Conceptual transfer in the mind of Chinese English learners: Spatial metaphorical concepts of kin terms

Abstract

Aims and objectives:

This study investigated how Chinese learners of English represent spatial metaphorical concepts when processing Chinese and English kin terms that differ in lexicalization, and whether English learning influences the conceptualization of Chinese kin terms.

Methodology:

Using a semantic judgment task and eye-tracking technology, the study investigated 70 Chinese high/low-level English learners’ spatial metaphorical cognitive pattern of “elder-up junior-down” and “patrilineal-inside maternal-outside” in Chinese and English contexts, and compared the Chinese spatial metaphorical cognitive pattern between high and low-level English learners.

Data and analysis:

Participants’ reaction time and eye movement data were analyzed using mixed-effects repeated-measures analysis of variance.

Findings:

Significant three-way interactions were found among seniority, position, and language in the up–down spatial metaphor experiment, as well as among kinship relation, position, and language in the inside–outside spatial metaphor experiment. The spatial metaphorical effects were observed only during the processing of Chinese kin terms, but not English kin terms. This suggests that cross-linguistic differences between Chinese and English kinship systems give rise to divergent cognitive patterns, which are flexible and sensitive to language context. In addition, a significant four-way interaction among seniority, position, language, and English proficiency was identified. Specifically, high-level English learners exhibited a weaker “junior-down” spatial metaphorical effect in Chinese kin term processing compared with low-level learners, indicating that L2 experience may influence L1 conceptualization in specific domains.

Originality:

Few studies have explored how second language learners represent concepts that are encoded differently across languages, or whether advanced learners retain native-like conceptual patterns after attaining high L2 proficiency.

Significance:

These findings contribute to the linguistic relativity hypothesis by revealing how language influences cognition through bilinguals’ metaphorical representations of kinship. The study offers valuable insights into bilingual conceptual organization.

Keywords

Conceptual transfer second language learners spatial conceptual metaphor kin terms eye-tracking

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Athanasopoulos

(2009). Cognitive representation of colour in bilinguals: The case of Greek blues. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 12, 83–95.

Athanasopoulos

Damjanovic

Burnand

Bylund

(2015). Learning to think in a second language: Effects of proficiency and length of exposure in English learners of German. The Modern Language Journal, 99(Suppl. 1), 138–153.

Biondi

F. N.

Saberi

Graf

Cort

Pillai

Balasingam

(2023). Distracted worker: Using pupil size and blink rate to detect cognitive load during manufacturing tasks. Applied Ergonomics, 106, 103867.

Boroditsky

(2001). Does language shape thought?: Mandarin and English speakers’ conceptions of time. Cognitive Psychology, 43(1), 1–22.

Boroditsky

Fuhrman

McCormick

(2011). Do English and Mandarin speakers think about time differently? Cognition, 118, 123–129.

Bylund

Athanasopoulos

(2014). Language and thought in a multilingual context: The case of isiXhosa. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 17(2), 431–441.

Chen

Epps

(2014). Using task-induced pupil diameter and blink rate to infer cognitive load. Human–Computer Interaction, 29(4), 390–413.

Chrisomalis

(2021). The scope of linguistic relativity in graphic and lexical numeration. Language & Communication, 76, 1–12.

Conklin

Alotaibi

Pellicer-Sánchez

Vilkaitė-Lozdienė

(2020). What eye-tracking tells us about reading-only and reading-while-listening in a first and second language. Second Language Research, 36(3), 257–276.

10.

Dove

G. O.

(2023). Rethinking the role of language in embodied cognition. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 378(1870), 20210375.

11.

Farina

(2021). Embodied cognition: Dimensions, domains and applications. Adaptive Behavior, 29(1), 73–88.

12.

Feinmann

(2020). Language and thought in the motion domain: Methodological considerations and new empirical evidence. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 49(1), 1–29.

13.

Ferreira

R. C.

Mozzillo

(2021). Conceptual transfer: Linguistic relativity in second language learning. Alfa: Revista de Linguística (São José Do Rio Preto), 65, Article e12799.

14.

Fiddler

(2024). Conceptual metaphor in areal perspective: Time, space, and contact in the Sinosphere. Language and Cognition, 16(2), 452–480.

15.

Fink

Simola

Tavano

Lange

Wallot

Laeng

(2024). From pre-processing to advanced dynamic modeling of pupil data. Behavior Research Methods, 56(3), 1376–1412.

16.

Gibbs

R. W.

(1994). The poetics of mind: Figurative thought, language, and understanding. Cambridge University Press.

17.

Han

Cadierno

(Eds.). (2010). Linguistic relativity in SLA: Thinking for speaking. Multilingual Matters.

18.

X. M.

Zhang

X. N.

Zhang

J. J.

Xiao

E. P.

Wang

(2015). Cultural schema affect the spatial metaphors in the semantic processing of kinship words: The evidence from the Han and the Moso. Acta Psychologia, 47, 584–599.

19.

Hijazo-Gascón

(2018). Acquisition of motion events in L2 Spanish by German, French and Italian speakers. The Language Learning Journal, 46(3), 241–262.

20.

Lakoff

Johnson

(1980). Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago Press.

21.

H. J.

(2015). Spatial metaphor representation of Chinese kinship words: Evidence from behavior and ERPs (Unpublished doctorial dissertation). South China Normal University, Guangzhou.

22.

Zhang

(2021). A three-dimensional spatial metaphorical representation of generation implied in Han Kin terms. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, Article 656586.

23.

Zhang

Tsai

Puls

(2014). Language history questionnaire (LHQ 2.0): A new dynamic web-based research tool. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 17(3), 673–680.

24.

Lowry

Bryant

(2019). Blue is in the eye of the beholder: A cross-linguistic study on color perception and memory. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 48, 163–179.

25.

Lucy

(2016). Recent advances in the study of linguistic relativity in historical context: A critical assessment. Language Learning, 66, 487–515.

26.

Magnabosco

Hauk

(2024). An eye on semantics: A study on the influence of concreteness and predictability on early fixation durations. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 39(3), 302–316.

27.

Mai

T. A.

de Rooij

(2023). Linguistic relativity in creative thought: How divergent thinking in response to motion events is influenced by satellite-and verb-framed languages. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 57(4), 742–760.

28.

Miller

A. L.

Unsworth

(2020). Variation in attention at encoding: Insights from pupillometry and eye gaze fixations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 46(12), 2277–2294.

29.

Park

H. I.

(2020). How do Korean–English bilinguals speak and think about motion events? Evidence from verbal and non-verbal tasks. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 23(3), 483–499.

30.

Pavlenko

(2009). Conceptual representation in the bilingual lexicon and second language vocabulary learning. In The bilingual mental lexicon (pp. 125–160).

31.

Pavlenko

(2011). Thinking and speaking in two languages. Multilingual Matters.

32.

Pavlenko

Malt

B. C.

(2011). Kitchen Russian: Cross-linguistic differences and first-language object naming by Russian–English bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 14(1), 19–45.

33.

Rahal

R. M.

Fiedler

(2019). Understanding cognitive and affective mechanisms in social psychology through eye-tracking. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 85, 103842.

34.

Staub

(2011). The effect of lexical predictability on distributions of eye fixation durations. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18, 371–376.

35.

Stocker

Berthele

(2020). The roles of language mode and dominance in French–German bilinguals’ motion event descriptions. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 23(3), 519–531.

36.

Wang

Zhang

J.J.

(2019). A Study on the Asymmetry of Translation of Kinship Words in English and Chinese——Concurrently Discussion on the Sense of Kinship Division and the Sense of Elders and Children of the Same Generation. Journal of Guiyang University(Social Sciences), 14(06), 47–54.

37.

Wang

X. X.

Yan

X. Y.

Zhang

J. J.

Dong

F. H.

(2017). Spatial metaphors and weight metaphors of elderity rules in the semantic processing of kinship words of the same generation—Evidence from Chinese Korean nationality and the Han nationality. Acta Psychologia, 49, 174–185.

38.

Wang

Wei

(2021). Cognitive restructuring in the multilingual mind: Language-specific effects on processing efficiency of caused motion events in Cantonese–English–Japanese speakers. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 24(4), 730–745.

39.

Whorf

B. L.

(1956). Language, thought, and reality. MIT Press.

40.

Winter

Duffy

S. E.

Littlemore

(2020). Power, gender, and individual differences in spatial metaphor: The role of perceptual stereotypes and language statistics. Metaphor and Symbol, 35(3), 188–205.

41.

Wolter

Yamashita

Leung

C. Y.

(2020). Conceptual transfer and lexical development in adjectives of space: Evidence from judgments, reaction times, and eye tracking. Applied Psycholinguistics, 41(3), 595–625.

42.

Yang

(2019). A review of negative language transfer regarding the errors in English writing in Chinese colleges. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 10(3), 603–609.