Skip to main content
×
×
Home

Language effects on the conceptualization of hybrids*

  • NIRA MASHAL (a1), YESHAYAHU SHEN (a2), KARINE JOSPE (a3) and DAVID GIL (a4)
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.

Copyright
Corresponding author
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
Footnotes
Hide All
*

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.

Footnotes
References
Hide All
Abboud, H. (1991). SuperLab. Wheaton, MD: Cedrus.
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. 6180). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Branigan, P. H., Pickering, M. J., & Tanaka, M. (2008). Contributions of animacy to grammatical function assignment and word order during production. Lingua, 118 (2), 172189.
Carroll, N. (1994). Visual metaphor. In Hintikka, Jaakko (Ed.), Aspects of metaphor (pp. 189218). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
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. 283310). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
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. 63111). Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
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. 335386). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Deane, D. P. (1992). Grammar in mind and brain: explorations in cognitive syntax. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Deane, D. P. (1993). On metaphoric inversion. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 8 (2), 111126.
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.
Forceville, C. (1996). Pictorial metaphor in advertising. London & New York: Routledge.
Gentner, D., & Goldin-Meadow, S. (Eds.) (2003). Language in mind: advances in the study of language and thought. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Gleitman, L., & Papafragou, A. (2005). Language and thought. In Holyoak, K. J., & Morrison, R. G. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 633661). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Keil, F. C. (1979). Semantic and conceptual development: an ontological perspective. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Keil, F. C. (1981). Constraints on knowledge and cognitive development. Psychological Review, 88 (3), 197227.
Kogan, N., Mindi, C., & Heleen, H. (1989). Developmental trends in metaphoric asymmetry. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 4 (2), 7191.
Levin, B., & Hovav, M. R. (2005). Argument realization. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Loewenstein, J., & Gentner, D. (2005). Relational language and the development of relational mapping. Cognitive Psychology, 50, 315353.
Lupyan, G. (2012). Linguistically modulated perception and cognition: the label-feedback hypothesis. Frontiers in Psychology, 3 (54), 113.
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, 10771083.
Merchant, J. (2006). Polyvalent case, geometric hierarchies, and split ergativity. Proceedings from the Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (42 (2), 5776). Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
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.
Roberson, D., Davidoff, J., Davies, I. R., & Shapiro, L. R. (2005). Color categories: evidence for the cultural relativity hypothesis. Cognitive Psychology, 50, 378411.
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.
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.
Slobin, D. (1996). From ‘thought and language’ to ‘thinking for speaking’. In Gumperz, John J., & Levinson, Stephen C. (Eds.). Rethinking linguistic relativity (pp. 7096). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
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.
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), 232246.
Waxman, S., & Markow, D. B. (1995). Words as invitations to form categories: evidence from 12- to 13-month-old infants. Cognitive Psychology, 29, 257302.
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.
Wolff, P., & Holmes, K. J. (2011). Linguistic relativity. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 2 (3), 253265.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Language and Cognition
  • ISSN: 1866-9808
  • EISSN: 1866-9859
  • URL: /core/journals/language-and-cognition
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Keywords:

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 3
Total number of PDF views: 59 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 147 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 20th April 2018. This data will be updated every 24 hours.