Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T06:00:24.691Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Language and thought in bilinguals: The case of grammatical number and nonverbal classification preferences

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2008

PANOS ATHANASOPOULOS  and
CHISE KASAI
PANOS ATHANASOPOULOS*
Affiliation:
University of Wales, Bangor
CHISE KASAI
Affiliation:
University of Gifu
*
ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE Panos Athanasopoulos, Department of Linguistics and English Language, University of Wales, Bangor, Bangor, Gwynedd LL57 2DG, UK. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Recent research shows that speakers of languages with obligatory plural marking (English) preferentially categorize objects based on common shape, whereas speakers of nonplural-marking classifier languages (Yucatec and Japanese) preferentially categorize objects based on common material. The current study extends that investigation to the domain of bilingualism. Japanese and English monolinguals, and Japanese–English bilinguals were asked to match novel objects based on either common shape or color. Results showed that English monolinguals selected shape significantly more than Japanese monolinguals, whereas the bilinguals shifted their cognitive preferences as a function of their second language proficiency. The implications of these findings for conceptual representation and cognitive processing in bilinguals are discussed.

Type
Articles
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 29 , Issue 1 , January 2008 , pp. 105 - 123
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Ameel, E., Storms, G., Malt, B., & Sloman, S. (2005). How bilinguals solve the naming problem. Journal of Memory and Language, 53, 60–80.Google Scholar
Anggoro, F., & Gentner, D. (2003). Sex and seniority. In Alterman, R. & Kirsh, D. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 25th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 91–96). Boston: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Athanasopoulos, P. (2006). Effects of the grammatical representation of number on cognition in bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 9, 89–96.Google Scholar
Bialystok, E. (1999). Cognitive complexity and attentional control in the bilingual mind. Child Development, 70, 636–644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bialystok, E. (2002). Cognitive processes of L2 users. In Cook, V. J. (Ed.), Portraits of the L2 user (pp. 147–165). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Bialystok, E., Craik, F. I. M., Klein, R., & Viswanathan, M. (2004). Bilingualism, aging, and cognitive control: Evidence from the Simon task. Psychology and Aging, 19, 290–303.Google Scholar
Bialystok, E., Majunder, S., & Martin, M. M. (2003). Developing phonological awareness: Is there a bilingual advantage? Applied Psycholinguistics, 24, 27–44.Google Scholar
Bialystok, E., Martin, M. M., & Viswanathan, M. (2005). Bilingualism across the lifespan: The rise and fall of inhibitory control. International Journal of Bilingualism, 9, 103–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boroditsky, L. (2001). Does language shape thought? English and Mandarin speakers’ conceptions of time. Cognitive Psychology, 43, 1–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boroditsky, L., Schmidt, L. A., & Phillips, W. (2003). Sex, syntax, and semantics. In Gentner, D. & Goldin-Meadow, S. (Eds.), Language in mind: Advances in the study of language and thought (pp. 61–80). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Broota, K. D., & Pahwa, A. (1984). Socio-cultural factors in the development of colour, form, and size perception. Indian Psychologist, 3, 8–16.Google Scholar
Caskey-Sirmons, L. A., & Hickerson, N. P. (1977). Semantic shift and bilingualism: Variation in the colour terms of five languages. Anthropological Linguistics, 19, 358–367.Google Scholar
Chierchia, G. (1998). Reference to kinds across languages. Natural Language Semantics, 6, 339–405.Google Scholar
Cook, V. J. (1997). The consequences of bilingualism for cognitive processing. In de Groot, A. M. B. & Kroll, J. F. (Eds.), Tutorials in bilingualism: Psycholinguistic perspectives (pp. 279–300). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Cook, V. J. (2002). Background to the L2 user. In Cook, V. J. (Ed.), Portraits of the L2 user (pp. 1–31). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Cook, V. J., Bassetti, B., Kasai, C., Sasaki, M., & Takahashi, J.A. (2006). Do bilinguals have different concepts? The case of shape and material in Japanese L2 users of English. International Journal of Bilingualism, 10, 137–152.Google Scholar
Corbett, G. G. (2000). Number. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
D'Angiulli, A., Siegel, L. S., & Sera, E. (2001). The development of reading in English and Italian bilingual children. Applied Psycholinguistics, 22, 479–507.Google Scholar
Davidoff, J., Davies, I., & Roberson, D. (1999). Colour categories in a stone-age tribe. Nature, 398, 203–204.Google Scholar
Downing, P. A. (1996). Numeral classifier systems: The case of Japanese. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ervin, S. (1961). Semantic shift in bilingualism. American Journal of Psychology, 74, 233–241.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fishman, J. A. (1960). A systematization of the Whorfian hypothesis. Behavioral Science, 4, 323–339.Google Scholar
Galambos, S. J., & Goldin-Meadow, S. (1990). The effects of learning two languages on metalinguistic awareness. Cognition, 34, 1–56.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gennari, S., Sloman, S., Malt, B., & Fitch, W. T. (2002). Motion events in language and cognition. Cognition, 83, 49–79.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goldstone, R. L. (2003). Learning to perceive while perceiving to learn. In Kimchi, R., Behrmann, M., & Olson, C. (Eds.), Perceptual organization in vision: Behavioral and neural perspectives (pp. 233–278). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Goldstone, R. L., & Barsalou, L. W. (1998). Reuniting conception and perception. Cognition, 65, 231–262.Google Scholar
Goldstone, R. L., Steyvers, M., Spencer-Smith, J., & Kersten, A. (2000). Interactions between conceptual and perceptual learning. In Diettrich, E. & Markman, A. B. (Eds.) (Cognitive dynamics: Conceptual change in humans and machines (pp. 191–228). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Gordon, P. (2004). Numerical cognition without words: Evidence from Amazonia. Science, 306, 496–499.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Green, D. W. (1998). Bilingualism and thought. Psychologica Belgica, 38, 253–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunt, E., & Agnoli, F. (1991). The Whorfian hypothesis: A cognitive psychology perspective. Psychological Review, 98, 377–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Imai, M., & Gentner, D. (1997). A crosslinguistic study of early word meaning: Universal ontology and linguistic influence. Cognition, 62, 169–200.Google Scholar
Imai, M., & Mazuka, R. (2003). Re-evaluating linguistic relativity: Language-specific categories and the role of universal ontological knowledge in the construal of individuation. In Gentner, D. & Goldin-Meadow, S. (Eds.), Language in mind: Advances in the study of language and thought (pp. 429–464). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaur, H., Broota, A., & Sinha, K. (1986). Development of colour and form perception as a function of sex and socio-cultural background. Journal of Psychological Researches, 30, 1–7.Google Scholar
Kay, P., & McDaniel, C. K. (1978). The linguistic significance of the meanings of basic colour terms. Language, 54, 610–646.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (1996). Frames of reference and Molyneux's question: Cross- linguistic evidence. In Bloom, P., Peterson, M., Nadel, L., & Garrett, M. (Eds.), Language and space (pp. 109–169). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C., Kita, S., Haun, D. B. M., & Rasch, B. H. (2002). Returning the tables: Language affects spatial reasoning. Cognition, 84, 155–188.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lucy, J. A. (1992). Grammatical categories and cognition. A case study of the linguistic relativity hypothesis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lucy, J. A., & Gaskins, S. (2001). Grammatical categories and the development of classification preferences: A comparative approach. In Bowerman, M. & Levinson, S. C. (Eds.), Language acquisition and conceptual development (pp. 257–283). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lucy, J. A., & Gaskins, S. (2003). Interaction of language type and referent type in the development of nonverbal classification preferences. In Gentner, D. & Goldin-Meadow, S. (Eds.), Language in mind: Advances in the study of language and thought (pp. 465–492). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Majid, A., Bowerman, M., Kita, S., Haun, D. B. M., & Levinson, S. C. (2004). Can language restructure cognition? The case for space. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8, 108–114.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Munnich, E., & Landau, B. (2003). The effects of spatial language on spatial representation: Setting some boundaries. In Gentner, D. & Goldin-Meadow, S. (Eds.), Language in mind: Advances in the study of language and thoughts (pp. 112–155). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Notman, L., Sowden, P. T., & Özgen, E. (2005). The nature of learned categorical perception effects: A psychophysical approach. Cognition, 95, B1–B14.Google Scholar
Oxford University Press. (2001). Quick Placement Test. Oxford: Author.Google Scholar
Özgen, E., & Davies, I. R. L. (2002). Acquisition of categorical color perception: A perceptual learning approach to the linguistic relativity hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 131, 477–493.Google Scholar
Pavlenko, A. (1999). New approaches to concepts in bilingual memory. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 2, 209–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pilling, M., Wiggett, A., Özgen, E., & Davies, I. R. L. (2003). Is color categorical perception really perceptual? Memory & Cognition, 31, 538–551.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ransdell, S., Arecco, M. R., & Levy, C. M. (2001). Bilingual long-term working memory: The effects of working memory loads on writing quality and fluency. Applied Psycholinguistics, 22, 113–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberson, D. (2005). Color categories are culturally diverse in cognition as well as in language. Cross-Cultural Research, 39, 56–71.Google Scholar
Roberson, D., & Davidoff, J. (2000). The categorical perception of colours and facial expressions: The effect of verbal interference. Memory and Cognition, 28, 977–986.Google Scholar
Roberson, D., Davidoff, J., Davies, I., & Shapiro, L. (2004). The development of color categories in two languages: A longitudinal study. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133, 554–571.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roberson, D., Davies, I., & Davidoff, J. (2000). Colour categories are not universal: Replications and new evidence from a Stone-age culture. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 129, 369–398.Google Scholar
Rogosky, B. J., & Goldstone, R. L. (2005). Adaptation of perceptual and semantic features. In Carlson, L. A. & E. van der, Zee (Eds.), Functional features in language and space: Insights from perception, categorization & development (pp. 257–273). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Schmidt, W. H., & Nzimande, A. (1970). Cultural differences in color/form preference and in classificatory behaviour. Human Development, 13, 140–148.Google Scholar
Sera, M. D., Berge, C., & del Castillo Pintado, J. (1994). Grammatical and conceptual forces in the attribution of gender by English and Spanish speakers. Cognitive Development, 9, 261–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sera, M. D., Elieff, C., Forbes, J., Burch, M. C., Rodriguez, W., & Dubois, D. P. (2002). When language affects cognition and when it does not: An analysis of grammatical gender and classification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 131, 377–397.Google Scholar
Serpell, R. (1969). Cultural differences in attentional preference for colour over form. International Journal of Psychology, 4, 1–8.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. I. (1971). Psycholinguistics. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman & Co.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. I. (1985). Cross-linguistic study of language acquisition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. I. (1996). From “thought and language” to “thinking for speaking.” In Gumperz, J. J. & Levinson, S. C. (Eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity (pp. 70–96). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. I. (2003). Language and thought online: Cognitive consequences of linguistic relativity. In Gentner, D. & Goldin-Meadow, S. (Eds.), Language in mind: Advances in the study of language and thought (pp. 157–191). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soja, N., Carey, S., & Spelke, E. (1991). Ontological categories guide young children's inductions of word meaning: Objects names and substance terms. Cognition, 38, 179–211.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Subrahmanyam, K., Landau, B., & Gelman, R. (1999). Shape, material and syntax: Interacting forces in children's learning in novel words for objects and substances. Language and Cognitive Processes, 14, 249–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Takano, H. (1994). Japanese common nouns and their unquantificational nature. In Akatsuka, N. (Ed.), Japanese/Korean linguistics (Vol. 4, pp. 379–394). Stanford, CA: Stanford University, Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar
Yelland, G. W., Pollard, J., & Mercuri, A. (1993). The metalinguistic benefits of limited contact with a second language. Applied Psycholinguistics, 14, 423–444.Google Scholar