Location of Repository

Do bilinguals have different concepts? The case of shape and material in Japanese L2 users of English

By V. Cook, Benedetta Bassetti, C. Kasai, M. Sasaki and J. Takahashi


An experiment investigated whether Japanese speakers’ categorisation of objects and substances as shape or material is influenced by acquiring English, based on Imai and Gentner (1997). Subjects were presented with an item such as a cork pyramid and asked to choose between two other items that matched it for shape (plastic pyramid) or for material (piece of cork). The hypotheses were that for simple objects the number of shape-based categorisations would increase according to experience of English and that the preference for shape and material-based categorisations of Japanese speakers of English would differ from mono¬lingual speakers of both languages. Subjects were 18 adult Japanese users of English who had lived in English-speaking countries between 6 months and 3 years (short-stay group), and 18 who had lived in English-speaking countries for 3 years or more (long-stay group). Both groups achieved above criterion on an English vocabulary test. Results were: both groups preferred material responses for simple objects and substances but not for complex objects, in line with Japanese mono¬linguals, but the long-stay group showed more shape preference than the short-stay group and also were less different from Americans. These effects of acquiring a second language on categorisation have implications for conceptual representation and methodology

Topics: alc
Publisher: Sage
Year: 2006
OAI identifier: oai:eprints.bbk.ac.uk.oai2:527

Suggested articles



  1. (1997). A cross-linguistic study of early word meaning: Universal ontology and linguistic influence. doi
  2. (1977). A preliminary study of alternative taste languages using qualitative description of sodium chloride solutions: Malay versus English. doi
  3. (1999). A theory of lexical access in speech production. doi
  4. (1967). Acquisition du langage et devéloppement de la pensée. doi
  5. (2002). Background to the L2 user perspective. In
  6. (1999). Color categories in a stone-age tribe.
  7. (1992). Grammatical categories and thought. Cambridge: doi
  8. (2003). Introduction: The changing L1 in the L2 user’s mind. In
  9. (1912). L’évolution des formes grammaticales. doi
  10. (2001). L2 acquisition and bilingual conceptual structure.
  11. (2003). Language and thought on-line: Cognitive consequences of linguistic relativity.
  12. (1992). Language diversity and thought: A reformulation of the linguistic relativity hypothesis. Cambridge: doi
  13. (1953). Languages in contact. doi
  14. (2000). Learning to learn words: A cross-linguistic study of the shape and material biases.
  15. (2000). Linguistic relativity in Japanese and English: Is language the primary determinant in object classification?
  16. (1991). Linguistics and cognitive science: Problems and mysteries. doi
  17. (1991). Ontological categories guide young children’s inductions of word meaning: Object terms and substance terms. doi
  18. (2002). Post-structuralist approaches to the study of social factors in second language learning and use.
  19. (2003). Re-evaluating linguistic relativity: Language-specific categories and the role of universal ontological knowledge in the construal of individuation. doi
  20. (1996). Relativity in spatial conception and description.
  21. (2002). Returning the tables: Language affects spatial reasoning. doi
  22. (1981). Roots of language. doi
  23. (2003). Sex, syntax and semantics.
  24. (2003). Speaking versus thinking about objects and actions.
  25. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. doi
  26. (1998). Studying bilinguals: Methodological and conceptual issues. doi
  27. (1990). Teaching and learning vocabulary. doi
  28. (1997). The consequences of bilingualism for cognitive processing.
  29. (2001). The history of linguistics. In doi
  30. (1966). The influence of culture on visual perception. doi
  31. (1993). The metalinguistic benefits of limited contact with a second language. doi
  32. (1987). Thinking for speaking.
  33. (2002). Turning the tables: Language and spatial reasoning. doi
  34. (2000). Universal ontological knowledge and a bias toward language-specific categories in the construal of individuation. In doi

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.