Can the English stand the bottle like the Dutch? Effects of relational categories on object perception

Abstract

Does language influence how we perceive the world? This study examines how linguistic encoding of relational information by means of verbs implicitly affects visual processing, by measuring perceptual judgements behaviourally, and visual perception and attention in EEG. Verbal systems can vary cross-linguistically: Dutch uses posture verbs to describe inanimate object configurations (the bottle stands/lies on the table). In English, however, such use of posture verbs is rare (the bottle is on the table). Using this test case, we ask (1) whether previously attested language-perception interactions extend to more complex domains, and (2) whether differences in linguistic usage probabilities affect perception. We report three nonverbal experiments in which Dutch and English participants performed a picture-matching task. Prime and target pictures contained object configurations (e.g., a bottle on a table); in the critical condition, prime and target showed a mismatch in object position (standing/lying). In both language groups, we found similar responses, suggesting that probabilistic differences in linguistic encoding of relational information do not affect perception.

Looking differently at locative events: the cognitive impact of linguistic preferences

“…As we will show, the memorisation performance and eye-gazing analysed in our study confirm a subtle cognitive impact of the linguistic preferences in the domain of location described above (unlike Flecken & Van Bergen, 2019). In addition, our study shows that location can indeed not be seen as fully in parallel to motion, as it cuts across the typological boundaries and this does not find a satisfactory answer in Talmy's split systems.…”

“…This cognitive impact of language-specific preferences on non-verbal conceptualisation is at the centre of the study reported on here. As such, we situate ourselves in the recent body of studies inspired by event integration theory, which have shown how languagespecific preferences in event descriptions do indeed impact attention allocation during event observation, memorisation, and categorisation (see, among others, Berman & Slobin, 1994;Bosse & Papafragou, 2010Bowerman & Choi, 2001Choi & Bowerman, 1991;Filipović, 2011;Flecken et al, 2015;Flecken & Van Bergen, 2019;Gennari et al, 2002;Hickmann, 2006;Landau & Jackendoff, 1993;Papafragou & Selimis, 2010;Slobin, 1996; for an account of bilinguals and learners, see, among others, Filipović, 2011Filipović, , 2018. Focusing on the conceptualisation of locative events, Flecken and Van Bergen (2019) investigate the cognitive impact of the probabilistic differences in the linguistic encoding of relational information in English and Dutch via a picture-matching task.…”

Minding the manner: attention to motion events in Turkish–Dutch early bilinguals

“…Montero-Melis et al, 2017). Similarly, in a picture-matching study by Flecken and Van Bergen (2020), ERPs recorded from native English and Dutch participants for mismatching object configurations, also yielded no group differences in the P300 domain, likely due to probabilistic encoding of object position in English. In contrast, grammatical features are encoded more regularly and may have a stronger overall effect on event conceptualization and early attention (cf.…”

“…In the statistical analyses, the selections of time windows and electrodes were based on related prior oddball paradigm studies (Flecken, Athanasopoulos, et al, 2015; Flecken & Van Bergen, 2020) as well as visual inspection of the current data. We used 350–700 ms as the P300 time window.…”

“…Following recent studies of the interactions between language and perception using ERPs (Flecken, Athanasopoulos, et al, 2015; Flecken & Van Bergen, 2020; Thierry et al, 2009) we used a design inspired by the visual oddball paradigm, where the frequency of conditions is manipulated to elicit a response. Traditional oddball designs probe early visual perception (e.g., Thierry et al, 2009) that precedes any potential language effects.…”