Languages differ in how they express thought, leading some researchers to conclude that speakers of different languages perceive objects differently. Others, in contrast, argue that words are windows to thought—reflecting its structure without modifying it. Here, we explore the case study of object representation. Studies indicate that Japanese, Chinese, and English speakers do not perceive objects differently, despite their languages’ grammatical differences. Syntax provides frames for words that can select among meanings without affecting underlying object perception.
BarnerD.InagakiS.LiP. (2009). Language, thought, and real nouns. Cognition, 111, 329–344.
2.
BarnerD.SnedekerJ. (2005). Quantity judgment and individuation: Evidence that mass nouns count. Cognition, 97, 41–66.
3.
BarnerD.SnedekerJ. (2006). Children’s early understanding of mass-count syntax: Individuations, lexical content, and the number asymmetry hypothesis. Language Learning and Development, 2, 163–194.
4.
BarnerD.ThalwitzD.WoodJ.YangS.CareyS. (2007). On the relation between the acquisition of singular-plural morpho-syntax and the conceptual distinction between one and more than one. Developmental Science, 10, 365–373.
5.
BarnerD.WagnerL.SnedekerJ. (2008). Events and the ontology of individuals: Verbs as a source of individuating mass and count nouns. Cognition, 106, 805–832.
6.
BowermanM. (1996). Learning how to structure space for language: A cross-linguistic perspective. In BloomP.PetersonM.A.NadelL.GarrettM.F. (Eds.), Language and space (pp. 385–436). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
7.
ColungaE.SmithL. B. (2005). From the Lexicon to Expectations About Kinds: A Role for Associative Learning. Psychological Review, 112, 347–382.
8.
FeigensonL.CareyS. (2003). Tracking individuals via object-files: Evidence from infants’ manual search. Developmental Science, 6, 568–584.
9.
FrankM.C.EverettD.L.FedorenkoE.GibsonE. (2008). Number as a cognitive technology: Evidence from Pirahã language and cognition. Cognition, 108, 819–824.
10.
GentnerD.Goldin-MeadowS. (2003). Language in mind: Advances in the study of language and thought.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
11.
ImaiM.GentnerD. (1997). A crosslinguistic study of early word meaning: Universal ontology and linguistic influence. Cognition, 62, 169–200.
12.
IwasakiN.VinsonD.ViglioccoG. (in press). Does the grammatical count/mass distinction affect semantic representations? Evidence from experiments in English and Japanese. Language and Cognitive Processes.
13.
KayP.RegierT. (2006). Language, thought, and color: Recent developments. Trends in Cognitive Science, 10, 51–54.
14.
LiP.DunhamY.CareyS. (2009). Of substance: The nature of language effects on construal. Cognitive Psychology, 58, 487–524.
15.
LiP.OguraT.BarnerD.YangS.-J.CareyS. (2009). Does the distinction between singular and plural sets depend on language?Developmental Psychology, 45, 1644–1653.
16.
LucyJ. (1992). Grammatical categories and cognition: A case study of the linguistic relativity hypothesis.
Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
17.
MaltB.SlomanS.GennariS.ShiM.WangY. (1999). Knowing versus naming: Similarity and linguistic categorization of artifacts. Journal of Memory and Language, 40, 230–262.
18.
PelletierF. (Ed.). (2009). Kinds, things, and stuff: Concepts of generics and mass terms (New Directions in Cognitive Science, Vol. 12). New York: Oxford University Press.
19.
RobersonD.HanleyJ.PakH. (2009). Thresholds for color discrimination in English and Korean speakers. Cognition, 112, 482–487.
20.
SamuelsonL.SmithL. (1999). Early noun vocabularies: Do ontology, category structure, and syntax correspond?Cognition, 73, 1–33.
21.
QuineW.V.O. (1960). Word and object.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
22.
WhorfB. (1956). Language, thought, and reality: Selected writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
