Search for: All records

Abstract Across languages, words carve up the world of experience in different ways. For example, English lacks an equivalent to the Chinese superordinate noun tiáowèipǐn, which is loosely translated as “ingredients used to season food while cooking.” Do such differences matter? A conventional label may offer a uniquely effective way of communicating. On the other hand, lexical gaps may be easily bridged by the compositional power of language. After all, most of the ideas we want to express do not map onto simple lexical forms. We conducted a referential Director/Matcher communication task with adult speakers of Chinese and English. Directors provided a clue that Matchers used to select words from a word grid. The three target words corresponded to a superordinate term (e.g., beverages) in either Chinese or English but not both. We found that Matchers were more accurate at choosing the target words when their language lexicalized the target category. This advantage was driven entirely by the Directors’ use/non-use of the intended superordinate term. The presence of a conventional superordinate had no measurable effect on speakers’ within- or between-category similarity ratings. These results show that the ability to rely on a conventional term is surprisingly important despite the flexibility languages offer to communicate about non-lexicalized categories. 

In language evolution, formation of conceptual categories preceded formation of linguistic semantic categories (Hurford, 2007). The mapping from concepts to semantics is non-isomorphic, however, as particular languages categorize conceptual space in divergent ways (e.g. English put in is acceptable for both tight-fit and loose-fit relations, while Korean kkita encodes tight-fit relationships only; Choi & Bowerman, 1991). Despite this variation, are there crosslinguistic patterns in how words lexicalize conceptual space? We address this question analyzing how child homesigners from four different cultures describe instrumental events (e.g. cutting bread with a knife). Homesigners are congenitally deaf individuals who have not been taught a signed language. Despite growing up without structured linguistic input, these individuals use a gestural system ("homesign") to communicate (Goldin-Meadow, 2003). We find that homesign descriptions of instrumental events reflect categories present in adult English, Spanish and Mandarin, suggesting crosslinguistic biases for how verbs encode the conceptual space of events, biases which may have been present over the course of language evolution.