Search

Absolute linguistic universals (ALUs) are theoretically useful. However, do non-trivial ALUs exist? Two reasons for doubt can be identified. First, many proposed ALUs transpired to be only strong statistical tendencies. Second, computational modeling suggests that rarely can positive typological evidence alone indicate an ALU. Thus, the debate over ALU existence persists. We advance this discussion by analyzing what languages tend to violate previously proposed ALUs and whether they are distributed randomly in terms of sociogeography and phylogeny. Non-randomness would suggest bias in ALU estimation using existing data. We find non-random distribution of ALU violations: languages with more speakers, certain language families, including Indo-European, and language isolates tend to violate ALUs more often than expected. The results suggest that linguistic diversity is underdescribed, and that many ALUs are put forward due to an underestimation of the space of possible linguistic structures due to sampling biases of researchers.

Are morphosyntactically simpler languages easier to learn? In theory building and empirical work alike, researchers often assume so. While plausible, this assumption nevertheless requires empirical confirmation. To test it, we manipulate form-to-meaning transparency (FtMT) and morphophonemic cohesion (MC) in three large-scale artificial language learning experiments with English and Mandarin participants. We find that (a) FtMT doesn’t affect learnability for all semantic domains (for English speakers, the more transparent marking of plural number in a separate morpheme increases learnability with nouns, but not with pronouns); (b) MC similarly affects learnability in a domain dependent fashion (expressing subjects and verbs in two words, as opposed to one concatenated word, increases learnability with nouns, but not with pronouns); (c) the effects are L1 dependent (pronouns behave like English nouns in regards to plural marking for Mandarin speakers). Taken together, the results falsify the strong hypothesis that simpler languages are necessarily easier to learn.

Are the differences between human and alloanimal cognition a matter of kind or of degree? This question continues to generate controversial arguments for the uniqueness of certain features of human cognition, with no clear consensus in sight (see, e.g., Hauser, Chomsky & Fitch, 2002; Suddendorf & Corbalis, 2007). To move the debate into fresh territory, this symposium develops a proposal from conceptual blending theory (CBT: Fauconnier & Turner, 2002; Turner, 2014) to argue that the differences in question are both a matter of kind and of degree. The symposium also takes up a line of inquiry initiated by Pelkey, who has proposed synthesizing CBT with related insights from Charles S. Peirce, Jakob Johann von Uexküll, and biosemiotics to build a stronger case for alloanimal blending. We bring together a diverse group of researchers to discuss human-unique cognitive abilities through the lens of CBT. Turner introduces CBT and outlines the cross- species cline of conceptual blending. Pelkey provides evidence for various types of blends in bats and discusses the conclusions of these analyses. Leonardis, Semenuks, and Coulson emphasize the importance of taking non-human perspectives in analyzing behaviors with CBT. Adachi discusses work on metaphorical and cross-modal mapping in primates. Forster serves as the moderator.

Do individual sounds carry meaning? The relationship between sound and meaning in human languages is typicallyassumed to be arbitrary, though recent research provides evidence for the existence of both iconicity and systematicitybetween word forms and their meaning. However, this research has not asked whether individual sounds in a languagecovary in systematic ways with aspects of meaning. In two analyses, we find evidence for more systematicity betweenthe initial phones of words and those words concreteness ratings than one would expect in a truly arbitrary lexicon. Thissuggests that initial phones may act as cues to aspects of word meaning, and raises questions about whether languagelearners detect and exploit these cues.

Can grammatical gender influence how people conceptualizethe referents of nouns? Using an implicit measure, weinvestigated whether such an effect could be found in a taskwhere neither grammatical nor biological gender ishighlighted. In the current study, conducted in English,speakers of French, German and Romanian with knowledgeof English were asked to generate adjectives they associatewith referents of nouns. Afterwards, the gender valence of theadjectives was measured. The results showed that participantsgenerated more feminine adjectives for nouns with majorityfeminine translations compared to nouns with majoritymasculine translations. We found a stronger effect ofgrammatical gender for some semantic categories than forothers. Significant effects of grammatical gender were presentstarting with the 2nd adjective generated by participants(effects were stronger for adjectives generated 2nd and 3rd byparticipants, as opposed to the 1st adjective).