Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T05:37:51.911Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of Chinese word structure on object categorization in Chinese–English bilinguals

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 May 2020

XUAN PAN  and
DEBRA JARED
XUAN PAN*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Western Ontario
DEBRA JARED*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Western Ontario
*
Address for correspondence: Debra Jared, Department of Psychology, Brain and Mind Institute, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada N6A 3K7. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We investigated how verbal labels affect object categorization in bilinguals. In English, most nouns do not provide linguistic clues to their categories (an exception is sunflower), whereas in Chinese, some nouns provide category information morphologically (e.g., 鸵鸟- ostrich and 知更鸟- robin have the morpheme鸟- bird in their Chinese names), while some nouns do not (e.g., 企鹅- penguin and 鸽子- pigeon). We examined the effect of Chinese word structure on bilinguals’ categorization processes in two ERP experiments. Chinese–English bilinguals and English monolinguals judged the membership of atypical (e.g., ostrich, penguin) vs. typical (e.g., robin, pigeon) pictorial (Experiment 1) and English word (Experiment 2) exemplars of categories (e.g., bird). English monolinguals showed typicality effects in RT data, and in the N300 and N400 of ERP data, regardless of whether the object name had a category cue in Chinese. In contrast, Chinese–English bilinguals showed a larger typicality effect for objects without category cues in their name than objects with cues, even when they were tested in English. These results demonstrate that linguistic information in bilinguals’ L1 has an effect on their L2 categorization processes. The findings are explained using the label-feedback hypothesis.

Keywords

linguistic relativitybilingualismChinese–English bilingualslinguistic labelword structuremorphological category cueobject categorization
Type
Article
Information
Language and Cognition , Volume 12 , Issue 3 , September 2020 , pp. 468 - 500
Check for updates
Copyright
© UK Cognitive Linguistics Association, 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Words that do and do not have a category cue occur for words that are learned early (汽车, 巴士), and late (琴酒, 香槟), that are very frequent (苹果, 橙子) and infrequent (蛋白石, 粉晶), that have foreign origins (红酒, 白兰地), and, importantly here, when they are typical members of the category (生菜, 胡萝卜) and atypical members (牛油果, 椰子). English translations are: car, bus, gin, champagne, apple, orange, opal, quartz, wine, brandy, lettuce, carrots, avocado, coconut. Category cues are in bold.

This research was supported by a grant from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada to Debra Jared. We thank Arielle Grinberg for assistance in testing participants, and Steve Lupker and Paul Minda for their feedback on an earlier version of this work. This paper is based on a PhD thesis by Xuan Pan, supervised by Debra Jared.

References

REFERENCES

Ameel, E., Storms, G., Malt, B. C. & Sloman, S. A. (2005). How bilinguals solve the naming problem. Journal of Memory and Language 53(1), 60–80.10.1016/j.jml.2005.02.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B. & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software 67, 1–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boutonnet, B. & Lupyan, G. (2015). Words jump-start vision: a label advantage in object recognition. Journal of Neuroscience 35(25), 9329–9335.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Davidoff, J. & Roberson, D. (2004). Preserved thematic and impaired taxonomic categorisation: a case study. Language and Cognitive Processes 19(1), 137–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dijkstra, T. & Van Heuven, W. (2002). The architecture of the bilingual word recognition system: from identification to decision. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 5(3), 175–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edmiston, P. & Lupyan, G. (2015). What makes words special? Words as unmotivated cues. Cognition 143, 93–100.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Federmeier, K. D. & Kutas, M. (2001). Meaning and modality: influences of context, semantic memory organization, and perceptual predictability on picture processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 27(1), 202–224.Google ScholarPubMed
Fox, J. & Weisberg, S. (2011). An {R} companion to applied regression (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Fulkerson, A. L. & Waxman, S. R. (2007). Words (but not tones) facilitate object categorization: evidence from 6- and 12-month-olds. Cognition 105(1), 218–228.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ganis, G., Kutas, M. & Sereno, M. I. (1996). The search for ‘common sense’: an electrophysiological study of the comprehension of words and pictures in reading. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 8(2), 89–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gervits, F., Johanson, M. & Papafragou, A. (2016). Intentionality and the role of labels in categorization. Retrieved from <https://mindmodeling.org/cogsci2016/papers/0206/paper0206.pdf>..>Google Scholar
Hamm, J. P., Johnson, B. W. & Kirk, I. J. (2002). Comparison of the N300 and N400 ERPs to picture stimuli in congruent and incongruent contexts. Clinical Neurophysiology 113(8), 1339–1350.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hauk, O., Patterson, K., Woollams, A., Cooper-Pye, E., Pulvermüller, F. & Rogers, T. T. (2007). How the camel lost its hump: the impact of object typicality on event-related potential signals in object decision. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 19(8), 1338–1353.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Heinze, H. J., Muente, T. F. & Kutas, M. (1998). Context effects in a category verification task as assessed by event-related brain potential (ERP) measures. Biological Psychology 47(2), 121–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Irwin, D. J. & Lupker, S. J. (1983). Semantic priming at pictures and words: a levels of processing approach. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 22(1), 45–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiefer, M. (2001). Perceptual and semantic sources of category-specific effects: event-related potentials during picture and word categorization. Memory & Cognition 29(1), 100–116.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kutas, M. & Federmeier, K. D. (2000). Electrophysiology reveals semantic memory use in language comprehension. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 4(12), 463–470.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kutas, M. & Federmeier, K. D. (2011). Thirty years and counting: finding meaning in the N400 component of the event-related brain potential (ERP). Annual Review of Psychology 62, 621–647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kutas, M. & Hillyard, S. A. (1980). Event-related brain potentials to semantically inappropriate and surprisingly large words. Biological Psychology 11(2), 99–116.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Liu, C., Tardif, T., Mai, X., Gehring, W. J., Simms, N. & Luo, Y. J. (2010). What’s in a name? Brain activity reveals categorization processes differ across languages. Human Brain Mapping 31(11), 1786–1801.Google Scholar
Lopez-Calderon, J. & Luck, S. J. (2014). ERPLAB: an open-source toolbox for the analysis of event-related potentials. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 8, e00213.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lupyan, G. (2009). Extracommunicative functions of language: verbal interference causes selective categorization impairments. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 16(4), 711–718.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lupyan, G. (2012). What do words do? Toward a theory of language-augmented thought. In Ross, B. H. (ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 57, pp. 255–297). Waltham, MA: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lupyan, G. & Casasanto, D. (2015). Meaningless words promote meaningful categorization. Language and Cognition 7(2), 167–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lupyan, G. & Mirman, D. (2013). Linking language and categorization: evidence from aphasia. Cortex 49(5), 1187–1194.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lupyan, G., Mirman, D., Hamilton, R. & Thompson-Schill, S. L. (2012). Categorization is modulated by transcranial direct current stimulation over left prefrontal cortex. Cognition 124(1), 36–49.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lupyan, G., Rakison, D. H. & McClelland, J. L. (2007). Language is not just for talking: redundant labels facilitate learning of novel categories. Psychological Science 18(12), 1077–1083.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lupyan, G. & Thompson-Schill, S. L. (2012). The evocative power of words: activation of concepts by verbal and nonverbal means. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 141(1), 170–186.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McPherson, W. B. & Holcomb, P. J. (1999). An electrophysiological investigation of semantic priming with pictures of real objects. Psychophysiology 36(1), 53–65.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pavlenko, A. (2014). The bilingual mind: and what it tells us about language and thought. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Perry, L. K. & Lupyan, G. (2014). The role of language in multi-dimensional categorization: evidence from transcranial direct current stimulation and exposure. Brain & Language 135, 66–72.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Potter, M. C. & Faulconer, B. A. (1975). Time to understand pictures and words. Nature 253(5491), 437.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
R Core Team (2017). R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. Online <https://www.R-project.org/>..>Google Scholar
Robinson, C. W., Best, C. A., Deng, W. S. & Sloutsky, V. (2012). The role of words in cognitive tasks: What, when, and how? Frontiers in Psychology, 3, e00095.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosch, E. (1973). Natural categories. Cognitive Psychology 4(3), 328–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosch, E. (1975). Cognitive representations of semantic categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 104(3), 192–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sitnikova, T., Holcomb, P. J., Kiyonaga, K. A. & Kuperberg, G. R. (2008). Two neurocognitive mechanisms of semantic integration during the comprehension of visual real-world events. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 20(11), 2037–2057.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sitnikova, T., Kuperberg, G. & Holcomb, P. J. (2003). Semantic integration in videos of real-world events: an electrophysiological investigation. Psychophysiology 40(1), 160–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stuss, D. T., Picton, T. W. & Cerri, A. M. (1988). Electrophysiological manifestations of typicality judgment. Brain and Language 33(2), 260–272.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thierry, G. & Wu, Y. J. (2007). Brain potentials reveal unconscious translation during foreign-language comprehension. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104(30), 12530–12535.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
West, W. C. & Holcomb, P. J. (2002). Event-related potentials during discourse-level semantic integration of complex pictures. Cognitive Brain Research 13(3), 363–375.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Whorf, B. L. (1956). Language, thought, and reality: selected writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf. Edited by Carroll, J., Levinson, S. & Lee, P.. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Pan and Jared supplementary material

Appendix B

Download Pan and Jared supplementary material(File)
File 117.8 KB