Does the grammatical count/mass distinction affect semantic representations? Evidence from experiments in English and Japanese

We investigate linguistic relativity effects by examining whether the grammatical count/mass distinction in English affects English speakers' semantic representations of noun referents, as compared with those of Japanese speakers, whose language does not grammatically distinguish nouns for countability. We used two tasks which are sensitive to semantic similarity, error induction in picture naming and similarity judgements, upon nouns referring to food items (English words and their translation equivalents in Japanese), and contrasted English speakers' performance to that of Japanese speakers. Results reveal that speakers of both languages are highly sensitive to semantic correlates of the English count/mass distinction, suggesting that the grammatical count/mass distinction in English does not affect English speakers' semantic representations in a language-specific manner, contrary to predictions of linguistic relativity theories, in which this grammatical property should exert language-specific effects on English speakers' semantic representations while they are engaged in language tasks.

[1]  Cynthia L Fisher,et al.  Structure and meaning in the verb lexicon: Input for a syntax-aided verb learning procedure , 1994 .

[2]  Anna Wierzbicka The semantics of grammar , 1988 .

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

[4]  Tom Coultate,et al.  Food: The Definitive Guide , 1994 .

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

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

[7]  Richard Lehrer,et al.  Lexical Retrieval Processes: Semantic Field Effects , 2012 .

[8]  A. Papafragou RELATIONS BETWEEN LANGUAGE AND THOUGHT: INDIVIDUATION AND THE COUNT/MASS DISTINCTION , 2005 .

[9]  Panos Athanasopoulos,et al.  Effects of the grammatical representation of number on cognition in bilinguals , 2006, Bilingualism: Language and Cognition.

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

[11]  Cynthia Fisher,et al.  On the semantic content of subcategorization frames , 1991, Cognitive Psychology.

[12]  Gillian Kay,et al.  English loanwords in Japanese , 1995 .

[13]  C. L. Baker,et al.  The Logical problem of language acquisition , 1984 .

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

[15]  Yuko Goto Butler,et al.  SECOND LANGUAGE LEARNERS' THEORIES ON THE USE OF ENGLISH ARTICLES , 2002, Studies in Second Language Acquisition.

[16]  H. H. Clark Speech errors as linguistic evidence. , 1975 .

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

[18]  L. Gleitman,et al.  Language and Experience: Evidence from the Blind Child , 1988 .

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

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

[21]  D. Slobin Verbalized events: A dynamic approach to linguistic relativity and determinism , 2000 .

[22]  P. Bloom,et al.  Semantic structure and language development , 1990 .

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

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

[25]  P Garrard,et al.  Dissociation of Lexical Syntax and Semantics: Evidence from Focal Cortical Degeneration , 2004, Neurocase.

[26]  James Stanlaw,et al.  Japanese English: Language and Culture Contact , 2004 .

[27]  郑有志 谈谈A Grammar of Contemporary English对于分句与句子问题的若干处理 , 1993 .

[28]  L. Gleitman,et al.  Hard Words , 2005, Sentence First, Arguments Afterward.

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

[30]  A. Newman,et al.  How the mass counts: An electrophysiological approach to the processing of lexical features , 2001, Neuroreport.

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

[32]  Peter Master A cross-linguistic interlanguage analysis of the acquisition of the English article system , 1987 .

[33]  A. Wierzbicka “oats” and “wheat”: the fallacy of arbitrariness , 1985 .

[34]  Edward J. Wisniewski,et al.  On the conceptual basis for the count and mass noun distinction , 2003 .

[35]  Vivian Cook,et al.  Do bilinguals have different concepts? The case of shape and material in Japanese L2 users of English , 2006 .

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

[37]  A K Romney,et al.  Cultural universals: measuring the semantic structure of emotion terms in English and Japanese. , 1997, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[38]  Yo Matsumoto The Japanese Classifier -ken and -Mune : A Prototype and Background of Existence , 1988 .

[39]  YO MATSUMOTO Japanese numeral classifiers: a study of semantic categories and lexical organization , 1993 .

[40]  M. Garrett,et al.  Representing the meanings of object and action words: The featural and unitary semantic space hypothesis , 2004, Cognitive Psychology.

[41]  Merrill F. Garrett,et al.  The organization of processing structure for language production: Applications to aphasic speech , 1984 .

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

[43]  F. Keil,et al.  Thinking Through Language , 2001 .

[44]  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 .

[45]  Steven Pinker,et al.  Language learnability and language development , 1985 .

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