Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Cognitive Linguistics

Editor-in-Chief: Newman, John

4 Issues per year


IMPACT FACTOR 2016: 2.135

CiteScore 2016: 1.29

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2016: 1.247
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2016: 1.485

Online
ISSN
1613-3641
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 26, Issue 2

Issues

Culture or language: what drives effects of grammatical gender?

Sieghard Beller / Karen Fadnes Brattebø / Kristina Osland Lavik / Rakel Drønen Reigstad / Andrea Bender
  • Corresponding author
  • Department of Psychosocial Science, Faculty of Psychology, University of Bergen, N-5020 Bergen, Norway
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
Published Online: 2015-03-18 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2014-0021

Abstract

Although investigations of linguistic relativity originated in cultural anthropology, the role of culture in the interplay of language and cognition has rarely been addressed. The debate on whether the grammatical gender of nouns affects how people represent the entity denoted by the respective noun is a typical example of this. A common research strategy has been to compare the gender associations for non-animate entities as a function of their grammatical gender between two languages spoken in different cultural groups. In the study reported here, we try to disentangle linguistic and cultural effects on such gender associations, by focusing on members of one cultural group speaking two language variants that differ in whether or not they distinguish masculine and feminine gender. Participants were asked to assign a male or female voice to nouns from a broad range of semantic categories (animates, allegories and artefacts). Our findings indicate that the gender system does indeed have an impact on voice assignment. However, this grammatical effect is small compared to the variation induced by culturally conveyed associations within and across the semantic domains. In conclusion, we discuss some implications and guidelines for future research on how to control for culture as a problematic confound in cross-linguistic studies.

Keywords: cognition; language; linguistic relativity; grammatical gender; Norwegian

References

  • Atran, Scott & Douglas L. Medin. 2008. The native mind and the cultural construction of nature. Boston, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

  • Bender, Andrea & Sieghard Beller. 2011. Causal asymmetry across cultures: Assigning causal roles in symmetric physical settings. Frontiers in Psychology: Cultural Psychology 2: 231. 1–10.Google Scholar

  • Bender, Andrea & Sieghard Beller. 2014. Mapping spatial frames of reference onto time: A review of theoretical accounts and empirical findings. Cognition 132(3). 342–382.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • Bender, Andrea, Sieghard Beller & Karl Christoph Klauer. 2011. Grammatical gender in German – a case for linguistic relativity? Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 64(9). 1821–1835.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Bender, Andrea, Sieghard Beller & Karl Christoph Klauer. In press. Lady Liberty and Godfather Death as candidates for linguistic relativity? Scrutinizing the gender congruency effect on personified allegories with explicit and implicit measures. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology.Google Scholar

  • Bennardo, Giovanni. 2000. Language and space in Tonga: “The front of the house is where the chief sits”. Anthropological Linguistics 42. 499–544.Google Scholar

  • Bohnemeyer, Jürgen, Katharine T. Donelson, Randi E. Tucker, Elena Benedicto, Alejandra Capistrán Garza, Alyson Eggleston, Néstor Hernández Green, María de Jesús Selene Hernández Gómez, Samuel Herrera Castro, Carolyn K. O’Meara, Enrique Palancar, Gabriela Pérez Báez, Gilles Polian & Rodrigo Romero Méndez. 2014. The cultural transmission of spatial cognition: Evidence from a large-scale study. In M. Paul Bello, Marcello Guarini, Marjorie McShane & Brian Scassellati (eds.), Proceedings of the 36th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 212–217. Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar

  • Boroditsky, Lera, Lauren A. Schmidt & Webb Phillips. 2003. Sex, syntax, and semantics. In Dedre Gentner & Susan Goldin-Meadow (eds.), Language in mind: Advances in the investigation of language and thought, 61–79. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

  • Bowers, Jeffrey S., Gabriella Vigliocco, Hans Stadthagen & David P. Vinson. 1999. Distinguishing language from thought: Experimental evidence that syntax is lexically rather than conceptually represented. Psychological Science 10(4). 310–315.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Brysbaert, Marc, Wim Fias & Marie-Pascale Noël. 1998. The Whorfian hypothesis and numerical cognition: Is ‘twenty-four’ processed in the same way as ‘four-and-twenty’? Cognition 66(1). 51–77.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Comrie, Bernard. 1999. Grammatical gender systems: A linguist’s assessment. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 28(5). 457–466.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Corbett, Greville G. 1991. Gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Cubelli, Roberto, Daniela Paolieri, Lorella Lotto & Remo Job. 2011. The effect of grammatical gender on object categorization. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 37(2). 449–460.PubMedGoogle Scholar

  • Deutscher, Guy. 2010. Through the language glass: Why the world looks different in other languages. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar

  • Dolscheid, Sarah. 2013. High pitches and thick voices: The role of language in space-pitch associations. Nijmegen: Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen. MPI series in Psycholinguistics.Google Scholar

  • Dolscheid, Sarah, Shakila Shayan, Asifa Majid & Daniel Casasanto. 2013. The thickness of musical pitch: Psychophysical evidence for linguistic relativity. Psychological Science 24(5). 613–621.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • Faarlund, Jan Terje, Svein Lie & Kjell Ivar Vannebo. 1997. Norsk referansegrammatikk [Norwegian reference grammar]. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar

  • Fausey, Caitlin M. & Lera Boroditsky. 2011. Who dunnit? Cross-linguistic differences in eye-witness memory. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 18(1). 150–157.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • Flaherty, Mary. 2001. How a language gender system creeps into perception. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32(1). 18–31.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Gentner, Dedre & Susan Goldin-Meadow (eds.). 2003. Language in mind: Advances in the investigation of language and thought. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

  • Gumperz, John J. & Stephen C. Levinson (eds.). 1996. Rethinking linguistic relativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Harley, Trevor A. 2008. The psychology of language. Hove, New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar

  • Haun, Daniel B.M., Christian J. Rapold, Gabriele Janzen & Stephen C. Levinson. 2011. Plasticity of human spatial cognition: Spatial language and cognition covary across cultures. Cognition 119(1). 70–80PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Haviland, John B. 1993. Anchoring, iconicity, and orientation in Guugu Yimithirr pointing gestures. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 3(1). 3–45.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Hockett, Charles F. 1958. A course in modern linguistics. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar

  • Hüther, Lisa, Anne Bentz, Hans Spada, Andrea Bender & Sieghard Beller. 2013. Influences beyond language? A comparison of spatial referencing in native French speakers from four countries. In Markus Knauff, Michael Pauen, Natalie Sebanz & Ipke Wachsmuth (eds.), Proceedings of the 35th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 2602–2607. Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar

  • Imai, Mutsumi, Lennart Schalk, Henrik Saalbach & Hiroyuki Okada. 2014. All giraffes have female-specific properties: Influence of grammatical gender on inferences about sex-specific properties in German speakers. Cognitive Science 38. 514–536.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • Irmen, Lisa & Julia Kurovskaja. 2010. On the semantic content of grammatical gender and its impact on the representation of human referents. Experimental Psychology 57(5). 367–375.PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Irmen, Lisa & Nadja Roßberg. 2004. Gender markedness of language: The impact of grammatical and nonlinguistic information on the mental representation of person information. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 23(3). 272–307.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Koch, Sabine C., Friederike Zimmermann & Rocio Garcia-Retamero. 2007. El sol – die Sonne: Hat das grammatische Geschlecht von Objekten Implikationen für deren semantischen Gehalt? Psychologische Rundschau 58(3). 171–182.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Konishi, Toshi. 1993. The semantics of grammatical gender: A cross-cultural study. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 22(5). 519–534.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Konishi, Toshi. 1994. The connotations of gender: A semantic differential study of German and Spanish. Word 45(3). 317–327.Google Scholar

  • Kousta, Stavroula-Thaleia, David P. Vinson & Gabriella Vigliocco (2008). Investigating linguistic relativity through bilingualism: The case of grammatical gender. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 34(4). 843–858.PubMedGoogle Scholar

  • Levinson, Stephen C. 1997. Language and cognition: The cognitive consequences of spatial description in Guugu Yimithirr. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 7(1). 98–131.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Levinson, Stephen C. 2003. Space in language and cognition: Explorations in cognitive diversity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Levinson, Stephen C., Sotaro Kita, Daniel B.M. Haun & Björn H. Rasch. 2002. Returning the tables: Language affects spatial reasoning. Cognition 84(2). 155–188.PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Li, Peggy & Lila Gleitman. 2002. Turning the tables: Language and spatial reasoning. Cognition 83(3). 265–294.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • Lucy, John A. 1992a. Grammatical categories and cognition: A case study of the linguistic relativity hypothesis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Lucy, John A. 1992b. Language diversity and thought: A reformulation of the linguistic relativity hypothesis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Marian, Viorica & Ulric Neisser. 2000. Language-dependent recall of autobiographical memories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 129(3). 361–368.PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Mullen, Mary K. 1990. Children’s classifications of nature and artifact pictures into female and male categories. Sex Roles 23(9/10), 577–587.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Núñez, Rafael E. & Carlos Cornejo. 2012. Facing the sunrise: Cultural worldview underlying intrinsic-based encoding of absolute frames of reference in Aymara. Cognitive Science 36(6). 965–991.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • Oyserman, Daphna & Spike W. S. Lee. 2008. Does culture influence what and how we think? Effects of priming individualism and collectivism. Psychological Bulletin 134(2). 311–342.PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Pavlidou, Theodossia-Soula & Angeliki Alvanoudi. 2012. Grammatical gender and cognition: Evidence from Greek and German. Paper presented at the 35th International LAUD Symposium, Landau/Pfalz, 26th–29th March.Google Scholar

  • Phillips, Webb & Lera Boroditsky. 2003. Can quirks of grammar affect the way you think? Grammatical gender and object concepts. In Richard Alterman & David Kirsh (eds.), Proceedings of the 25th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 928–933. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

  • Regier, Terry & Paul Kay. 2009. Language, thought, and color: Whorf was half right. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 13(10). 439–446.PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Saalbach, Henrik, Mutsumi Imai & Lennart Schalk. 2012. Grammatical gender and inferences about biological properties in German-speaking children. Cognitive Science 36. 1251–1267.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • Sapir, Edward. 1921. Language. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.Google Scholar

  • Segel, Edward & Lera Boroditsky. 2011. Grammar in art. Frontiers in Psychology 1: 244. 1–3.Google Scholar

  • Sera, Maria D., Christian A. H. Berge & Javier del Castillo Pintado. 1994. Grammatical and conceptual forces in the attribution of gender by English and Spanish speakers. Cognitive Development 9(3). 261–292.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Sera, Maria D., Chryle Elieff, James Forbes, Melissa Clark Burch, Wanda Rodríguez & Diane Poulin Dubois. 2002. When language affects cognition and when it does not: An analysis of grammatical gender and classification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 131(3). 377–397.PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Slobin, Dan Isaac. 1996. From “thought and language” to “thinking for speaking”. In John J. Gumperz & Stephen C. Levinson (eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity, 70–96. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Spaepen, Elizabet, Marie Coppola, Elizabeth S. Spelke, Susan E. Carey & Susan Goldin-Meadow. 2011. Number without a language model. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 108(8). 3163–3168.PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Stahlberg, Dagmar, Friederike Braun, Lisa Irmen & Sabine Sczesny. 2007. Representation of sexes in language. In K. Fiedler (ed.), Social communication, 163–187. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar

  • Vigliocco, Gabriella, David P. Vinson, Peter Indefrey, Willem J.M. Levelt & Frauke Hellwig. 2004. The role of grammatical gender and semantics in German word production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 30(2). 483–497.PubMedGoogle Scholar

  • Vigliocco, Gabriella, David P. Vinson, Federica Paganelli & Katharina Dworzynski. 2005. Grammatical gender effects on cognition: Implications for language learning and language use. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 134(4). 501–520.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • Whorf, Benjamin Lee. 1956. Language, thought and reality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

About the article

Received: 2014-05-20

Revised: 2014-12-01

Accepted: 2014-12-19

Published Online: 2015-03-18

Published in Print: 2015-05-01


Funding: This research was supported by a Småforsk grant from the Faculty of Psychology of the University of Bergen to Sieghard Beller (grant/award number: 2013/14054).


Citation Information: Cognitive Linguistics, Volume 26, Issue 2, Pages 331–359, ISSN (Online) 1613-3641, ISSN (Print) 0936-5907, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2014-0021.

Export Citation

©2015 by De Gruyter Mouton. Copyright Clearance Center

Citing Articles

Here you can find all Crossref-listed publications in which this article is cited. If you would like to receive automatic email messages as soon as this article is cited in other publications, simply activate the “Citation Alert” on the top of this page.

[2]
Ute Gabriel, Dawn M. Behne, and Pascal M. Gygax
Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 2017, Page 1
[3]
Andrea Bender, Sieghard Beller, and Karl Christoph Klauer
Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 2016, Volume 28, Number 5, Page 530

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in