Number Meaning and Number Grammar in English and Spanish.

Grammatical agreement makes different demands on speakers of different languages. Being widespread in the languages of the world, the features of agreement systems offer valuable tests of how language affects deep-seated domains of human cognition and categorization. Number agreement is one such domain, with intriguing evidence that typological characteristics of number morphology are associated with differences in sensitivity to number distinctions. The evidence comes from research on language production that points to the morphological richness of languages as enhancing the expression of number distinctions. To critically test this hypothesis, native speakers of a sparse-morphology language (English) were compared with native speakers of a rich-morphology language (Spanish) in their use of semantically and grammatically motivated number agreement. With meaning-matched materials, speakers of both languages displayed significant variations in number agreement due to implicit nuances of number semantics, and the patterns and magnitudes of interaction with grammatical number were the same for both groups. In this important respect, speakers of English and Spanish appear to construe numerosity in similar ways, despite the substantial morphological and syntactic differences in their languages. The results challenge arguments that language variations can shape the apprehension of nonlinguistic number or promote differential expression of number meaning during the production of grammatical agreement.

[1]  William F. Brewer,et al.  Memory for goal-directed events , 1980, Cognitive Psychology.

[2]  Eleanor Rosch Heider,et al.  The structure of the color space in naming and memory for two languages , 1972 .

[3]  Brian Butterworth,et al.  Constructing Subject-Verb Agreement in Speech: The Role of Semantic and Morphological Factors , 1995 .

[4]  John D. Bransford,et al.  The abstraction of linguistic ideas , 1971 .

[5]  David P. Vinson,et al.  Does the grammatical count/mass distinction affect semantic representations? Evidence from experiments in English and Japanese , 2010 .

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

[7]  Terry Kit-fong Au.  Counterfactuals: In reply to Alfred Bloom , 1984, Cognition.

[8]  E. Spelke,et al.  Language and Conceptual Development series Core systems of number , 2004 .

[9]  P. Kay,et al.  Basic Color Terms: Their Universality and Evolution , 1973 .

[10]  Kathryn Bock,et al.  The role of morphology in subject–verb number agreement: A comparison of Mexican and Dominican Spanish , 2012 .

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

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

[13]  A. Paivio,et al.  Concreteness, imagery, and meaningfulness values for 925 nouns. , 1968, Journal of experimental psychology.

[14]  Robert J. Hartsuiker,et al.  The interplay of meaning, sound, and syntax in sentence production. , 2002 .

[15]  M. Potter,et al.  Regeneration in the short-term recall of sentences , 1990 .

[16]  David P. Vinson,et al.  Is "Count" and "Mass" Information Available When the Noun Is Not? An Investigation of Tip of the Tongue States and Anomia , 1999 .

[17]  A. Bloom,et al.  The Linguistic Shaping of Thought: A Study in the Impact of Language on Thinking in China and the West , 1981 .

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

[19]  Matthew Flatt,et al.  PsyScope: An interactive graphic system for designing and controlling experiments in the psychology laboratory using Macintosh computers , 1993 .

[20]  WILLIAM MARSLEN-WILSON,et al.  Linguistic Structure and Speech Shadowing at Very Short Latencies , 1973, Nature.

[21]  K. Bock,et al.  The Ties That Bind: Creating Number Agreement in Speech , 1999 .

[22]  Marcia K. Johnson,et al.  Contextual prerequisites for understanding: Some investigations of comprehension and recall , 1972 .

[23]  D. Slobin.  From “thought and language” to “thinking for speaking” , 1996 .

[24]  D. Slobin.  Thinking for Speaking , 1987 .

[25]  Brian Butterworth,et al.  Subject-verb agreement in Spanish and English: Differences in the role of conceptual constraints , 1996, Cognition.

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

[27]  Kathryn Bock,et al.  Agreement and attraction in Russian , 2008 .

[28]  Heidi Lorimor.  Conjunctions and Grammatical Agreement , 2007 .

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

[30]  R. Hartsuiker,et al.  The interplay of meaning, sound, and syntax in sentence production. , 2002, Psychological bulletin.

[31]  H. H. Clark.  The language-as-fixed-effect fallacy: A critique of language statistics in psychological research. , 1973 .

[32]  Roger S. Brown.  Reference in memorial tribute to Eric Lenneberg , 1976, Cognition.

[33]  Ivan A. Sag,et al.  Book Reviews: Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar and German in Head-driven Phrase-structure Grammar , 1996, CL.

[34]  J. Carroll,et al.  Language, Thought and Reality , 1957 .

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

[36]  J. Davidoff,et al.  Color categories are not universal: replications and new evidence from a stone-age culture. , 2000, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[37]  K. Bock,et al.  Producing number agreement: How pronouns equal verbs , 2004 .

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

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

[40]  Peggy Li,et al.  Words as Windows to Thought , 2010, Current directions in psychological science.

[41]  Kathryn Bock,et al.  Making syntax of sense: number agreement in sentence production. , 2005, Psychological review.

[42]  Matthew J. Rambert,et al.  Number Agreement in British and American English: Disagreeing to Agree Collectively , 2006 .

[43]  T. Berg.  The resolution of number conflicts in English and German agreement patterns , 1998 .

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

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

[46]  Kathleen M. Eberhard,et al.  The Accessibility of Conceptual Number to the Processes of Subject–Verb Agreement in English☆☆☆ , 1999 .

[47]  K. Bock,et al.  Broken agreement , 1991, Cognitive Psychology.

[48]  M. MacDonald,et al.  Conflicting cues and competition in subject-verb agreement , 2003 .

[49]  T. Au,et al.  Chinese and English counterfactuals: The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis revisited , 1983, Cognition.

[50]  K. Bock,et al.  Some Attractions of Verb Agreement , 2001, Cognitive Psychology.

[51]  K Bock,et al.  Language production: Methods and methodologies , 1996, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[52]  Kathryn Bock,et al.  Notional number agreement in English , 2005, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[53]  L. M. Mcpherson,et al.  A little goes a long way: evidence for a perceptual basis of learning for the noun categories COUNT and Mass , 1991, Journal of Child Language.

[54]  J. Carroll,et al.  The function of language classification in behavior , 1958 .

[55]  Mutsumi Imai,et al.  Separating the chaff from the oats: Evidence for a conceptual distinction between count noun and mass noun aggregates , 2004 .

[56]  P. Kay,et al.  Whorf hypothesis is supported in the right visual field but not the left. , 2006, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[57]  N. Soja.  Inferences about the meanings of nouns: The relationship between perception and syntax , 1992 .

[58]  Adrian Staub,et al.  Response time distributional evidence for distinct varieties of number attraction , 2010, Cognition.

[59]  Avital Deutsch,et al.  Conflicting Cues and Competition between Notional and Grammatical Factors in Producing Number and Gender Agreement: Evidence from Hebrew. , 2009 .

[60]  S. Engel.  Thought and Language , 1964 .

[61]  Robert J. Hartsuiker,et al.  One or more labels on the bottles? Notional concord in Dutch and French , 1996 .

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

[63]  Gary S. Dell,et al.  Inner speech slips exhibit lexical bias, but not the phonemic similarity effect , 2008, Cognition.

[64]  A. Staub.  On the interpretation of the number attraction effect: Response time evidence. , 2009, Journal of memory and language.

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

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

[67]  Judith N. Levi,et al.  Papers from the eighth Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society : April 14-16, 1972 , 1972 .