Search

In two experiments with the involvement of Japanese and English native speakers, Kirjavainen et al. (2020: 15) have provided evidence for the Whorfian hypothesis: the presence/absence of compulsory number marking in speakers’ native language affects their ability to retain visual number information. The statistically significant difference in the performances of Japanese and English groups in these experiments has been accounted for by different grammatical devices that these languages use to encode number information. Whereas English necessitates the use of the plural suffix -(e)s, articles and numerals whenever English speakers are referring to regular count nouns (e.g. a cat vs. cats), Japanese largely relies on classifiers and Japanese speakers have the option of leaving number information out when referring to count nouns. Persian, on the other hand, combines features of Japanese and English in the expression of number information: it has nearly a hundred of classifiers, and, at the same time, its nouns are marked for number—when used without numerals/classifiers—with the help of the inflective suffixes -ān and -hā, or introflective morphological patterns (in words borrowed from Arabic), Persian necessitates the expression of number information either via classifiers or grammatical number marking whenever the speaker refers to count nouns. Because of a high number of classifiers in Persian, it is largely regarded as a classifier language (e.g., Gebhardt 2011), where classifiers are in complementary distribution with plural marking (Greenberg 1972; Sanches & Slobin 1973). Nevertheless, the parallel coexistence of these two functions for the expression of number in Persian is not fully understood and has triggered multiple interpretations. Gebhardt (2018: 213) argues that grammatical properties of Persian classifiers are not equal: for example, the classifier tā تا, as opposed to other classifiers, blends properties of a number marker and those of numeral classifiers. Further, Nomoto (2013) considers Persian an optional classifier language. Investigating Persian will inform us as to whether it is the necessity to express number information (obligatory/non-obligatory number marking) or the type of linguistic means (classifier use vs. grammatical marking) to do so that affects number cognition. REFERENCES Gebhardt, L. (2011). Classifiers are functional. Linguistic Inquiry, 42 (1), pp. 125–130. Gebhardt, L. (2018). Accounting for *yek ta in Persian. In: Alireza Korangy and Corey Miller (eds.) Trends in Iranian and Persian Linguistics. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 213–232. Greenberg, J. (1972). Numeral classifiers and substantival number: Problems in the genesis of a linguistic type.Working Papers on Language Universals9. Jakubíček, M., Kilgarriff, A., Kovář, V., Rychlý, P., & Suchomel, V. (2013, July). The TenTen corpus family. In 7th International Corpus Linguistics Conference CL (pp. 125-127). Kilgarriff, A., Rychlý, P., Smrž, P., Tugwell, D. (2004). Itri-04-08 the sketch engine. Information Technology. Kirjavainen, M., Kite, Y. and Piasecki, A.E. (2020). The Effect of Language-Specific Characteristics on English and Japanese Speakers' Ability to Recall Number Information. Cogn Sci, 44: e12923. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12923 Nomoto, H. (2013). Number in classifier languages. Retrieved from the University of Minnesota Digital Conservancy, https://hdl.handle.net/11299/148854. Rasooli, M. S., Kouhestani, M., & Moloodi, A. Development of a Persian syntactic dependency treebank. In Proceedings of NAACL-HLT, 2013, pp. 306–314. (document gained from Wayback Machine) Sanches, M., & Slobin, L. (1973). Numeral classifiers and plural marking: An implicational universal. InWorkingPapers in Language Universals(Vol. 11) (pp. 1–22). Stanford, CA: Stanford University.

Languages vary in the information they convey due to cross-linguistic differences in the structure of linguistic information. According to the Whorfian hypothesis (Whorf, 1956), these cross-linguistic differences can affect speakers’ cognitive processes (e.g., perception, memory, categorization). One linguistic feature that demonstrates distinct cross-linguistic differences is number marking. For example, when English speakers describe countable nouns, they need to express whether they are referring to one or more than one entity using suffixes (-es, -s) and/or articles (a, an), quantifiers (e.g., some, several), or numerals (e.g., one, two). For example, there is a clear difference between the sentences A dog is walking vs. Dogs are walking. In Japanese however, nouns (and in particular those referring to non-human entities) rarely contain grammatical number markers (e.g. suffixes) and can be used without expressing number, even when describing multiple entities. For example, the sentence Inu ga aruite-imasu is ambiguous as to whether it refers to A dog is walking or Dogs are walking. Thus, Japanese speakers can describe (and possibly perceive, encode) scenes without the need to explicitly state the number of present entities. These linguistic differences make Japanese and English ideal test cases as to whether linguistic differences affect cognitive processes. The fact that English necessitates speakers paying attention to numerical information and retaining this information for recounting scenes, English speakers utilise more cognitive resources processing and retaining numerical information than Japanese speakers, who can omit this information. Indeed, our initial investigation with monolingual Japanese and English speakers provided support towards this hypothesis (Kirjavainen et al., 2020). In addition to monolingual speakers (e.g., Bylund & Athanasopoulos, 2017; Fausey & Boroditsky, 2011; Kirjavainen et al., 2020), studies investigating bilingual/second language speakers have shown Whorfian effects (e.g., Athanasopoulos, 2006; Borodistky, 2001; Cook et al., 2006). These studies suggest that if the speaker’s first and second language differ in relation to a particular linguistic construction, the acquisition of a second language can change the speaker’s cognitive processes. Thus, a native Japanese speaker who also speaks and frequently uses English might put more cognitive resources into retaining numerical information than a monolingual Japanese speaker because the frequent use of a more numerical language might result in changes in the native Japanese speaker’s cognitive processing. However, the differences between monolingual and bilingual speakers in experimental settings might not only relate to the acquisition of a second language, but the bilingual speakers’ performance can also be affected by the language used (Japanese vs. English) in the test situation, the former language indicating that the number-related Whorfian effect found is not language-specific (because the Japanese test situation does not necessitate the participant to pay as much attention to number as they might if tested in English). In addition, there may be cultural reasons for different groups’ behaviour, e.g., a Japanese-English speaker living in an English-speaking country vs. Japan might show different behaviour, which could be due to cultural differences between Japan and the English-speaking country. In the planned study, we will present participants with a series of photos depicting non-human entities (animals and objects) in either singular or dual number. A memory test will follow in which participants will be asked about the number of the entities they viewed, e.g., “Did you see one apple or two apples?”. We aim to examine whether the degree to which numerical information is embedded in one’s language impacts the likelihood that this information is remembered. We will also examine the effect of (a) native language and second language learned later in life, (b) language used in the test situation (Japanese (no number marking) vs. English (number marking)) and (c) exposure to culture on people’s cognitive processes. References Athanasopoulos, P. (2006). Effects of the grammatical representation of number on cognition in bilinguals. Bilingualism, 9(1), 89. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728905002397 Boroditsky, L. (2001). Does language shape thought?: Mandarin and English speakers' conceptions of time. Cognitive Psychology, 43(1), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.2001.0748 Bylund, E., & Athanasopoulos, P. (2017). The Whorfian time warp: Representing duration through the language hourglass. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 146(7), 911. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000314 Cook, V., Bassetti, B., Kasai, C., Sasaki, M., & Takahashi, J. A. (2006). Do bilinguals have different concepts? The case of shape and material in Japanese L2 users of English. International Journal of Bilingualism, 10(2), 137-152. https://doi.org/10.1177/13670069060100020201 Fausey, C. M., & Boroditsky, L. (2011). Who dunnit? Cross-linguistic differences in eye-witness memory. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18(1), 150-157. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-010-0021-5 Kirjavainen, M., Kite, Y. & Piasecki, A. E. (2020). The effect of language-specific characteristics on English and Japanese speakers’ ability to recall number information. Cognitive Science, 44(12), e12923. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12923 Whorf, B. L. (1956). Language, thought, and reality (Edited by John B. Carroll). New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Languages vary in the information they convey due to cross-linguistic differences in the structure of linguistic information. According to the Whorfian hypothesis (Whorf, 1956), these cross-linguistic differences can affect speakers’ cognitive processes (e.g., perception, memory, categorization). One linguistic feature that demonstrates distinct cross-linguistic differences is gender marking. For example, English speakers commonly code gender of the referent when using third person pronouns (she/he). The same is true of Polish, but in addition to gender information on pronouns, Polish also uses systematic gender information in surnames, job titles and other human descriptors (in a similar way an English speaker makes a distinction between, e.g., actor vs. actress, but for all occupations, whereas most are gender-neutral in English (e.g., accountant). On the other hand, Finnish does not systematically distinguish between males and females in human descriptors, and Finnish uses a gender-neutral animate pronoun ‘hän’ when referring to males and females. Thus, when referring to animate entities, syntactically, Finnish encodes human referents more like ‘people’ rather than men/women. These linguistic differences make these three languages (English, Finnish, Polish) ideal test cases for investigations as to whether linguistic differences affect cognitive processes. The fact that Polish, and English to a lesser extent, necessitates its speakers to pay attention to gender information and to retain this information in order to talk about human referents, Polish and English speakers may expend more cognitive resources processing and retaining gender information than Finnish speakers, who can omit this information. In addition to monolingual speakers (e.g., Bylund & Athanasopoulos, 2017; Fausey & Boroditsky, 2011; Kirjavainen, Kite & Piasecki, 2020), studies investigating bilingual/second language speakers have shown Whorfian effects (e.g., Athanasopoulos, 2006; Borodistky, 2001; Cook, et al., 2006). These studies suggest that if the speaker’s first and second language differ in relation to a particular linguistic construction, the acquisition of a second language can change the speaker’s cognitive processes. Thus, a native Finnish speaker who also speaks and frequently uses English or Polish might put more cognitive resources to gender information than a monolingual Finnish speaker because the frequent use of a more gendered language (English or Polish) might result in changes in the native Finnish-speaker’s cognitive processing. However, the differences between monolingual and bilingual speakers in experimental settings might not only relate to the acquisition of a second language, but the bilingual speakers’ performance can also be affected by the language used (e.g. Finnish vs. English) in the test situation, the former language indicating that the gender related Whorfian effect found is not language specific (because the Finnish test situation does not necessitate the participant to pay as much attention to gender as they might if tested in English). In addition, there may be cultural reasons for different group’s behaviour, e.g., a Finnish-English speaker living in England vs. Finland might show different behaviour, which might be due to cultural differences between England and Finland. In the planned study, we will present participants with a series of photos in which a male or female person is performing an activity related to an occupation (e.g., a male playing the piano, a female teaching in a classroom). A memory test will follow in which participants will be asked about the gender of the people they viewed, e.g., “What did you see? A male teacher or a female teacher?” We aim to examine whether the degree to which gender is embedded in one’s language impacts the likelihood that gender is remembered. We will also examine the effect of (a) native language and second language learned later in life, (b) language used in the test situation (Finnish (gender neutral) vs. English/Polish (gendered)) and (c) exposure to culture on people’s cognitive processes and the social construal of other individuals as simply ‘people’ or as men/women. References Athanasopoulos, P. (2006). Effects of the grammatical representation of number on cognition in bilinguals. Bilingualism, 9(1), 89. Boroditsky, L. (2001). Does language shape thought?: Mandarin and English speakers' conceptions of time. Cognitive Psychology, 43(1), 1-22. Bylund, E., & Athanasopoulos, P. (2017). The Whorfian time warp: Representing duration through the language hourglass. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 146(7), 911. Cook, V., Bassetti, B., Kasai, C., Sasaki, M., & Takahashi, J. A. (2006). Do bilinguals have different concepts? The case of shape and material in Japanese L2 users of English. International Journal of Bilingualism, 10(2), 137-152. Fausey, C. M., & Boroditsky, L. (2011). Who dunnit? Cross-linguistic differences in eye-witness memory. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18(1), 150-157. Kirjavainen, M., Kite, Y. & Piasecki, A. E. (2020). The effect of language-specific characteristics on English and Japanese speakers’ ability to recall number information. Cognitive Science, 44(12), e12923. Whorf, B. L. (1956). Language, thought, and reality (Edited by John B. Carroll). New York: John Wiley and Sons.

The World Happiness Report ranks nations based on their relative happiness and has considered some of the factors that may explain happiness differences between nations, such as trust between people (Martela et al., 2020). In addition to being a key factor affecting happiness, trust is also directly influenced by communication, with open communication promoting higher levels of trust (Ruppel & Harrington, 2000). Cross-linguistic research has also demonstrated that language affects cognitive processes (e.g., memory, perception; Boroditsky, 2001; Kirjavainen et al., 2020), and mental states (e.g., depression; Rude et al., 2004) affect language, but little is known about the effect of language on mental states, such as happiness. Specifically, the role that directness in language use (direct e.g., “I can’t join you” vs. indirect e.g., “I’ve already made plans for that day” vs. ambiguous e.g., “I’d love to come but I might be working that day”) plays in happiness is currently under-researched. The impact of directness may also vary in accordance with the valence – whether the response is positive or negative. Establishing this relationship is crucial, particularly in contexts such as the workplace, where happiness predicts an organisation’s performance and success (Walsh et al., 2018), employee co-operation and prosocial behaviour (Layous et al., 2017), higher goal setting (Baron, 1990), perseverance (Sarason et al., 1986), and proactivity (Bachrach & Jex, 2000). Organisations are also prime examples of well-defined social hierarchies, with differing levels of power, status, and social distance, all known to heavily influence the use of language directness (Brown et al., 1987; Linde, 1988). Thus, given the importance of promoting happiness in the workplace along with the prevalence of indirect speech within organisational hierarchies, it is important to establish whether there is a relationship between indirect communication and stress, the inverse correlate of happiness (Schiffrin & Nelson, 2010). Our study will test if language directness (direct vs. indirect vs. ambiguous) and valence (positive vs. negative vs. ambiguous) affect English speakers’ stress levels by measuring participants’ skin conductance (i.e., electrodermal response) whilst they read realistic WhatsApp conversations as they unfold. In each conversation, one interlocutor makes a request, and the other responds with one of five message categories: positive direct, negative direct, positive indirect, negative indirect, or ambiguous. To assess differences related to workplace conversations and organisational hierarchy (e.g., Linde, 1988), these five types of responses will be presented in four relationship contexts (one outside the workplace, three inside the workplace): a friend speaking to a friend, a colleague speaking to a colleague, an employee speaking to a manager, and a manager speaking to an employee. If participants react differently to replies differing in category and/or context, it will create a solid foundation for tapping into the mechanisms through which communication affects happiness in the workplace, as well as help inform interventions towards organisational cultures, shown to heavily influence styles of communication (Ruppel & Harrington, 2000). More generally, it will also inform the field of language and cognition as to whether language impacts mental states such as happiness. References Bachrach, D. G., & Jex, S. M. (2000). Organizational citizenship and mood: An experimental test of perceived job breadth 1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30(3), 641-663. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2000.tb02500.x Baron, R. A. (1990). Countering the effects of destructive criticism: The relative efficacy of four interventions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(3), 235. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.75.3.235 Boroditsky, L. (2001). Does language shape thought? Mandarin and English speakers' conceptions of time. Cognitive Psychology, 43, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.2001.0748 Brown, P., Levinson, S. C., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage (Vol. 4). Cambridge university press. Kirjavainen, M., Kite, Y., & Piasecki, A. E. (2020). The effect of language‐specific characteristics on English and Japanese speakers' ability to recall number information. Cognitive Science, 44(12), e12923. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12923 Layous, K., Nelson, S. K., Kurtz, J. L., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2017). What triggers prosocial effort? A positive feedback loop between positive activities, kindness, and well-being. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 12(4), 385-398. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2016.1198924 Linde, C. (1988). The quantitative study of communicative success: Politeness and accidents in aviation discourse1. Language in Society, 17(3), 375-399. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500012951 Martela, F., Greve, B., Rothstein, B., & Saari, J. (2020). The Nordic exceptionalism: what explains why the Nordic Countries are constantly among the happiest in the world. JF Helliwell et. al., R. Layard, JD Sachs, & JE De Neve (Eds.), World Happiness Report, 128-145. https://bit.ly/world-happiness-report2020 Rude, S., Gortner, E. M., & Pennebaker, J. (2004). Language use of depressed and depression-vulnerable college students. Cognition & Emotion, 18(8), 1121-1133. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699930441000030 Ruppel, C. P., & Harrington, S. J. (2000). The relationship of communication, ethical work climate, and trust to commitment and innovation. Journal of Business Ethics, 25(4), 313-328. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006290432594 Sarason, I. G., Sarason, B. R., & Shearin, E. N. (1986). Social support as an individual difference variable: Its stability, origins, and relational aspects. Journal of Personality and Social psychology, 50(4), 845. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.50.4.845 Schiffrin, H. H., & Nelson, S. K. (2010). Stressed and happy? Investigating the relationship between happiness and perceived stress. Journal of happiness studies, 11(1), 33-39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-008-9104-7 Walsh, L. C., Boehm, J. K., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2018). Does happiness promote career success? Revisiting the evidence. Journal of Career Assessment, 26(2), 199-219. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072717751441

An experimental study was conducted on children aged 2;6–3;0 and 3;6–4;0 investigating the priming effect of two WANT‐constructions to establish whether constructional competition contributes to English‐speaking children's infinitival to omission errors (e.g., *I want ___ jump now). In two between‐participant groups, children either just heard or heard and repeated WANT‐to, WANT‐X, and control prime sentences after which to‐infinitival constructions were elicited. We found that both age groups were primed, but in different ways. In the 2;6–3;0 year olds, WANT‐to primes facilitated the provision of to in target utterances relative to the control contexts, but no significant effect was found for WANT‐X primes. In the 3;6–4;0 year olds, both WANT‐to and WANT‐X primes showed a priming effect, namely WANT‐to primes facilitated and WANT‐X primes inhibited provision of to. We argue that these effects reflect developmental differences in the level of proficiency in and preference for the two constructions, and they are broadly consistent with “priming as implicit learning” accounts. The current study shows that (a) children as young as 2;6–3;0 years of age can be primed when they have only heard (not repeated) particular constructions, (b) children are acquiring at least two constructions for the matrix verb WANT, and (c) that these two WANT‐constructions compete for production.