Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-cfpbc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-15T10:23:08.068Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Does learning Spanish grammatical gender change English-speaking adults' categorization of inanimate objects?*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 December 2010

ELENA KURINSKI  and
MARIA D. SERA
ELENA KURINSKI*
Affiliation:
Saint Cloud State University, St. Cloud
MARIA D. SERA
Affiliation:
University of Minnesota, Minneapolis
*
Address for correspondence: Elena Kurinski, Department of Foreign Languages and Literature, St. Cloud State University, 113 Lawrence Hall, 720 Fourth Avenue South, St. Cloud, MN 56301-4498ekurinski@stcloudstate.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Second language acquisition studies can contribute to the body of research on the influence of language on thought by examining cognitive change as a result of second language learning. We conducted a longitudinal study that examined how the acquisition of Spanish grammatical gender influences categorization in native English-speaking adults. We asked whether learning the grammatical gender of Spanish affects adult native English speakers' attribution of gender to inanimate objects. College students enrolled in beginning Spanish participated in two tasks repeatedly (four times) throughout one academic year. One task examined their acquisition of grammatical gender. The other examined their categorization of inanimate objects. We began to observe changes in participants' grammatical gender acquisition and in categorization after ten weeks of Spanish instruction. Results indicate that learning a second language as an adult can change the way one categorizes objects. However, the effect of Spanish grammatical gender was more limited in Spanish learners than in native Spanish speakers; it was not observed for all kinds of objects nor did it increase with learners' proficiency, suggesting that adults learning Spanish reach a plateau beyond which changes in categorization do not occur.

Keywords

language–thought relationscategorizationSpanish grammatical gendersecond language learninglanguage and cognition
Type
Research Article
Information
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition , Volume 14 , Issue 2 , April 2011 , pp. 203 - 220
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

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 in part by a small grant from the Department of Spanish and Portuguese at the University of Minnesota. The authors would like to thank Professor Carol Klee for her helpful comments and professional support. A portion of this work is based on Elena Kurinski's doctoral dissertation, “Gender Attribution by Adult Native English Speakers Learning Spanish”. We extend our thanks to dissertation committee members Francisco Ocampo and Timothy Face. Some of the data from this study were presented at the V International Conference of the Spanish Cognitive Linguistics Association in Murcia, Spain (October 2006).

References

Agnoli, F., & Forer, D. (2004). Grammatical gender, classification of objects, and conceptual representations. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Archibald, J. (1998). Second language phonology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Aristotle (n.d.). On interpretation, trans. Edghill, E. M.. Retrieved 24 December 2009, from The Internet Classics Archive by Daniel C. Stevenson, Web Atomics website: http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/interpretation.html.Google Scholar
Athanasopoulos, P. (2007). Interaction between grammatical categories and cognition in bilinguals: The role of proficiency, cultural immersion, and language of instruction. Language and Cognitive Processes, 22, 689–699.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Athanasopoulos, P. (2009). Cognitive representation of colour in bilinguals: The case of Greek blues. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 12, 83–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bassetti, B. (2007). Bilingualism and thought: Grammatical gender and concepts of objects in Italian–German bilingual children. International Journal of Bilingualism, 11 (3), 251–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bley-Vroman, R. (1989). What is the logical problem of foreign language learning? In Gass, S. & Schachter, J. (eds.), Linguistic perspectives on second language acquisition, pp. 41–68. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle 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 cognition, pp. 61–79. Cambridge, MA: MIT press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, J.-Y. (2007). Do Chinese and English speakers think about time differently? Failure of replicating Boroditsky (2001). Cognition, 104, 427–436.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Choi, S., & Bowerman, M. (1991). Learning express motion events in English and Korean: The influence of language-specific lexicalization patterns. Cognition, 41, 83–121.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clarke, M. A., Losoff, A., McCracken, M., & Still, J. (1981). Gender perception in Arabic and English. Language Learning, 31, 159–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook, V., Bassetti, B., Kasai, C., Sasaki, M., & Takahashi, J. A. (2006). Do bilinguals have different concepts? The case of shape and material in Japanese L2 users of English. International Journal of Bilingualism, 10, 137–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corbett, G. G. (1991). Gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davidoff, J., Davies, I., & Roberson, D. (1999). Color categories in a stone-age tribe. Nature, 398 (6724), 203–204.CrossRefGoogle 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 cognition, pp. 335–384. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunn, L. M., & Dunn, L. M. (1981). Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test—Revised. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Services.Google Scholar
Dunn, L. M., & Dunn, L. M. (1986). Test de Vocabulario en Imagenes Peabody [Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test]. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Services.Google Scholar
Ervin-Tripp, S. (1962). The connotations of gender. Word, 18, 249–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flaherty, M. (1998). Spatial deictic reference: A comparison of Japanese and English. Tohoku Psychologica Folia, 57, 14–22.Google Scholar
Flaherty, M. (2001). How language creeps into perception. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32 (1), 18–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fodor, J., Bever, T. G., & Garrett, M. (1974). The psychology of language. New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
Forbes, J. N., Poulin-Dubois, D., Rivero, M. R., & Sera, M. D. (2008). Grammatical gender affects bilinguals’ conceptual gender: Implications for linguistic relativity and decision making. The Open Applied Linguistics Journal, 1, 69–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gass, S. M., & Selinker, L. (2001). Second language acquisition: An introductory course. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gordon, P. (2004). Numerical cognition without words: Evidence from Amazonia. Science, 306, 496–499.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Green, J. N. (1990). Spanish. In Comrie, B. (ed.), The world's major languages, pp. 236–259. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hermer-Vasquez, L., Spelke, E. S., & Katsnelson, A. S. (1999). Sources of flexibility in human cognition: Dual-task studies of space and language. Cognitive Psychology, 39, 3–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, C. (1974). Spatial perception and linguistic encoding: A case study in Hausa and English. Studies in African Linguistics, 5, 135–148.Google Scholar
Hofstätter, P. R. (1963). Über sprachliche Bestimmungsleistungen: Das Problem des Grammatikalischen Geschlechts von Sonne und Mond. Zeitschrift für experimentelle und andewandte Psychologie, 10, 91–108.Google Scholar
Jakobson, R. (1966). On linguistic aspects of translation. In Brower, R. A. (ed.), On translation, pp. 232–239. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
January, D., & Kako, E. (2007). Re-evaluating evidence for the Linguistic Relativity Hypothesis: Response to Boroditsky (2001). Cognition, 104, 417–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jarvis, S., & Pavlenko, A. (2008). Crosslinguistic influence in language and cognition. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Konishi, T. (1993). The semantics of grammatical gender: A cross-cultural study. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 22 (5), 519–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kousta, S.-T., Vinson, D. P., & Vigliocco, G. (2008). Investigating linguistic relativity through bilingualism: The case of grammatical gender. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34 (4), 843–858.Google ScholarPubMed
Kuo, J., & Sera, M. D. (2009). Chinese speakers rely more on shape than English speakers when classifying objects. Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 18, 1–19.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. L. (1996). Frames of reference and Molyneux's question: Crosslinguistic evidence. In Bloom, P., Peterson, M. A., Nadel, L. & Garrett, M. F. (eds.), Language and space, pp. 109–169. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lohmann, H., & Tomasello, T. (2003). The role of language in the Ddevelopment of false belief understanding: A training study. Child Development, 74 (4), 1130–1144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lucy, J. (1992). Grammatical categories and cognition: A case study of the Linguistic Relativity Hypothesis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lucy, J., & Gaskins, S. (2003). Interaction of language type and referent type in the development of nonverbal classification preferences. In Gentner, D. & Goldin-Meadow, S. (eds.), Language in mind: Advances in the study of language and cognition, pp. 465–492. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martínez, I. M., & Shatz, M. (1996). Linguistic influences on categorization in preschool children: A cross-linguistic study. Journal of Child Language, 23, 529–545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mazuka, R., & Friedman, R. (2000). Linguistic relativity in Japanese and English: Is language the primary determinant in object classification? Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 9 (4), 325–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mullen, M. K. (1990). Children's classification of nature and artifact pictures into female and male categories. Sex Roles, 23 (9/10), 577–587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Naigles, L. R., Eisenberg, A., Kako, E., Highter, M., & McGraw, N. (1998). Speaking of motion: Verb use in English and Spanish. Language and Cognitive Processes, 13 (5), 521–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Odlin, T. (2005). Cross-linguistic influence and conceptual transfer: What are the concepts? Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 25, 3–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ortner, S. B. (1974). Is female to male as nature is to culture? In Rosaldo, M. & Lamphere, L. (eds.), Woman, culture, and society, pp. 67–87. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Otheguy, R., & Lapidus, N. (2003). An adaptive approach to noun gender in New York contact Spanish. In Cameron, R., López, L. & Núñez-Cedeño, R. (eds.), A Romance perspective on language knowledge and use, pp. 209–229. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Co.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Özgen, E. (2004). Language, learning, and color perception. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 13, 95–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Özgen, E., & Davies, I. R. L. (1998). Turkish color terms: Tests of Berlin and Kay's theory of color universals and linguistic relativity. Linguistics, 36 (5), 919–956.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Özgen, E., & Davies, I. R. L. (2002). Acquisition of categorical color perception: A perceptual learning approach to the Linguistic Relativity Hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 131, 477–493.Google Scholar
Papafragou, A., Hulbert, J., & Trueswell, J. (2008). Does language guide event perception? Evidence from eye movements. Cognition, 108, 155–184.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Papafragou, A., Li, P., Choi, Y., & Han, C. (2007). Evidentiality in language and cognition. Cognition, 103, 253–299.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Papafragou, A., Massey, C., & Gleitman, L. (2002). Shake, rattle, ‘n’ roll: The representation of motion in language and cognition. Cognition, 84, 189–219.Google ScholarPubMed
Pavlenko, A. (1999). New approaches to concepts in bilingual memory. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 2, 209–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pavlenko, A., & Driagina, V. (2007). Russian emotion vocabulary in American learners’ narratives. Modern Language Journal, 91 (2), 213–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pérez-Pereira, M. (1991). The acquisition of gender: What Spanish children tell us. Journal of Child Language, 18 (3), 571–590.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Phillips, W., & Boroditsky, L. (2003). Can quirks of grammar affect the way you think? Grammatical gender and object concepts. Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, pp. 928–933. Boston, MA: Cognitive Science Society, Inc.Google Scholar
Pica, P., Lemer, C., Izard, V., & Dehaene, S. (2004). Exact and approximate arithmetic in an Amazonian indigene group. Science, 306, 499–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinker, S. (1995). Language acquisition. In Gleitman, L. R. & Liberman, M. (eds.), An invitation to cognitive science, pp. 135–182. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rakusan, J. (2001). The category of gender in grammar, in nature, and in metaphor. In Nemeth, E. (ed.), Cognition and language use. Selected papers from the 7th International Pragmatics Conference, pp. 350–360. Antwerp: IPRA.Google Scholar
Reddy, M. J. (1979). The conduit metaphor – A case of frame conflict in our language about language. In Ortony, A. (ed.), Metaphor and thought, pp. 284–324. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Roberson, D., Davidoff, J., Davies, I. R. L., & Shapiro, L. R. (2004). The development of color categories in two languages: A longitudinal study. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133, 554–571.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rogers, T., & McClelland, J. (2004). Semantic cognition: A parallel distributed processing approach. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Romaine, S. (1999). Communicating gender. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Sapir, E. (1929). The status of linguistics as a science. Language, 5 (4), 207–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seigneuric, A., Meunier, F., Zagar, D., & Spinelli, E. (2007). The relation between language and cognition in children aged 3 to 9: The acquisition of grammatical gender in French. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 96, 229–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sera, M. D., Bales, D., & Del Castillo Pintado, J. (1997). Ser helps speakers of Spanish identify “real” properties. Child Development, 68, 820–831.Google ScholarPubMed
Sera, M. D., Berge, C., & Del Castillo Pintado, J. (1994). Grammatical and conceptual forces in the attribution of gender by English and Spanish speakers. Cognitive Development, 9, 261–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sera, M. D., Gathje, J., & Del Castillo Pintado, J. (1999). Language and ontological knowledge: The contrast between objects and events made by English and Spanish speakers. Journal of Memory and Language, 41, 303–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sera, M. D., Leieff, C., Forbes, J. N., Clark-Burch, M., Rodriguez, W., & Poulin-Dubois, D. (2002). When language affects cognition and when it does not: An analysis of grammatical gender and classification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 131 (3), 377–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sera, M. D., Reittinger, E., & Del Castillo Pintado, J. (1991). Developing definitions of objects and events in English and Spanish speakers. Cognitive Development, 6 (2), 119–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slobin, D. I. (1996). From “thought and language” to “thinking for speaking”. In Gumperz, J. J. & Levinson, S. C. (eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity, pp. 70–96. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Vigliocco, G., Vinson, D. P., Paganelli, F., & Dworzynski, K. (2005). Grammatical gender effects on cognition: Implications for language learning and language use. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 13, 501–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waxman, S. (1990). Linguistic biases and the establishment of conceptual hierarchies: Evidence from preschool children. Cognitive Development, 5, 123–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
West, T., & Bauer, P. (1999). Effects of language modality on preschoolers’ recall of spatial-temporal sequences. First Language, 19, 3–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar