FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W50862402> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W50862402 abstract "Do Classifier Categories Structure our Concepts? Henrik Saalbach (saalbach@mpib-berlin.mpg.de) Max Planck Institute for Human Development, Lentzeallee 94, 14195 Berlin, Germany Mutsumi Imai (imai@sfc.keio.ac.jp) Keio University at Shonan-Fujisawa, 5322 Endo, Kanagawa, Japan Abstract Whether and to what extent our conceptual structure is universal is of great importance for our understanding of the nature of human concepts. Two major factors that might affect our concepts are language and culture. In this research, we tested whether these two factors affect our concepts of everyday objects in any significant ways. For this purpose we compare adults of three cultural/language groups—Chinese, Japanese, and German—on similarity judgment and property induction. In particular, we tested whether classifier categories influence the conceptual structure of speakers of classifier languages. Some classifier effect was found, but only for Chinese speakers in similarity judgment. Our overall results indicate that the global structure of our concepts is similar across different culture/language groups. Keywords: Concepts, Cross-cultural differences, Linguistic relativity, Classifiers, Thematic relations Introduction One of the key questions in the literature of human concepts is to what extent they are universal across different cultures and language groups (e.g., Bailenson, Shum, Atran, Medin & Coley, 2002; Berlin, 1992; Imai & Gentner, 1997; Imai & Mazuka, 2003; Rosch, 1978; Malt, 1995). In this research, we tested whether language and culture affect our concepts of everyday objects in any significant ways. For this purpose, we compared adults of three cultural/language groups - Chinese, Japanese, and Germans - on similarity judgment and property induction. Comparison of Chinese, Japanese and German speakers is particularly interesting for examining the influence of language on our concepts because Chinese and Japanese are classifier languages. Numeral classifiers are somewhat similar to English quantifiers such as a piece of, a portion of. The important difference between English quantifiers and numeral classifiers is that while the former are only used for quantifying mass nouns (with numerals being used directly with count nouns, e.g. two cars), in Chinese and Japanese, numeral classifiers must be applied to all nouns when quantifying them, including clearly individuated objects such as cars, computers, and even humans. Like nouns, classifiers linguistically categorize entities in the world. However, the lexical organization of classifiers is very different from that of nouns. While the noun lexicon is organized by taxonomic relations, the classifier lexicon is organized around semantic features such as animacy, shape, dimensionality, size, functionality, and flexibility. Categories made by classifiers often crosscut taxonomic categories, although functional classifiers in part overlap with them. For example, nouns classified with hon, a Japanese classifier for long, thin things (and things that are metonymically or metaphorically related to long, thin things), include pens, baseball bats, home-runs, bananas, carrots, ropes, necklaces, wires, and telephone calls (Lakoff, 1987). Tiao, a Chinese classifier for long and flexible things, even crosses the animal and non-animal ontological boundary, including fish, dogs, rivers, roads, pants, and more, in the set of the things it classifies. An extremely interesting question is whether classifier categories are an integral part of conceptual structures in speakers of a classifier language. Zhang and Schmitt (1998) addressed this issue. They tested English speakers and Mandarin-Chinese speakers on a similarity judgment task and found that Chinese speakers in fact rated pairs of objects as more similar than English speakers did when the objects were drawn from the same classifier class. Although Zhang and Schmitt’s results may be interpreted as evidence for a version of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, it is important to note that these results do not tell us whether Chinese speakers have significantly different conceptual structures than English speakers do, as we could not judge whether Chinese speakers in fact organize their concepts around classifier categories. Do Chinese speakers rely on classifier membership more heavily than taxonomic or thematic relations in grouping objects, judging similarity, or making inductive inference of novel properties? If this is indeed the case, we can comfortably conclude that the conceptual structure of Chinese speakers is qualitatively different from that of English speakers, and an endorsement for the strong version of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. However, if we find that, rather than giving precedence to classifier class membership, Chinese speakers organize their concepts around taxonomic or thematic relations in the way that native speakers of European languages do, we must qualify the impact of the classifier system on the speakers’ conceptual structure. To explore this issue, in Experiment 1, we tested speakers of Mandarin-Chinese and German on similarity judgment as well as on property inference. The participants were presented with pairs of everyday objects bearing different kinds of relations. The first type of pairs were related taxonomically, and the second type were related thematically. The pairs of the third type were drawn from the same classifier class in Chinese, but were not related taxonomically or thematically (e.g., fish and ropes) and the fourth type had no relation and served as a control (see table 1). In this" @default.
• W50862402 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W50862402 creator A5033646315 @default.
• W50862402 creator A5066322723 @default.
• W50862402 date "2005-01-01" @default.
• W50862402 modified "2023-09-28" @default.
• W50862402 title "Do classifier categories structure our concepts" @default.
• W50862402 cites W1791787674 @default.
• W50862402 cites W1989586510 @default.
• W50862402 cites W1995062779 @default.
• W50862402 cites W2002417021 @default.
• W50862402 cites W2026973491 @default.
• W50862402 cites W2030060782 @default.
• W50862402 cites W2055460448 @default.
• W50862402 cites W2128689257 @default.
• W50862402 cites W2137976908 @default.
• W50862402 cites W2148283460 @default.
• W50862402 cites W2167556227 @default.
• W50862402 cites W3035258717 @default.
• W50862402 cites W358497960 @default.
• W50862402 hasPublicationYear "2005" @default.
• W50862402 type Work @default.
• W50862402 sameAs 50862402 @default.
• W50862402 citedByCount "4" @default.
• W50862402 countsByYear W508624022018 @default.
• W50862402 crossrefType "proceedings-article" @default.
• W50862402 hasAuthorship W50862402A5033646315 @default.
• W50862402 hasAuthorship W50862402A5066322723 @default.
• W50862402 hasConcept C101755528 @default.
• W50862402 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W50862402 hasConcept C154775046 @default.
• W50862402 hasConcept C154945302 @default.
• W50862402 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W50862402 hasConcept C169760540 @default.
• W50862402 hasConcept C169900460 @default.
• W50862402 hasConcept C180747234 @default.
• W50862402 hasConcept C204321447 @default.
• W50862402 hasConcept C2776035688 @default.
• W50862402 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W50862402 hasConcept C41895202 @default.
• W50862402 hasConcept C95623464 @default.
• W50862402 hasConceptScore W50862402C101755528 @default.
• W50862402 hasConceptScore W50862402C138885662 @default.
• W50862402 hasConceptScore W50862402C154775046 @default.
• W50862402 hasConceptScore W50862402C154945302 @default.
• W50862402 hasConceptScore W50862402C15744967 @default.
• W50862402 hasConceptScore W50862402C169760540 @default.
• W50862402 hasConceptScore W50862402C169900460 @default.
• W50862402 hasConceptScore W50862402C180747234 @default.
• W50862402 hasConceptScore W50862402C204321447 @default.
• W50862402 hasConceptScore W50862402C2776035688 @default.
• W50862402 hasConceptScore W50862402C41008148 @default.
• W50862402 hasConceptScore W50862402C41895202 @default.
• W50862402 hasConceptScore W50862402C95623464 @default.
• W50862402 hasIssue "27" @default.
• W50862402 hasLocation W508624021 @default.
• W50862402 hasOpenAccess W50862402 @default.
• W50862402 hasPrimaryLocation W508624021 @default.
• W50862402 hasRelatedWork W1528714290 @default.
• W50862402 hasRelatedWork W1534396039 @default.
• W50862402 hasRelatedWork W1976883043 @default.
• W50862402 hasRelatedWork W2075793880 @default.
• W50862402 hasRelatedWork W2119182391 @default.
• W50862402 hasRelatedWork W2124985016 @default.
• W50862402 hasRelatedWork W2156892921 @default.
• W50862402 hasRelatedWork W2165939554 @default.
• W50862402 hasRelatedWork W2170822384 @default.
• W50862402 hasRelatedWork W2529814833 @default.
• W50862402 hasRelatedWork W2574386403 @default.
• W50862402 hasRelatedWork W2579621911 @default.
• W50862402 hasRelatedWork W2586717534 @default.
• W50862402 hasRelatedWork W2587028620 @default.
• W50862402 hasRelatedWork W2587779313 @default.
• W50862402 hasRelatedWork W2617076707 @default.
• W50862402 hasRelatedWork W2619059057 @default.
• W50862402 hasRelatedWork W2758821752 @default.
• W50862402 hasRelatedWork W2946182287 @default.
• W50862402 hasRelatedWork W96779125 @default.
• W50862402 hasVolume "27" @default.
• W50862402 isParatext "false" @default.
• W50862402 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W50862402 magId "50862402" @default.
• W50862402 workType "article" @default.