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.
Athanasopoulos, P. (2001). L2 acquisition and bilingual conceptual structure. M.A. thesis, University of Essex.
2.
Bickerton, D. (1981). Roots of language. Ann Arbor : Karoma.
3.
Boroditsky, L., Schmidt, L.A., & Phillips, W. (2003). Sex, syntax and semantics. In D. Gentner & S. Goldin-Meadow (Eds.), Language in mind: Advances in the study of language and thought (pp. 61-78). Cambridge, MA; London, U.K.: The MIT Press.
4.
Campbell, L. (2001). The history of linguistics. In M. Aronoff & J. Rees-Miller (Eds.), The handbook of linguistics (pp. 81-104). Oxford . Blackwell
5.
Caskey-Sirmons, L.A., & Hickerson, N.P. (1977). Semantic shift and bilingualism: Variation in the color terms of five languages. Anthropological Linguistics, 19(8), 358-367.
6.
Chomsky, N. (1991). Linguistics and cognitive science: Problems and mysteries. In A. Kasher (Ed.), The Chomskyan turn (pp.26-53). Oxford: Blackwell.
7.
Colunga, E., & Smith, L.B. (2000). Learning to learn words: A cross-linguistic study of the shape and material biases. In Proceedings of the 24th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 197-207).
8.
Cook, V.J. (1997). The consequences of bilingualism for cognitive processing. In A. M. B. de Groot & J. F. Kroll (Eds.), Tutorials in bilingualism: Psycholinguistic perspectives (pp. 279-299). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
9.
Cook, V.J. (2002). Background to the L2 user perspective. In V. J. Cook (Ed.), Portraits of the L2 user (pp. 1-31). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
10.
Cook, V.J. (2003). Introduction: The changing L1 in the L2 user's mind. In V. J. Cook (Ed.), Effects of the second language on the first (pp.1-18). Clevedon : Multilingual Matters.
11.
Davidoff, J., Davies, I., & Roberson, D. (1999). Color categories in a stone-age tribe. Nature, 398, 203-204.
12.
Grosjean, F. (1998). Studying bilinguals: Methodological and conceptual issues. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1(2), 131-149.
13.
Imai, M. (2000). Universal ontological knowledge and a bias toward language-specific categories in the construal of individuation. In S. Niemeier & R. Dirven (Eds.), Evidence for linguistic relativity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
14.
Imai, M., & Gentner, D. (1997). A cross-linguistic study of early word meaning: Universal ontology and linguistic influence. Cognition, 62, 169-200.
15.
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 D. Gentner & S. Goldin-Meadow (Eds.), Language in mind: Advances in the study of language and thought (pp.429-464). Cambridge, MA, London, U.K.: MIT Press.
16.
Levelt, W. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: Bradford Books.
17.
Levelt, W.J.M., Roelofs, A., & Meyer, A.S. (1999). A theory of lexical access in speech production . Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 1-75.
18.
Levinson, S.C. (1996). Relativity in spatial conception and description . In J. J. Gumperz & S. C. Levinson (Eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity (pp. 177-202). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
19.
Levinson, S.C., Kita, S., Haun, D.B.M., & Rasch, B.H. (2002). Returning the tables: Language affects spatial reasoning. Cognition, 84(2), 155-188.
20.
Li, P., & Gleitman, L. (2002). Turning the tables: Language and spatial reasoning . Cognition, 83,265-294.
21.
Lucy, J.A. (1992a). Language diversity and thought: A reformulation of the linguistic relativity hypothesis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
22.
Lucy, J.A. (1992b). Grammatical categories and thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
23.
Malt, B.C., Sloman, S.A., & Gennari, S.P. (2003). Speaking versus thinking about objects and actions . In D. Gentner & S. Goldin-Meadow (Eds.), Language in mind: Advances in the study of language and thought (pp.81-112). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
24.
Mazuka, R., & Friedman, R.S. (2000). Linguistic relativity in Japanese and English: Is language the primary determinant in object classification ? Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 9(4), 353-377.
25.
Meillet, A. (1912). L'évolution des formes grammaticales. Scientia, 12, 26, Milan.
26.
Nation, P. (1990). Teaching and learning vocabulary. New York: Newbury House/Harper Row.
27.
O'Mahoney, M., & Muhiudeen, H. (1977). A preliminary study of alternative taste languages using qualitative description of sodium chloride solutions: Malay versus English . British Journal of Psychology, 68, 275-278.
28.
Pavlenko, A. (2002). Post-structuralist approaches to the study of social factors in second language learning and use. In V. Cook (ed.), Portraits of the L2 user. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 277-340.
29.
Segall, M.H., Campbell, D.T., & Herskovits, M.J. (1966). The influence of culture on visual perception. New York: Bobbs-Merrill.
30.
Sinclair-De-Zwart, H. (1967). Acquisition du langage et devéloppement de la pensée. Paris: Dunod.
31.
Slobin, D.I. (1987). Thinking for speaking. Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 13,435-444.
32.
Slobin, D.I. (2003). Language and thought on-line: Cognitive consequences of linguistic relativity. In D. Gentner & S. Goldin-Meadow (Eds.), Language in mind: Advances in the study of language and thought (pp. 157-192). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
33.
Soja, N.N., Carey, S., & Spelke, E.S. (1991). Ontological categories guide young children's inductions of word meaning: Object terms and substance terms. Cognition, 38, 179-211.
34.
Weinreich, U. (1953). Languages in contact. The Hague : Mouton.
35.
Yelland, G.W., Pollard, J., & Mercuri, A. (1993). The metalinguistic benefits of limited contact with a second language. Applied Psycholinguistics, 14, 423-444.
