Considering the third time frame of the thinking-for-speaking hypothesis (tfs), online language use affects subsequent nonverbal categorical perception preferences (Slobin 2003); according to the universalist view, nonverbal cognitive thinking is arranged in universal conceptual structures underlying surface crosslinguistic differentiations (Imai & Gentner 1997). In the present study, we examined crosslinguistic differences in the expression of noun countability in Greek and English speakers. In a verbal task, Greek speakers pluralized mass nouns more than English speakers; consistent with the universal object/substance ontological distinction, both Greek and English speakers differentiated between objects and substances in a nonverbal object matching task, selecting shape for objects and material for substances. However, only in Greek speakers pluralizing mass nouns in the verbal task significantly predicted their preferences for matching substances by shape in the nonverbal task. The findings are discussed considering whether linguistic context differentially affects the performance of speakers crosslinguistically and in specific tasks.
AlexiadouArtemis.2011. Plural mass nouns and the morpho-syntax of number. In WashburnM.B.McKinney-BockK.VarisE.SawyerA. & TomaszewiczB. (eds.) Proceedings of the 28th West Coast conference on Formal Linguistics (33–41). Somerville ma: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
BrownAmanda & GullbergMarianne.2008. Birdirectional crosslinguistic influence in L1-L2 encoding of manner in speech and gesture: a study of Japanese speakers of English. Studies in Second Language Acquisition30: 225–51
CareySusan.2001. Whorf versus continuity theorists: bringing data to bear on the debate. In BowermanM. & LevinsonS. (eds.) Language acquisition and conceptual development (185–214). Cambridge uk: Cambridge University Press.
ImaiMutsumi.2000. Universal ontological knowledge and a bias toward language-specific categories in the construal of individuation. In NiemeierS. & DirvenR. (eds.) Evidence for linguistic relativity (139–60). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
ImaiMutsumi & MazukaReiko.1997. A crosslinguistic study on the construal of individuation in linguistic and non-linguistic contexts. Meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development
2003. Re-evaluating linguistic relativity: language-specific categories and the role of universal ontological knowledge in the construal of individuation. In GentnerD. & Goldin-MeadowS. (eds.) Language in mind: advances in the study of language and thought (429–64). Cambridge ma: mit Press.
SapirEdward.1924. The grammarian and his language. American Mercury1: 149–55. [Reprinted in 1958 Selected writings of Edward Sapir in language culture and personality (MandelbaumD.G. ed.). Berkeley/Los Angeles: University of California Press].
2003. Language and thought online: cognitive consequences of linguistic relativity
. In GentnerD. & Goldin-MeadowS. (eds.) Language in mind: advances in the study of language and thought (157–92). Cambridge ma: mit Press.
SpelkeElizabeth S.1991. Physical knowledge in infancy: reflections on Piaget’s theory. In CareyS. & GelmanR. (eds.) The epigenesis of mind: essays on biology and cognition (133–69). Hillsdale nj: Lawrence Erlbaum.
SpelkeElizabeth S.KestenbaumRobertaSimonsDaniel J. & WeinDebra.1995. Spatiotemporal continuity, smoothness of motion and object identity in infancy. British Journal of Developmental Psychology13: 113–42.
SubrahmanyamKaveriLandauBarbara & GelmanRochel.1999. Shape, material, and syntax: interacting forces in children’s learning in novel words for objects and substances. Language and Cognitive Processes14: 249–81.
von StutterheimChristianeAndermannMartinCarrollMaryFleckenMonique & SchmiedtováBarbara.2012. How grammaticized concepts shape event conceptualization in language production: insights from linguistic analysis, eye tracking data, and memory performance. Linguistics50: 833–67.