Languages carve up conceptual space in varying ways—for example, English uses the verb cut both for cutting with a knife and for cutting with scissors, but other languages use distinct verbs for these events. We asked whether, despite this variability, there are universal constraints on how languages categorize events involving tools (e.g., knife-cutting). We analyzed descriptions of tool events from two groups: (a) 43 hearing adult speakers of English, Spanish, and Chinese and (b) 10 deaf child homesigners ages 3 to 11 (each of whom has created a gestural language without input from a conventional language model) in five different countries (Guatemala, Nicaragua, United States, Taiwan, Turkey). We found alignment across these two groups—events that elicited tool-prominent language among the spoken-language users also elicited tool-prominent language among the homesigners. These results suggest ways of conceptualizing tool events that are so prominent as to constitute a universal constraint on how events are categorized in language.
BatesD.MaechlerM.BolkerB.WalkerS. (2014). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes (R Package Version 1.1-7) [Computer software]. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lme4
2.
BrownD. E. (2004). Human universals, human nature & human culture. Daedalus, 133(4), 47–54.
3.
CoppolaM.BrentariD. (2014). From iconic handshapes to grammatical contrasts: Longitudinal evidence from a child homesigner. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, Article 830. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00830
4.
CoppolaM.NewportE. L. (2005). Grammatical subjects in home sign: Abstract linguistic structure in adult primary gesture systems without linguistic input. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 102(52), 19249–19253.
5.
CrasbornO.SloetjesH. (2008, May). Enhanced ELAN functionality for sign language corpora [Paper presentation]. The 6th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2008), Marrakech, Morocco.
6.
DeLanceyS. (1991). Event construal and case role assignment. In SuttonL.JohnsonC.ShieldsR. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 17th annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (pp. 338–353). Berkeley Linguistics Society.
7.
FisherC.HallD. G.RakowitzS.GleitmanL. (1994). When it is better to receive than to give: Syntactic and conceptual constraints on vocabulary growth. Lingua, 92, 333–375. http://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(94)90346-8
8.
FisherC.JinK.ScottR. M. (2020). The developmental origins of syntactic bootstrapping. Topics in Cognitive Science, 12(1), 48–77.
9.
FlahertyM.HunsickerD.Goldin-MeadowS. (2021). Structural biases that children bring to language learning: A cross-cultural look at gestural input to homesign. Cognition, 211, Article 104608. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2021.104608
10.
GleitmanL. (1990). The structural sources of verb meanings. Language Acquisition, 1(1), 3–55.
11.
GleitmanL.SenghasA.FlahertyM.CoppolaM.Goldin-MeadowS. (2019). The emergence of the formal category “symmetry” in a new sign language. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(24), 11705–11711. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1819872116
12.
GoddardC.WierzbickaA. (2014). Words and meanings: Lexical semantics across domains, languages, and cultures. Oxford University Press.
13.
Goldin-MeadowS. (2003). The resilience of language: What gesture creation in deaf children can tell us about how all children learn language. Psychology Press.
14.
Goldin-MeadowS. (2020). Discovering the biases children bring to language learning. Child Development Perspectives, 14(4), 195–201.
15.
Goldin-MeadowS.ButcherC.MylanderC.DodgeM. (1994). Nouns and verbs in a self-styled gesture system: What’s in a name?Cognitive Psychology, 27, 259–319.
16.
Goldin-MeadowS.MylanderC. (1998). Spontaneous sign systems created by deaf children in two cultures. Nature, 391(6664), 279–281.
17.
GrigoroglouM.PapafragouA. (2019a). Children’s (and adults’) production adjustments to generic and particular listener needs. Cognitive Science, 43(10), Article e12790. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12790
HaidleM. N. (2014). Building a bridge—An archeologist’s perspective on the evolution of causal cognition. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, Article 1472. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01472
20.
HortonL. (2020). A sociolinguistic sketch of deaf individuals and families from Nebaj, Guatemala. In Le GuenO.SafarJ.CoppolaM. (Eds.), Emerging sign languages of the Americas (pp. 401–412). De Gruyter Mouton.
21.
HwangS.-O.TomitaN.MorganH.ErginR.IlkbaşaranD.SeegersS.LepicR.PaddenC. (2016). Of the body and the hands: Patterned iconicity for semantic categories. Language and Cognition, 9(4), 573–602. https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2016.28
22.
IshibashiR.PobricG.SaitoS.Lambon RalphM. A. (2016). The neural network for tool-related cognition: An activation likelihood estimation meta-analysis of 70 neuroimaging contrasts. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 33(3–4), 241–256.
23.
KemmererD. (2019). Concepts in the brain: The view from cross-linguistic diversity. Oxford University Press.
KoenigJ.-P.MaunerG.BienvenueB.ConklinK. (2008). What with? The anatomy of a (proto)-role. Journal of Semantics, 25(2), 175–220.
27.
LakustaL.LandauB. (2012). Language and memory for motion events: Origins of the asymmetry between source and goal paths. Cognitive Science, 36(3), 517–544. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2011.01220.x
28.
LakustaL.WagnerL.O’HearnK.LandauB. (2007). Conceptual foundations of spatial language: Evidence for a goal bias in infants. Language Learning and Development, 3(3), 179–197. https://doi.org/10.1080/15475440701360168
29.
LevinB.GlassL.JurafskyD. (2019). Systematicity in the semantics of noun compounds: The role of artifacts vs. natural kinds. Linguistics, 57(3), 429–471. https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2019-0013
30.
LidzJ.GleitmanH.GleitmanL. (2003). Understanding how input matters: Verb learning and the footprint of universal grammar. Cognition, 87(3), 151–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0010-0277(02)00230-5
31.
MahonB. Z.CaramazzaA. (2009). Concepts and categories: A cognitive neuropsychological perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 27–51.
32.
MajidA.BosterJ. S.BowermanM. (2008). The cross-linguistic categorization of everyday events: A study of cutting and breaking. Cognition, 109(2), 235–250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2008.08.009
33.
MajidA.RobertsS. G.CilissenL.EmmoreyK.NicodemusB.O’GradyL.WollB.LeLanB.de SousaH.CanslerB.ShayanS.de VosC.SenftG.EnfieldN. J.RazakR.FeddenS.TufvessonS.DingemanseM.OzturkO.. . . LevinsonS. C. (2018). Differential coding of perception in the world’s languages. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 115(45), 11369–11376. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1720419115
34.
MaltB. C.MajidA. (2013). How thought is mapped into words. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 4(6), 583–597. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.1251
35.
MorfordJ. P.KeglJ. A. (2000). Gestural precursors to linguistic constructs: How input shapes the form of language. In McNeillD. (Ed.), Language and gesture (Vol. 2, pp. 358–388). Cambridge University Press.
36.
NeldnerK.ReindlE.TennieC.GrantJ.TomaselliK.NielsenM. (2020). A cross-cultural investigation of young children’s spontaneous invention of tool use behaviours. Royal Society Open Science, 7(5), Article 192240. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.192240
37.
NystV.MorgadoM.HadjahT. M.NyarkoM.MartinsM.van der MarkL.BurichaniE.AngouaT.MagassoubaM.SyllaD.AdmasuK.SchüllerA. (2021). Object and handling handshapes in 11 sign languages: Towards a typology of the iconic use of the hands. Linguistic Typology, 26(3), 573–604. https://doi.org/10.1515/lingty-2021-0026
38.
OrtegaG.ÖzyürekA. (2020). Types of iconicity and combinatorial strategies distinguish semantic categories in silent gesture across cultures. Language and Cognition, 12(1), 84–113.
39.
ÖzyürekA.FurmanR.Goldin-MeadowS. (2015). On the way to language: Event segmentation in homesign and gesture. Journal of Child Language, 42(1), 64–94. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000913000512
40.
PaddenC.HwangS.-O.LepicR.SeegersS. (2015). Tools for language: Patterned iconicity in sign language nouns and verbs. Topics in Cognitive Science, 7(1), 81–94. https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12121
41.
R Core Team. (2022). R: A language and environment for statistical computing [Computer software]. https://www.R-project.org/
42.
RissmanL. (2022). Measuring meaning: Alignment and misalignment across indices of verb semantics. In CulbertsonJ.PerforsA.RabagliatiH.RamenzoniV. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 44th annual meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1713–1719). Cognitive Science Society.
43.
RissmanL.Goldin-MeadowS. (2017). The development of causal structure without a language model. Language Learning and Development, 13(3), 286–299. https://doi.org/10.1080/15475441.2016.1254633
44.
RissmanL.HortonL.FlahertyM.SenghasA.CoppolaM.BrentariD.Goldin-MeadowS. (2020). The communicative importance of agent-backgrounding: Evidence from homesign and Nicaraguan Sign Language. Cognition, 203, Article 104332. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2020.104332
45.
RissmanL.MajidA. (2019). Thematic roles: Core knowledge or linguistic construct?Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 26(6), 1850–1869. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-019-01634-5
46.
RissmanL.RawlinsK.LandauB. (2015). Using instruments to understand argument structure: Evidence for gradient representation. Cognition, 142, 266–290. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2015.05.015
47.
RissmanL.RawlinsK.LandauB. (2019). Event participants and verbal semantics: Non-discrete structure in English, Spanish and Mandarin. In GoelA. K.SeifertC. M.FreksaC. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 41st annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 960–966). Cognitive Science Society.
48.
RissmanL.van PuttenS.MajidA. (2022). Evidence for a shared instrument prototype from English, Dutch, and German. Cognitive Science, 46(5), Article e13140. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.13140
ShuklaM.de VilliersJ. (2021). The role of language in building abstract, generalized conceptual representations of one- and two-place predicates: A comparison between adults and infants. Cognition, 213, Article 104705. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2021.104705
52.
StavansM.BaillargeonR. (2018). Four-month-old infants individuate and track simple tools following functional demonstrations. Developmental Science, 21(1), Article e12500. https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12500
53.
ÜnalE.RichardsC.TrueswellJ. C.PapafragouA. (2021). Representing agents, patients, goals and instruments in causative events: A cross-linguistic investigation of early language and cognition. Developmental Science, 24(6), Article e13116. https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.13116
54.
WilsonF.PapafragouA.BungerA.TrueswellJ. (2011). Rapid extraction of event participants in caused motion events. In CarlsonL.HoelscherC.ShipleyT. F. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 33rd annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1206–1211). Cognitive Science Society.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
