25]  B. Fagot,et al.  Bears Are for Boys: Metaphorical Associations in Young Children's Gender Stereotypes. , 1997 .

[26]  S. Levinson,et al.  LANGUAGE AND SPACE , 1996 .

[27]  J. Bjekić,et al.  Grammatical Gender and Mental Representation of Object: The Case of Musical Instruments , 2015, Journal of psycholinguistic research.

[28]  Lera Boroditsky,et al.  Linguistic Relativity , 2022 .

[29]  K. Miller,et al.  Preschool Origins of Cross-National Differences in Mathematical Competence: The Role of Number-Naming Systems , 1995 .

[30]  E. Spelke,et al.  Perception, ontology, and word meaning , 1992, Cognition.

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

[32]  E. Spelke,et al.  Sources of mathematical thinking: behavioral and brain-imaging evidence. , 1999, Science.

[33]  Harold F. Schiffman,et al.  A Reference Grammar of Spoken Tamil , 1983 .

[34]  P. Sedlmeier,et al.  Forschungsmethoden und Statistik für Psychologen und Sozialwissenschaftler , 2013 .

[35]  S. Ervin.  The Connotations of Gender , 1962 .

[36]  J. Fodor.  The Modularity of mind. An essay on faculty psychology , 1986 .

[37]  Y. Takano.  Methodological problems in cross-cultural studies of linguistic relativity , 1989, Cognition.

[38]  Lynn Nadel,et al.  Encyclopedia of Cognitive Science , 2003 .

[39]  M. Mullen.  Children's classifications of nature and artifact pictures into female and male categories , 1990 .

[40]  Bernard Comrie,et al.  The World's Major Languages , 1987 .

[41]  Sabine C. Koch,et al.  El sol - die Sonne , 2007 .

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

[43]  Thomas Lehmann,et al.  A grammar of modern Tamil , 1993 .

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

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

[46]  E. R. Heider.  Universals in color naming and memory. , 1972, Journal of experimental psychology.

[47]  H. Furth,et al.  Thinking without language: by Hans G. Furth, Journal of Communication Disorders , 1968 .

[48]  Annette Karmiloff-Smith,et al.  A Functional Approach to Child Language: A Study of Determiners and Reference , 1979 .

[49]  M. Bowerman.  The origins of children's spatial semantic categories: Cognitive vs. linguistic determinants , 1996 .

[50]  Jacob Cohen,et al.  A power primer. , 1992, Psychological bulletin.

[51]  Edward Kako,et al.  Re-evaluating evidence for linguistic relativity: Reply to Boroditsky (2001) , 2007, Cognition.

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

[53]  T. Landauer,et al.  A Solution to Plato's Problem: The Latent Semantic Analysis Theory of Acquisition, Induction, and Representation of Knowledge. , 1997 .

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

[55]  Sanford B. Steever.  Tamil and the Dravidian languages , 2008 .

[56]  C. Gallistel,et al.  The Child's Understanding of Number , 1979 .

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

[58]  Yuk Fai Cheong,et al.  HLM 6: Hierarchical Linear and Nonlinear Modeling , 2000 .

[59]  M. Sera,et al.  When language affects cognition and when it does not: an analysis of grammatical gender and classification. , 2002, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[60]  Marc Brysbaert,et al.  The Whorfian hypothesis and numerical cognition: is `twenty-four' processed in the same way as `four-and-twenty'? , 1998, Cognition.

[61]  The Tamil Case System , 2003 .

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

[63]  Timothy J. Robinson,et al.  Multilevel Analysis: Techniques and Applications , 2002 .