Classifier categories reflect but do not affect conceptual organization.

Abstract

Do we structure object-related conceptual information according to real-world sensorimotor experience, or can it also be shaped by linguistic information? This study investigates whether a feature of language coded in grammar-numeral classifiers-affects the conceptual representation of objects. We compared speakers of Mandarin (a classifier language) with speakers of Dutch (a language without classifiers) on how they judged object similarity in four studies. In the first three studies, participants had to rate how similar a target object was to four comparison objects, one of which shared a classifier with the target. Objects were presented as either words or pictures. Overall, the target object was always rated as most similar to the object with the shared classifier, but this was the case regardless of the language of the participant. In a final study employing a successive pile-sorting task, we also found that the underlying object concepts were similar for speakers of Mandarin and Dutch. Speakers of a non-classifier language are therefore sensitive to the same conceptual similarities that underlie classifier systems in a classifier language. Classifier systems may therefore reflect conceptual structure, rather than shape it.

Optimal categorisation

“…This finding provides support for the idea that classifier systems may be closely linked to how humans conceptualise objects. In subsequent work Speed et al (2020) did not find any difference between speakers of classifier vs. non-classifier languages (Mandarin and Dutch respectively) when looking at numeral classifiers specifically. This demonstrates that speakers of a non-classifier language are also affected by the types of conceptual similarities that underpin classifier systems.…”

“…BROWN;LENNEBERG, 1954;LUPYAN et al, 2020) whilst others claim that language does not shape cognition (e.g. SCOVEL, 1991;SPEED et al, 2020). Slobin (1996) reinterprets the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis as 'thinking for speaking', a special type of thought process involved in speech production, and argues that the variation in obligatory grammatical elements across languages enables speakers to focus on different aspects of experience.…”

Investigating Heritage Language Processing: Meaning Composition in Chinese Classifier-Noun Phrasal Contexts

“…Secondly and more importantly, classifiers are a good tool for investigating how structural features of languages affect attribute accessibility and object categorization. Chinese classifiers have different degrees of typicality of individual nouns (Zhang and Schmitt, 1998;Gao and Malt, 2009;Speed et al, 2021, but see Saalbach and Imai, 2007, for a different view). Typicality is an important property of a category, relating to graded goodness of example in a categorical hierarchy (Rips et al, 1973;Rosch and Mervis, 1975).…”

Classifier versus taxonomic relations in a similarity judgement task

“…As a reference-tracking device, Chinese classifiers are unique in their semantic association with the internal property of head nouns, which leads to the discussion of the relationship between language and cognition. Much research adduced evidence to the purported classifier effect from Chinese speakers through a range of conceptual categorisation tasks (e.g., Gao & Malt, 2009;Saalbach & Imai, 2007;Speed et al, 2021). However, classifier types (e.g., shape, animacy, and function) as the representative of conceptual saliency can also affect categorisation decision (e.g., Wang & Zhang, 2014), which have been limitedly considered insofar.…”