Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T03:40:11.671Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Language effects on the conceptualization of hybrids*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 March 2014

NIRA MASHAL ,
YESHAYAHU SHEN ,
KARINE JOSPE  and
DAVID GIL
NIRA MASHAL*
Affiliation:
School of Education, Bar Ilan University, Ramat Gan, IsraelGonda Multidisciplinary Brain Research Center, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Israel
YESHAYAHU SHEN
Affiliation:
Program of Cognitive Studies of Language Use, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel
KARINE JOSPE
Affiliation:
Department of Education and Psychology, The Open University, Israel
DAVID GIL
Affiliation:
Linguistics, Max Plank Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig, Germany
*
†Address for correspondence: Dr Nira Mashal, School of Education, Bar-Ilan University, Israel. tel: (972)-3-5317178; fax: (972)-3-7384029; e-mail: nmashal2@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The current study investigates the conceptual hierarchy of humans−animals−plants−non-animate objects by using novel hybrids. Three experiments were conducted. In Experiment 1, twenty-one participants were presented with a grammatically asymmetrical phrase, in which the two components are associated with different linguistic properties, (e.g., a man with a horse’s head) followed by a visual hybrid, and were asked to judge whether the phrase described the hybrid. In Experiment 2, thirty participants were presented with a visual hybrid and were asked to categorize it according to one of its visually presented components in a forced-choice judgment task. In Experiment 3, twenty-nine participants were presented with a visual hybrid that followed a grammatically symmetrical phrase, in which both components carry similar grammatical properties (e.g., half-human half-horse), and were asked to judge whether the phrase described the hybrid. A conceptual hierarchy effect was found in Experiment 1 but not in the other two experiments. These findings show that the hierarchy effect occurs only in verbal tasks that involve asymmetrical grammatical constructions. We suggest that the pragmatic tendency to map the hierarchically higher concept onto the higher grammatical function applies to asymmetrical constructions but not to symmetrical constructions.

Keywords

conceptual hierarchyhybridscategorization
Type
Research Article
Information
Language and Cognition , Volume 6 , Issue 2 , June 2014 , pp. 217 - 241
Copyright
Copyright © UK Cognitive Linguistics Association 2014 

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

*

This research was supported by Grant No. 969-07 from the Israel Science Foundation of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities to the second author.

References

references

Abboud, H. (1991). SuperLab. Wheaton, MD: Cedrus.Google Scholar
Boroditsky, L., Schmidt, L., & Phillips, W. (2003). Sex, syntax, and semantics. In Gentner, D. & Goldin-Meadow, S. (Eds.), Language in mind: advances in the study of language and thought (pp. 61−80). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Branigan, P. H., Pickering, M. J., & Tanaka, M. (2008). Contributions of animacy to grammatical function assignment and word order during production. Lingua, 118 (2), 172−189.Google Scholar
Carroll, N. (1994). Visual metaphor. In Hintikka, Jaakko (Ed.), Aspects of metaphor (pp. 189−218). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Connor, K., & Kogan, N. (1980). Topic−vehicle relations in metaphor: the issue of asymmetry. In Honeck, Richard P., & Hoffman, Robert. R. (Eds.), Cognition and figurative language (pp. 283−310). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Cooper, W. E., & Ross, J.R. (1975). Word order. In Grossman, R. G., San, L., & Vance, T. (Eds.), Papers from the parasession on functionalism (pp. 63−111). Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
de Villiers, J. G., & de Villiers, P. A. (2003). Language for thought: coming to understand false beliefs. In Gentner, D., & Goldin-Meadow, S. (Eds.), Language in mind: advances in the study of language and thought (pp. 335−386). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Deane, D. P. (1992). Grammar in mind and brain: explorations in cognitive syntax. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Deane, D. P. (1993). On metaphoric inversion. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 8 (2), 111−126.Google Scholar
Feleki, E. (1996). The effects of conceptual accessibility on language production: experimental evidence from Modern Greek. (Unpublished MA thesis) Centre for Cognitive Science, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Forceville, C. (1996). Pictorial metaphor in advertising. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Gentner, D., & Goldin-Meadow, S. (Eds.) (2003). Language in mind: advances in the study of language and thought. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gleitman, L., & Papafragou, A. (2005). Language and thought. In Holyoak, K. J., & Morrison, R. G. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 633−661). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Keil, F. C. (1979). Semantic and conceptual development: an ontological perspective. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keil, F. C. (1981). Constraints on knowledge and cognitive development. Psychological Review, 88 (3), 197−227.Google Scholar
Kogan, N., Mindi, C., & Heleen, H. (1989). Developmental trends in metaphoric asymmetry. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 4 (2), 71−91.Google Scholar
Levin, B., & Hovav, M. R. (2005). Argument realization. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Loewenstein, J., & Gentner, D. (2005). Relational language and the development of relational mapping. Cognitive Psychology, 50, 315–353.Google Scholar
Lupyan, G. (2012). Linguistically modulated perception and cognition: the label-feedback hypothesis. Frontiers in Psychology, 3 (54), 1−13.Google Scholar
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, 1077−1083.Google Scholar
Merchant, J. (2006). Polyvalent case, geometric hierarchies, and split ergativity. Proceedings from the Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (42 (2), 57−76). Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Quene, H., & van den Bergh, H. (2008). Examples of mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects and with binomial data. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 413−25.Google Scholar
Roberson, D., Davidoff, J., Davies, I. R., & Shapiro, L. R. (2005). Color categories: evidence for the cultural relativity hypothesis. Cognitive Psychology, 50, 378−411.Google Scholar
Shen, Y., & Gil, D. (2010). The perception of visual hybrids: the role of language. Paper presented at Cognitive Poetics and Rhetoric 1.0, University of Lodz, Poland.Google Scholar
Shen, Y., Gil, D., & Roman, H. (2006). What can hybrids tell us about the relationship of language and thought? Paper presented at the IGEL conference. Munich, Germany.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. (1996). From ‘thought and language’ to ‘thinking for speaking’. In Gumperz, John J., & Levinson, Stephen C. (Eds.). Rethinking linguistic relativity (pp. 70−96). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tanaka, M., Holly, P. B., & Martin, J. P. (2005). The role of animacy in Japanese sentence production. Paper presented at the CUNY Sentence Processing Conference, Tucson, AZ.Google Scholar
Wagner, W., Kronberger, N., Nagata, M., Sen, R., Holtz, P., & Palacios, F. F. (2010). Essentialist theory of ‘hybrids’: from animal kinds to ethnic categories and race. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 13 (4), 232−246.Google Scholar
Waxman, S., & Markow, D. B. (1995). Words as invitations to form categories: evidence from 12- to 13-month-old infants. Cognitive Psychology, 29, 257−302.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Whorf, B. L., & Chase, S. (1956). Language, Thought and Reality, Selected Writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf. Edited... by John B. Carroll. Foreword by Stuart Chase. Carroll, J. B. (Ed.). Mass.Google Scholar
Wolff, P., & Holmes, K. J. (2011). Linguistic relativity. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 2 (3), 253−265.Google ScholarPubMed