Classifier Effect Masked by Taxonomic Relations: Through the Lens of a Similarity Judgment Task.
Saved in:
| Title: | Classifier Effect Masked by Taxonomic Relations: Through the Lens of a Similarity Judgment Task. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Zhang J; Department of Language Science and Technology, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Kowloon, Hong Kong SAR, China. jz525@cantab.ac.uk. |
| Source: | Journal of psycholinguistic research [J Psycholinguist Res] 2025 Dec 05; Vol. 54 (6), pp. 64. Date of Electronic Publication: 2025 Dec 05. |
| Publication Type: | Journal Article |
| Language: | English |
| Journal Info: | Publisher: Springer Country of Publication: United States NLM ID: 0333506 Publication Model: Electronic Cited Medium: Internet ISSN: 1573-6555 (Electronic) Linking ISSN: 00906905 NLM ISO Abbreviation: J Psycholinguist Res Subsets: MEDLINE |
| Imprint Name(s): | Publication: Sept. 2004- : New York : Springer Original Publication: New York, Plenum Press |
| MeSH Terms: | Judgment*/physiology , Psycholinguistics* , Language* , Semantics*, Humans ; Female ; Male ; Adult ; Young Adult |
| Abstract: | Classifiers, as a reference-tracking device of nouns, have caught much research attention over the past two decades. Beyond their grammatical function, classifiers are unique in their semantic association with the internal properties of head nouns, which raises questions about the relationship between language and cognition. Previous research reported a classifier effect (e.g., Saalbach and Imai in Lang Cogn Processes 27(3):381-428, 2012; Speed et al. in J Exp Psychol Learn Memory Cogn 7(4):625-640, 2021), with classifier speakers (vs. non-classifier speakers) showing greater sensitivity to parameters such as animacy, shape and function. This study thus further testified the classifier effect through a fine-grained similarity judgement task. Chinese speakers (N = 41) rated significantly lower than English speakers (N = 41) in taxonomic pairs, but not in thematic, classifier or filler pairs. Subset analysis of taxonomic pairs revealed disparities in conceptual saliency, with animacy most salient, followed by function and shape. Meanwhile, both groups rated thematic pairs highest, followed by taxonomic, classifier and filler pairs. Chinese speakers also needed longer response time in each pair condition. Findings together suggested an implicit classifier effect in Chinese speakers, but classifier relation itself was not the predominant parameter guiding object perception. (© 2025. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.) |
| References: | Aikhenvald, A. Y. (2021). One of a Kind: On the utility of specific classifiers. Cognitive Semantics, 7(2), 232–257. https://doi.org/10.1163/23526416-07020001. Anwyl-Irvine, A. L., Massonié, J., Flitton, A., Kirkham, N. Z., & Evershed, J. K. (2020). Gorilla in our midst: An online behavioural experiment builder. Behavior Research Methods, 52, 388–407. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-019-01237-x. (PMID: 10.3758/s13428-019-01237-x31016684) Baayen, R. H., Davidson, D. J., & Bates, D. M. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 390–412. (PMID: 10.1016/j.jml.2007.12.005) Bi, Y., Yu, X., Geng, J., & Alario, F. X. (2010). The role of visual form in lexical access: Evidence from Chinese classifier production. Cognition, 116(1), 101–109. (PMID: 10.1016/j.cognition.2010.04.00420493468) Christensen, R. H. B. (2019). ordinal—Regression Models for Ordinal Data. R package version 2019.12-10. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=ordinal. Croft, W. (1994). Semantic universals in classifier systems. Word, 45, 145–171. (PMID: 10.1080/00437956.1994.11435922) Erbaugh, M. (1986). Taking stock: The development of Chinese noun classifiers historically and in young children. In C. Craig (Ed.), Noun classes and categorization: Typological studies in Language 7 (pp. 339–436). Benjamins. Erbaugh, M. (2011). Chinese classifiers: Their use and acquisition. In H. T. Li, E. Bates, & O. Tzeng (Eds.), The handbook of East Asian psycholinguistics (pp. 39–51). Cambridge University Press. Frensch, P. A., & Rünger, D. (2003). Implicit learning. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12(1), 13–18. (PMID: 10.1111/1467-8721.01213) Gao, M. Y., & Malt, B. C. (2009). Mental representation and cognitive consequences of Chinese individual classifiers. Language and Cognitive Processes, 24, 1124–1179. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960802018323. (PMID: 10.1080/01690960802018323) Gao, T., & Scholl, B. J. (2011). Chasing vs. stalking. Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception and Performance, 37(3), 669–684. (PMID: 10.1037/a002073521639674) Gygax, P., Gabriel, U., Lévy, A., Pool, E., Grivel, M., & Pedrazzini, E. (2012). The masculine form and its competing interpretations in french: When linking grammatically masculine role names to female referents is difficult. Journal of Cognitive Psychology (Hove England), 24(4), 395–408. (PMID: 10.1080/20445911.2011.642858) Huang, S., & Chen, J-Y. (2014). The effects of numeral classifiers and taxonomic categories on Chinese and english speakers’ recall of nouns. Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 23(1), 27–42. (PMID: 10.1007/s10831-013-9108-0) Irmen, L., & Kurovskaja, J. (2010). On the semantic content of grammatical gender and its impact on the representation of human referents. Experimental Psychology, 57(5), 367–375. (PMID: 10.1027/1618-3169/a00004420178923) Ji, L. J., Zhang, Z., & Nisbett, R. E. (2004). Is it culture or is it Language? Examination of Language effects in cross-cultural research on categorization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 57–65. (PMID: 10.1037/0022-3514.87.1.5715250792) Kemmerer, D. (2016). Categories of object concepts across languages and brains: The relevance of nominal classification systems to cognitive neuroscience. Language Cognition and Neuroscience, 32(4), 401–424. (PMID: 10.1080/23273798.2016.1198819) Kuo, J. Y., & Sera, M. D. (2009). Classifier effects on human categorization: The role of shape classifiers in Mandarin Chinese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 18, 1–19. (PMID: 10.1007/s10831-008-9036-6) Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B., & Christensen, R. H. B. (2017). LmerTest package: Tests in linear mixed effects models. Journal of Statistical Software, 82(13), 1–26. (PMID: 10.18637/jss.v082.i13) Lakoff, G. (1986). Classifiers as a reflection of Mind. In C. Craig (Ed.), Noun classes and categorization (pp. 13–51). John Benjamins. Leung, J. H., & Williams, J. N. (2012). Constraints on implicit learning of grammatical form-meaning connections. Language Learning, 62(2), 634–662. (PMID: 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00637.x) Loke, K. (1996). Norms and realities of Mandarin shape classifiers. Journal of the Chinese Language Teachers Association, 31, 1–22. Malt, B. C. (2020). Words, thoughts, and brains. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 37(5–6), 241–253. (PMID: 10.1080/02643294.2019.159933530964738) Moreno-Martínez, F. J., & Montoro, P. R. (2012). An ecological alternative to snodgrass & vanderwart: 360 high quality colour images with norms for seven psycholinguistic variables. PLoS ONE, 7(5), e37528. Palan, S., & Schitter, C. (2018). Prolific.ac—A subject pool for online experiments. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, 17, 22–27. (PMID: 10.1016/j.jbef.2017.12.004) Perniss, P., Vinson, D., Seifart, F., & Vigliocco, G. (2012). Speaking of shape: The effects of language-specific encoding on semantic representations. Language and Cognition, 4(3), 223–242. (PMID: 10.1515/langcog-2012-0012) Pulman, S. G. (1978). Shape classifiers and natural categories. University of Essex Language Center Occasional Papers, 20, 35–57. R Core Team. (2023). R: A Language and environment for statistical computing. Australia: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/. Saalbach, H., & Imai, M. (2007). The scope of linguistic influence: Does a classifier system alter object concepts? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136, 485–501. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.136.3.485. (PMID: 10.1037/0096-3445.136.3.48517696695) Saalbach, H., & Imai, M. (2012). The relation between linguistic categories and cognition: The case of numeral classifiers. Language and Cognitive Processes, 27(3), 381–428. (PMID: 10.1080/01690965.2010.546585) Schmitt, B., & Zhang, S. (1998). Language structure and categorization: A study of classifiers in consumer cognition, judgement and choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 25, 108–122. (PMID: 10.1086/209530) Sera, M. D., Soh, H. L., Brinker, D., Kuo, J. Y., Fuller, J. W., Hammerly, C. M., & Cai, W. (2023). A cross-cultural study of language and cognition: Numeral classifiers and solid object categorization. Memory & Cognition, 51(3), 601–622. (PMID: 10.3758/s13421-022-01376-1) Speed, L. J., Chen, J., Huettig, F., & Majid, A. (2021). Classifier categories reflect but do not affect conceptual organization. Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition, 47(4), 625–640. (PMID: 10.1037/xlm000096733151714) Srinivasan, M. (2010). Do classifiers predict differences in cognitive processing? A study of nominal classification in Mandarin Chinese. Language and Cognition, 2(2), 177–190. (PMID: 10.1515/langcog.2010.007) Sun, R. (2008). The Cambridge handbook of computational psychology. Cambridge University Press. Tai, J. H. (1994). Chinese classifier systems and human categorization. In In honor of William S.-Y. Wang: Interdisciplinary studies on language and language change (pp. 479–494). Pyramid Publishing. Thorpe, S., Fize, D., & Marlot, C. (1996). Speed of processing in the human visual system. Nature, 381(6582), 520–522. (PMID: 10.1038/381520a08632824) Tsang, C., & Chambers, C. G. (2011). Appearances aren’t everything: Shape classifiers and referential processing in Cantonese. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 37(5), 1065–1080. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023601. (PMID: 10.1037/a002360121574749) Wang, R., & Zhang, C. (2014). Effect of classifier system on object similarity judgement: A cross-linguistic study. Journal of Chinese Linguistics, 42(1), 188–217. Whorf, B. L. (1956). Language, thought, and reality. Technology Press of MIT. Zhang, H. (2007). Numeral classifiers in Mandarin Chinese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 16(1), 43–59. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10831-006-9006-9. (PMID: 10.1007/s10831-006-9006-9) Zhang, J. (2024). A cognitive linguistics approach to teaching Chinese classifiers: A case analysis for the classifier Tiao. International Journal of Chinese Language Teaching, 5(3), 58–72. Zhang, J., & Gnevsheva, K. (2022). The effects of L1, task, and classifier type in Chinese-L2 learners’ use of classifiers. Chinese as a Second Language Research. https://doi.org/10.1515/caslar-2022-0002. (PMID: 10.1515/caslar-2022-0002) Zhang, S., & Schmitt, B. (1998). Language-dependent classification: The mental representation of classifiers in cognition, memory, and ad evaluations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 4, 375–385. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-898X.4.4.375. (PMID: 10.1037/1076-898X.4.4.375) Zhang, J., & Wonnacott, E. (2023). Prior knowledge facilitates classifier learning: A semi-artificial language study on classifiers [Conference presentation]. CogSci 2023 Hong Kong Meetup & Workshop: Cognition, Language, and AI, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR. Zhu, S. (2021). An empirical study of the classifier effect in advanced L2 users of Chinese. The International Journal of Bilingualism: Cross-disciplinary Cross-linguistic Studies of Language Behavior, 25(1), 151–167. (PMID: 10.1177/1367006920943301) |
| Contributed Indexing: | Keywords: Chinese classifiers; Conceptual saliency; Conceptual structure; Object categorization; Similarity judgement |
| Entry Date(s): | Date Created: 20251205 Date Completed: 20251205 Latest Revision: 20251205 |
| Update Code: | 20251205 |
| DOI: | 10.1007/s10936-025-10182-0 |
| PMID: | 41348257 |
| Database: | MEDLINE |
Full Text Finder 
Nájsť tento článok vo Web of Science | Abstract: | Classifiers, as a reference-tracking device of nouns, have caught much research attention over the past two decades. Beyond their grammatical function, classifiers are unique in their semantic association with the internal properties of head nouns, which raises questions about the relationship between language and cognition. Previous research reported a classifier effect (e.g., Saalbach and Imai in Lang Cogn Processes 27(3):381-428, 2012; Speed et al. in J Exp Psychol Learn Memory Cogn 7(4):625-640, 2021), with classifier speakers (vs. non-classifier speakers) showing greater sensitivity to parameters such as animacy, shape and function. This study thus further testified the classifier effect through a fine-grained similarity judgement task. Chinese speakers (N = 41) rated significantly lower than English speakers (N = 41) in taxonomic pairs, but not in thematic, classifier or filler pairs. Subset analysis of taxonomic pairs revealed disparities in conceptual saliency, with animacy most salient, followed by function and shape. Meanwhile, both groups rated thematic pairs highest, followed by taxonomic, classifier and filler pairs. Chinese speakers also needed longer response time in each pair condition. Findings together suggested an implicit classifier effect in Chinese speakers, but classifier relation itself was not the predominant parameter guiding object perception.<br /> (© 2025. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.) |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1573-6555 |
| DOI: | 10.1007/s10936-025-10182-0 |