Scope of Linguistic Influence: Does a Classifier System Alter Object Concepts?
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Journal of Experimental Psychology: General Copyright 2007 by the American Psychological Association 2007, Vol. 136, No. 3, 485–501 0096-3445/07/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/0096-3445.136.3.485 Scope of Linguistic Influence: Does a Classifier System Alter Object Concepts? Henrik Saalbach Mutsumi Imai Max Planck Institute for Human Development Keio University at Shonan-Fujisawa Whether and to what extent conceptual structure is universal is of great importance for understanding the nature of human concepts. Two major factors that might affect concepts are language and culture. The authors investigated whether these 2 factors affect concepts of everyday objects in any significant ways. Specifically, they tested (a) whether the system of grammatical categorization by classifiers influenced the conceptual structure of speakers of classifier languages, and (b) whether Westerners organized object concepts around taxonomic relations whereas Easterners organized them around thematic relations, as proposed by R. E. Nisbett (2003). The relative importance of 3 types of relations—taxonomic, thematic, and classifier—for Chinese and German speakers was tested using a range of tasks, including categorization, similarity judgment, property induction, and fast-speed word–picture matching. Some support for linguistic relativity as well as for the cultural-specific cognition proposal was found in some tasks, but these effects were miniscule compared with the importance of taxonomic and thematic relations for both language–culture groups. The authors conclude that the global structure of everyday object concepts is strikingly similar across different cultures and languages. Keywords: concepts, linguistic relativity, culture-specific cognition, classifiers, thematic relations Language labels and refers to categories. Object categories are classifier grammar system categorizes nouns into more than 100 referred to by nouns, but in many languages, nouns are further semantic categories (Craig, 1986; Grinevald, 2000). categorized into grammatical categories, and languages have devel- How classifiers categorize the world is very different from how oped a broad variety of nominal classification systems such as count/ nouns categorize the world. Whereas the noun lexicon is structured mass grammar, gender marking grammar, and classifier grammar hierarchically around taxonomic relations, classifier systems are systems (e.g., Aikhenvald, 2000; Senft, 2000). The count/mass gram- usually organized around semantic features such as animacy, mar system divides nouns into 2 categories: nouns denoting individ- shape, function, size, rigidity, and social importance, and do not uated things (typically objects, such as animals and machines) and have hierarchical structures (e.g., Adams & Conklin, 1973; Allan, nouns denoting nonindividuated things (typically substances, such as 1977; Croft, 1994; Denny, 1986; Downing, 1996). For example, water and sand). Most gender grammar systems categorize nouns into animal classifiers in Chinese are determined by semantic features 2 (masculine and feminine) or 3 (masculine, feminine, and neuter) of size, shape, and social importance: Tou includes large animals categories. Unlike the count/mass or the gender grammar systems, the such as cows, elephants, and rhinos; zhi typically includes small animals such as birds, insects, or smaller mammals. Horses have their own special classifier, pi, presumably because of their special Henrik Saalbach, Center for Educational Research, Max Planck Institute historical importance for the society. Fish, snakes, and other long, for Human Development, Berlin, Germany; Mutsumi Imai, Department of thin, flexible animals are associated with tiao. Tiao also includes Environmental Information, Graduate School of Media and Governance, Keio University at Shonan-Fujisawa, Kanagawa, Japan. members across the ontological boundary of animacy, including This research was supported by fellowships from the Japan Society of long, thin, flexible inanimate things such as ropes, rivers, ties, and the Promotion of Science and Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung awarded to Henrik roads. One classifier for artifact objects, ba, is associated with Saalbach, and Ministry of Education Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research objects that have a handle or that can be grasped by the hand, such 15300088 and research grants from Keio University (Keio Gijuku Aca- as umbrellas, screwdrivers, brooms, keys, combs, chairs, and fans; demic Development Funds and Keio Gijuku Mori Memorial Research but it can also be used for fire, effort or power, efficient worker, Fund) awarded to Mutsumi Imai. We are deeply indebted to Zhou Xiaolin, Elsbeth Stern, Sachiko Saitoh, and so on, presumably because these things are metaphorically or 1 Lennart Schalk, Shu Hua, Zhu Liqi, and Huangfu Gang for help with data metonymically associated with hands. collection and discussion. We also thank Ed Wisniewski, Barbara Malt, and Victoria Muehleisen for their thoughtful comments on earlier versions of this article. We both equally contributed to the article, and the order of 1 In standard Chinese, classifiers must occur with a number and/or a authorship is arbitrary. demonstrative (i.e., a word with meaning similar to this, that, which), or Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Mut- certain quantifiers (e.g., words equivalent to whole, many, several, a few, sumi Imai, Keio University at Shonan-Fujisawa, Endo, Fujisawa, 252- a certain, every) before a noun (Li & Thompson, 1981) as shown here: (a) 8520 Japan; or to Henrik Saalbach, who is now at ETH Zurich, Institute Ta (she) kan (see) le (grammatical particle indicating completed action) yi for Behavioral Sciences, Research on Learning and Instruction, Uni- (one) tiao [classifier] she (snake) ϭ She saw a snake. (b) Ni (you) xiang versitaetsstrasse 6, Zurich CH-8092, Switzerland. E-mail: (think of/want) mai (buy) ji (how many) ba [classifier] yusan (umbrella)? [email protected] or [email protected] ϭ How many umbrellas do you want to buy? 485 486 SAALBACH AND IMAI An extremely interesting and important question here is whether between speakers of a classifier language and those of a nonclas- and to what extent classifier categories produce any significant sifier language, although the two groups may differ due to factors cognitive consequences in the minds of the speakers of a classifier other than the classifier categorization system (e.g., culture). language beyond the act of linguistic reference. Some researchers To our knowledge, there is only a handful of studies in the have assumed that semantic structures of the classifier system are literature that have directly addressed the question of whether a reflection of the conceptual structure of the speaker. For exam- classifiers affect concepts and categorization of objects beyond the ple, Lakoff (1987) saw linguistic categories as categories within contexts of linguistic references. One of these is the study by the cognitive system per se: Zhang and Schmitt (1998), in which the authors asked whether classifiers influence perception of similarity between two objects. whether they are used in non-linguistic tasks or not, linguistic cate- They had speakers of Chinese and English rate the similarity of gories are categories—and they are part of our overall cognitive pairs of everyday objects. Half of the pairs consisted of objects that apparatus. Whether one wants to dignify them with the term “con- ceptual” or not, linguistic categories are categories within our cogni- shared the same classifier in Chinese, and half of the pairs con- tive system and a study of all categories within our cognitive system sisted of objects from different classifier categories. Zhang and will have to include them. (p. 110) Schmitt found that the Chinese speakers rated the similarity of the same classifier pairs more highly than the native English speakers Lakoff further argued that classifier categories are among the did, whereas ratings of the different classifier pairs did not differ best examples of language expressing conceptual categories. He cross-culturally. On the basis of these results, the authors con- wrote: “Classifier languages–languages where nouns are marked cluded that classifier categories strongly affect speakers’ concep- as being members of certain categories–are among the richest tual organization: sources of data that we have concerning the structure of conceptual [italics added] categories as they are revealed through language” The results obtained were a strong indication that objects sharing the (p. 91). classifier are grouped into schematic organizations in Chinese speak- Further specific questions arise concerning the question of ers’ mental representations. That is, although English speakers may whether classifier categories have any significant cognitive con- group these objects on the basis of their conceptual similarity, Chinese sequences. Given that a classifier system carves up the world in a speakers seem to add a linguistic categorization to the classification of way that cross-cuts taxonomic categories, what cognitive conse- objects. (p. 381) quences, if any, should we expect with respect to representation and cognitive processes? One possibility is that classifier systems However, their results do not provide a clear answer as to provide an alternative organization of object concepts that results whether the classifier system truly influences Chinese speakers’ in categories that are nonexistent for speakers of nonclassifier