scholarly journals Do classifiers predict differences in cognitive processing? A study of nominal classification in Mandarin Chinese

2010 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 177-190 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mahesh Srinivasan

AbstractIn English, numerals modify nouns directly (two tables), but in Mandarin Chinese, they modify numeral classifiers that are associated with nouns (two flat-thing table). Classifiers define a system of categories based on dimensions such as animacy, shape, and function (Adams and Conklin 1973; Dixon 1986), but do these categories predict differences in cognitive processing? The present study explored possible effects of classifier categories in a speeded task preventing significant deliberation and strategic responding. Participants counted objects in a visual display that were intermixed with distractor objects that had either the same Mandarin classifier or a different one. Classifier categories predicted Mandarin speakers' search performance, as Mandarin speakers showed greater interference from distractors with the same classifier than did Russian or English speakers. This result suggests that classifier categories may affect cognitive processing, and may have the potential to influence how speakers of classifier languages perform cognitive tasks in everyday situations. Two theoretical accounts of the results are discussed.

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mahesh Srinivasan

In English, numerals modify nouns directly (two tables), but in Mandarin Chinese, they modify numeral classifiers that are associated with nouns (two flat-thing table). Classifiers define a system of categories based on dimensions such as animacy, shape, and function (Adams and Conklin 1973; Dixon 1986), but do these categories predict differences in cognitive processing? The present study explored possible effects of classifier categories in a speeded task preventing significant deliberation and strategic responding. Participants counted objects in a visual display that were intermixed with distractor objects that had either the same Mandarin classifier or a different one. Classifier categories predicted Mandarin speakers’ search performance, as Mandarin speakers showed greater interference from distractors with the same classifier than did Russian or English speakers. This result suggests that classifier categories may affect cognitive processing, and may have the potential to influence how speakers of classifier languages perform cognitive tasks in everyday situations. Two theoretical accounts of the results are discussed.


2013 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-23 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria D. Sera ◽  
Kaitlin R. Johnson ◽  
Jenny Yichun Kuo

AbstractPast evidence suggests that adult Mandarin speakers rely on shape more heavily than English speakers when categorizing solid objects (Kuo and Sera 2009). In this experiment, we began to examine that effect developmentally by investigating the acquisition of the three most common Mandarin Chinese classifiers for solid objects (i.e. ge, zhi and tiao) in relation to development in shape-based categorization by native speakers of Mandarin and English from 3 years of age to adulthood. We found that 3-year-old Mandarin speakers were above chance in their classifier knowledge, but this knowledge continued to develop through 7 years of age. We also found that Mandarin speakers relied more heavily on shape than English speakers, and that shape-based categorization among English speakers tended to decline with age on the trials in which shape choices matched the Mandarin classifiers. The findings suggest that classifiers initially augment Mandarin speakers' attention to the shape of solid objects, and then maintain this early stronger shape bias after they are fully learned. The work highlights how categorization and word learning are graded and intertwined.


2020 ◽  
Vol 62 (1) ◽  
pp. 55-76
Author(s):  
Nastazja Stoch

Abstract The purpose of this paper is to prove the Mass Noun Hypothesis wrong. The hypothesis claims that all common nouns in classifier languages like Mandarin Chinese are mass nouns. The objection against it consists in displaying its implausible deduction, where false conclusions have been drawn due to relying on the grammar of English, which is incongruent with the grammar of Chinese. Consequently, this paper defends the Count Noun Thesis, stating that in Chinese there are count as well as mass nouns. In support of this statement, first, the typology of numeral classifiers had to be established, which resulted in gathering and completing all the reasons to distinguish classifiers from measure words. After only this necessary differentiation was made, it was possible to show that the count/mass distinction exists in Mandarin Chinese. That is, count nouns by default have only one classifier, with certain disclaimers. Apart from that, count nouns, as in every language, may undergo some measurement with measure words. Mass nouns, however, in the context of quantification may appear only with measure words, but not with classifiers. These conditions naturally follow from the ontological status of the two types of nouns’ referents, i.e. bounded objects denoted by count nouns, and scattered substances denoted by mass nouns.


Author(s):  
Marcin Kilarski ◽  
Marc Allassonnière-Tang

Classifiers are partly grammaticalized systems of classification of nominal referents. The choice of a classifier can be based on such criteria as animacy, sex, material, and function as well as physical properties such as shape, size, and consistency. Such meanings are expressed by free or bound morphemes in a variety of morphosyntactic contexts, on the basis of which particular subtypes of classifiers are distinguished. These include the most well-known numeral classifiers which occur with numerals or quantifiers, as in Mandarin Chinese yí liàng chē (one clf.vehicle car) ‘one car’. The other types of classifiers are found in contexts other than quantification (noun classifiers), in possessive constructions (possessive classifiers), in verbs (verbal classifiers), as well as with deictics (deictic classifiers) and in locative phrases (locative classifiers). Classifiers are found in languages of diverse typological profiles, ranging from the analytic languages of Southeast Asia and Oceania to the polysynthetic languages of the Americas. Classifiers are also found in other modalities (i.e., sign languages and writing systems). Along with grammatical gender, classifiers constitute one of the two main types of nominal classification. Although classifiers and gender differ in some ways, with the presence of a classifier not being reflected in agreement (i.e., the form of associated words), in others they exhibit common patterns. Thus, both types of nominal classification markers contribute to the expansion of the lexicon and the organization of discourse. Shared patterns also involve common paths of evolution, as illustrated by the grammaticalization of classifier systems into gender systems. In turn, particular types of classifiers resemble various means of lexical categorization found in non-classifier languages, including measure words, class terms, as well as semantic agreement between the verb and direct object. All these three means of classification can be viewed in terms of a continuum of grammaticalization, ranging from lexical means to partly grammaticalized classifiers and to grammaticalized gender systems. Although evidence of classifiers in non-Indo-European languages has been available since the 16th century, it was only the end of the 20th century that saw a formative stage in their study. Since then, classifier systems have offered fascinating insights into the diversity of language structure, including such key phenomena as categorization, functionality, grammaticalization, and the distinction between lexicon and grammar as well as the language-internal and external factors underlying the evolution of morphosyntactic complexity.


2013 ◽  
Vol 24 (4) ◽  
pp. 605-631 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amanda Brown ◽  
Jidong Chen

AbstractTwo-way typological patterning between satellite- and verb-framed languages in construal of Manner of motion is well attested in speech (e.g. Slobin 2006) and gesture (e.g. McNeill 2001), but contradictory findings exist regarding a third category of equipollently-framed languages (Slobin 2004b). This study examined elicited descriptions of motion from 14 native speakers of Mandarin-Chinese (equipollently-framed), 13 native speakers of English (satellite-framed), and 16 native speakers of Japanese (verb-framed). Results showed that Mandarin and English speakers encoded Manner in speech significantly more than Japanese speakers, and rarely added Manner to gesture when it was absent from speech. However, Mandarin speakers differed from Japanese but also English speakers in gestural highlighting of Manner, where they frequently encoded Manner in speech but not in accompanying gestures, focusing instead on other aspects of the event, specifically Path. These results support a partial three-way typological distinction in construal of motion.


2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pierina Cheung ◽  
David Barner ◽  
Peggy Li

When presented with an entity (e.g., a wooden honey-dipper) labeled with anovel noun, how does a listener know that the noun refers to an instance ofan object kind (honey- dipper) rather than to a substance kind (wood)?While English speakers draw upon count-mass syntax for clues to the noun’smeaning, linguists have proposed that classifier languages, which lackcount-mass syntax, provide other syntactic cues. Three experiments testedMandarin- speakers’ sensitivity to the diminutive suffix -zi and thegeneral classifier ge when interpreting novel nouns. Experiment 1 foundthat -zi occurs more frequently with nouns that denote object kinds.Experiment 2 demonstrated Mandarin-speaking adults’ sensitivity to ge and -ziwhen inferring novel word meanings. Experiment 3 tested Mandarin three- tosix-year-olds’ sensitivity to ge. We discuss differences in thedevelopmental course of these cues relative to cues in English, and theimpact of this difference to children’s understanding of individuation.


2021 ◽  
pp. 026765832199387
Author(s):  
Shuo Feng

The Interface Hypothesis proposes that second language (L2) learners, even at highly proficient levels, often fail to integrate information at the external interfaces where grammar interacts with other cognitive systems. While much early L2 work has focused on the syntax–discourse interface or scalar implicatures at the semantics–pragmatics interface, the present article adds to this line of research by exploring another understudied phenomenon at the semantics–pragmatics interface, namely, presuppositions. Furthermore, this study explores both inference computation and suspension via a covered-box picture-selection task. Specifically, this study investigates the interpretation of a presupposition trigger stop and stop under negation. The results from 38 native English speakers and 41 first language (L1) Mandarin Chinese learners of English indicated similar response patterns between native and L2 groups in computing presuppositions but not in suspending presuppositions. That is, L2 learners were less likely to suspend presuppositions than native speakers. This study contributes to a more precise understanding of L2 acquisition at the external interface level, as well as computation and suspension of pragmatic inferences.


2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 169-198
Author(s):  
Chen Chen ◽  
Feng-hsi Liu

Abstract A major claim in the constructionist approach to language acquisition is that grammar is learned by pairings of form and function. In this study we test this claim by examining how L2 learners of Mandarin Chinese acquire the bei passive construction, a construction that is associated with the meaning of adversity. Our goal is to find out whether L2 learners make the association between the passive and adversity. Participants performed a sentence choice task under four conditions: an adversative context with an adversative verb, an adversative context with a neutral verb, a neutral context with a neutral verb and a positive context with a neutral verb. In each context participants were asked to select either the bei passive construction or its active counterpart. We found that high-level learners consistently chose the bei passive significantly more in adversative contexts than in non-adversative contexts regardless of the connotations of the verbs, while low-level learners made the distinction half of the time. In addition, while low-level learners did not yet associate adversity with the form of the construction, high-level learners did. We conclude that L2 learners do learn the bei passive construction as a form-meaning pair. The constructionist approach is supported.


2021 ◽  
pp. 1-31
Author(s):  
Haoruo Zhang ◽  
Norbert Vanek

Abstract In response to negative yes–no questions (e.g., Doesn’t she like cats?), typical English answers (Yes, she does/No, she doesn’t) peculiarly vary from those in Mandarin (No, she does/Yes, she doesn’t). What are the processing consequences of these markedly different conventionalized linguistic responses to achieve the same communicative goals? And if English and Mandarin speakers process negative questions differently, to what extent does processing change in Mandarin–English sequential bilinguals? Two experiments addressed these questions. Mandarin–English bilinguals, English and Mandarin monolinguals (N = 40/group) were tested in a production experiment (Expt. 1). The task was to formulate answers to positive/negative yes–no questions. The same participants were also tested in a comprehension experiment (Expt. 2), in which they had to answer positive/negative questions with time-measured yes/no button presses. In both Expt. 1 and Expt. 2, English and Mandarin speakers showed language-specific yes/no answers to negative questions. Also, in both experiments, English speakers showed a reaction-time advantage over Mandarin speakers in negation conditions. Bilingual’s performance was in-between that of the L1 and L2 baseline. These findings are suggestive of language-specific processing of negative questions. They also signal that the ways in which bilinguals process negative questions are susceptible to restructuring driven by the second language.


2015 ◽  
Vol 233 (9) ◽  
pp. 2581-2586 ◽  
Author(s):  
John F. Magnotti ◽  
Debshila Basu Mallick ◽  
Guo Feng ◽  
Bin Zhou ◽  
Wen Zhou ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document