The Effects of Numeral Classifiers and Taxonomic Categories in Chinese Speakers'Recall of Nouns.
Shuping Huang,Jenn-Yeu Chen
IF: 2.617
2011-01-01
Cognitive Science
Abstract:The Effects of Numeral Classifiers and Taxonomic Categories in Chinese Speakers’ Recall of Nouns Shuping Huang (sphuang@staff.nsysu.edu.tw) Department of Foreign Languages and Literature, National Sun Yat-Sen University 70 Lien-Hai Road, Kaohsiung 804, Taiwan ROC Jenn-Yeu Chen (psyjyc@mail.ncku.edu.tw) Department of Psychology, National Cheng Kung University 1 University Road, Tainan 701, Taiwan ROC Abstract It has been suggested that classifiers in Mandarin Chinese serve a semantic function of categorizing the nouns in terms of their perceptual and functional features. We investigated the classifiers’ organizational utility in a recall task by contrasting it with that of taxonomic categories. Mandarin participants studied and recalled immediately two lists of nouns, one associated with four taxonomic categories and the other with four classifiers. The nouns were presented randomly in bare forms or in four columns headed by category names or classifiers. Comparable subjective clustering effects were found in the recall of taxonomically categorized nouns whether they were presented randomly or in columns. The recall of classifier categorized nouns showed no clustering when presented randomly, but some (though smaller) clustering when presented in columns. The findings suggest that classifiers do not serve the same function as taxonomic categories and that their semantic function may be limited. Keywords: classifier; categorization; semantic memory; subjective clustering Introduction Categorization is basic to language use and cognition. We encounter an infinite number of entities everyday, and the terms we adopt to talk about them are merely reference to their “kinds,” such as tree, cup, love, etc. As the referring to concepts is closely related to the linguistic labels of them, the relation between language and thought has long intrigued researchers in many fields. Along this line, a very relevant issue pertains to the language-particularities of nominal classification. Every language devises ways to mark classes of nouns, and the carve-up of nominal concepts varies drastically across languages. On the assumption that the grammar of a language may reflect its speakers’ mind, the possibility that different nominal classifications are signs of varying worldviews has been vigorously pursued by linguists and psychologists (cf. Lucy, 1992; Nisbett, 2003). The use of classifiers, for example, is one way of signaling the class of a referred noun. Given that each entity has multiple semantic facets, classifiers provide unique ways to view objects in terms of a limited number of semantic parameters: material, animacy, shape, consistency, size, function, and orientation (Croft, 1994; Aikhenvald, 2004; Allan, 1977). Mandarin Chinese features a numeral classifier system. In numeral or deictic constructions, a noun is preceded by a classifier that specifies some salient perceived features of the referred entity, such as yi ke shu (one KE tree ‘a tree’) and zhe mei yingbi (this MEI coin ‘this coin’). Classifiers are believed to contribute to the semantics of a noun phrase (Tai, 1994). For example, ke is associated with plants, and mei, with small round and solid objects. Members in some classifier categories may be highly heterogeneous, but can mostly be accounted for by motivated extensions (Lakoff, 1987). Whether the Chinese classifier system has to do with the organization of object concepts in the speakers’ mind has attracted some attention recently. Kuo and Sera (2009), for example, found that Chinese speakers classified objects preferably by shape, which is the predominant semantics of Chinese classifiers. Zhang and Schmitt (1998) also showed that Chinese speakers, compared with English users, tend to group objects according to their associated classifiers. On the other hand, Saalbach and Imai (2007) argued that object concepts generally followed a universal principle of organization, and the role of classifiers was minor if any. It appears that the nature of the classifier effect may be complicated and further scrutiny is necessary. Semantic Memory and Concept Organization The question of what people know of “object concepts” pertains to our belief of knowledge organization. The structure by which a concept is stored for general purposes is known as “semantic memory,” and it often reveals itself in cognitive tasks relevant to learning and understanding (Bransford, 1979). Recalling of a list, for example, pushes us to call for our knowledge structure. When participants are given a list of entities to memorize, the order and number of entities being recalled are found to reflect subjective clustering of concepts into smaller meaningful sequences (Bousfield, 1953; Tulving, 1962). Of various relations among objects, taxonomy is attested as a prominent principle of concept organization. There could also be other schemes of object organization, for example, thematic relations (Lin & Murphy, 2001; Nisbett, 2003; Saalbach & Imai, 2007). In Chinese, the presence of a classifier in front of a noun invites us to ask the question of whether classifiers could be another scheme of object organization. In fact, the question has been raised and tested before. Using 16 nouns associated with four different