Do bilinguals have different concepts? The case of shape and material in Japanese L2 users of English

An experiment investigated whether Japanese speakers' categorization of objects and substances by shape or material is influenced by acquiring English. Based on Imai and Gentner (1997), subjects were presented with an item such as a cork pyramid and asked to choose between two other items that matched it for shape (plastic pyramid) or for material (piece of cork). The hypotheses were that for simple objects the number of shape-based categorizations would increase according to experience of English and that the preference for shape- and material-based categorizations of Japanese speakers of English would differ from monolingual speakers of both languages. Subjects were 18 adult Japanese users of English who had lived in English-speaking countries between six months and three years (short-stay group), and 18 who had lived in English-speaking countries for three years or more (long-stay group). Both groups achieved above criterion on an English vocabulary test. Results were: both groups preferred material responses for simple objects and substances but not for complex objects, in line with Japanese monolinguals, but the long-stay group showed more shape preference than the short-stay group and also were less different from American monolinguals. These effects of acquiring a second language on categorization have implications for conceptual representation and methodology.

[1]  Vivian Cook,et al.  Chapter 1. Introduction: The Changing L1 in the L2 User’s Mind , 2003 .

[2]  Learning to Learn Words : A Cross-Linguistic Study of the Shape and Material Biases , 1999 .

[3]  A. Pavlenko 11. Poststructuralist Approaches to the Study of Social Factors in Second Language Learning and Use , 2002 .

[4]  Willem J. M. Levelt,et al.  A theory of lexical access in speech production , 1999, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[5]  Stephen C. Levinson,et al.  Relativity in spatial conception and description , 1996 .

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

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

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

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

[10]  D. Bickerton The roots of language , 2016 .

[11]  F. Grosjean Studying bilinguals: Methodological and conceptual issues , 1998, Bilingualism: Language and Cognition.

[12]  H. Sinclair Acquisition du langage et développement de la pensée : sous-systèmes linguistiques et opérations concrètes , 2020 .

[13]  Universal ontological knowledge and a bias toward language-specific categories in the construal of individuation , 2000 .

[14]  Lyle Campbell The History of Linguistics , 2008 .

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

[16]  S. Levinson,et al.  Returning the tables: language affects spatial reasoning , 2002, Cognition.

[17]  P. Nelde Languages in contact , 1990 .

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

[19]  W. Levelt,et al.  Speaking: From Intention to Articulation , 1990 .

[20]  Phillip Rowles Teaching and Learning Vocabulary , 2003 .

[21]  J. Davidoff,et al.  Colour categories in a stone-age tribe , 1999, Nature.

[22]  D. Slobin LANGUAGE AND THOUGHT ONLINE: COGNITIVE CONSEQUENCES OF LINGUISTIC RELATIVITY , 2003 .

[23]  G. Yelland,et al.  The metalinguistic benefits of limited contact with a second language , 1993, Applied Psycholinguistics.

[24]  D. Campbell,et al.  The influence of culture on visual perception , 1967 .

[25]  A. Meillet L'évolution des formes grammaticales , 1912 .

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

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

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