multi-cognition in l2 users: more evidence from an object ... · ‘taxonomic’ relation. however,...
Post on 15-May-2020
4 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Multi-cognition in L2 users:
More evidence from an object categorization task
by Japanese elementary school children*
MURAHATA, Goro Department of International Studies, Kochi University
Abstract
This study examines whether early limited exposure to a second language (L2) influences cognition of child L2 users. Research evidence, particularly from a ‘bilingual cognition’ perspective, has shown that knowledge of a L2 has effects on adult L2 users’ cognitive dispositions as well as their first language. However, there remains an issue of the timing of L2 learning influence on cognition. A picture categorization task was given to three groups of Japanese elementary school children with different amounts of English exposure. The purpose was to see how much exposure is necessary for L2 users to modify their object categorization preferences. It was found that though Japanese child L2 users fundamentally categorized objects based on the syntagmatic-thematic relation, the proportion of paradigmatic-taxonomic categorization steadily increased according to the cumulative amount of exposure. Response times also became faster. These findings accorded with those found in previous categorization studies with advanced adult L2 users. It was concluded that the findings in the present study provide further evidence of the early emergence of ‘multi-cognition’, a state of mind with more than one cognitive apparatus in L2 children. This reflects the very early effects of L2 exposure on cognitive dispositions.
1. Introduction
There is now an increasing body of research evidence that shows second language (L2)
users’ linguistic competence qualitatively differs in some way from that of both the first
language (L1) and the target language monolinguals (Tokumaru, 2002; Cook et. al., 2003;
Murphy & Pine, 2003). This unique competence, a compound state of mind with more than one
language (i.e., their L1 and interlanguage), has been called ‘multi-competence’ after Cook
�������������������������
* This study was supported in part by the Japan Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (#20520549).
(1991). Second language acqu
only L2 users’ linguistic com
categorizations (Athanasopou
distinctions (Cook et al, 2
thematic-taxonomic relations
either L1 or L2 monolinguals
for a comprehensive literature
L2 users’ unique cognition ‘m
mind with L1-established co
evidence for multi-competenc
the results of those studies wh
known about the influence of L
dispositions.
Fig
Studies on cognitive and
language (L1) on cognition (C
Choi et al., 1999). For exampl
of spatial terms in and kkita i
sensitivity to language-specifi
differ in concepts of space in t
relation regardless of containm
resulting in containment (put in
when they saw scenes with t
different and language-specif
uisition (SLA) and other related research has a
mpetence but also their cognitive dispositi
ulos et al., 2004; Athanasopoulos, 2009
2006; Kasai & Takahashi, 2005) and
(Murahata & Murahata, 2007) somehow d
(see Jarvis & Pavlenko (2008) and Cook &
e review). As Figure 1 below shows, Murahat
multi-cognition’, which referred to a compoun
ognition and ‘inter-cognition’ (Cook, 2008
ce and multi-cognition, however, has been ex
hich used advanced adult L2 users as particip
L2 learning on incipient child L2 users’ compe
gure 1. Multi-cognition (Murahata, 2010)
developmental psychology have shown stro
Choi and Bowerman, 1991; Choi, 1997; Ima
le, Choi et al. (1999) examined young childre
n two languages (English and Korean) to ex
c concepts with a cross-linguistic design. The
that the Korean verb kkita refers to actions re
ment or support while English makes a distinct
n) versus support or surface attachment (put o
those terms even 18-to-23 month years old
fic aspects of the scenes. Choi et al. (199
also shown that not
ions such as color
9), shape-substance
categorizations of
differ from those of
Bassetti (to appear)
ta (2010) called this
nd state of L2 users’
8, p. 21). Existing
xclusively based on
pants. Hence little is
etence and cognitive
ong early effects of
ai & Gentner, 1997;
en’s comprehension
xplore the timing of
ese terms strikingly
esulting in a tight-fit
ion between actions
on). They found that
d children gazed at
99) concluded that
�������� �� � ����������
children’s comprehension of those terms was guided by language-specific concepts realized by
their L1 (p. 263).
This early sensitivity to the relationship between language and concepts strongly implies a
latent possibility of early L2 learning influence on L2 child users’ cognition. Thus, the present
study is an attempt to find further evidence for ‘multi-cognition’ in child L2 users of extremely
limited L2 exposure with special focus on a cognitive process ‘categorization’. ‘Categorization’
was chosen as focus of research because there is nothing more basic than ‘categorization’ to our
cognitive activities (Lakoff, 1987, pp. 5-6). Then, as Markman (1989, p. 11) says, it is a
fundamental cognitive process, involved in one way or another in almost any intellectual
endeavor. For instance, in identifying objects, in perceiving two things as similar, in acquiring
and using language, in all of these cognitive processes, categorization plays a major role.
2. Review of relevant studies
2.1 Terminology
Studies related to ‘categorization’, according to Smiley and Brown (1979), there are two
distinctive types of categorization. One type is based on how things are used or related to the
real world. Things in this category have a linear character. For example, ‘monkey’ and ‘banana’
are linearly related because of their ‘thematic’ relation: for example, ‘Monkeys love bananas.’
The other type is based on how things are associated or related with each other. Thus, things in
this category have the common character: for example, ‘monkey’ and ‘panda’ are related
categorically because they are both animals. Smiley and Brown (1979) called this the
‘taxonomic’ relation.
However, the pairs of syntagmatic-paradigmatic and thematic-taxonomic have been used
rather interchangeably in difference contexts of linguistics and SLA research literature. For
example, according to linguists such as de Saussure (1916), in categorizing or relating objects
around us as part of our mental activity, we use two different kinds of linguistic relations. One
has been called the ‘syntagmatic’ relation, which has the linear character of linguistic items
such as Dieu est bon (‘God is good’) (de Saussure, 1916, p. 170). The other ‘associative’
relation does not address such a linear character but rather a common character of linguistic
items that form groups of variously related members. These terms have been used in object
categorization or word association research (Ervin, 1961; Yoneoka, 1987; Wolter, 2001).
Other different terms have also been used to distinguish between pairs of dichotomized
relations referred to in different research contexts such as:
- heterogeneous-by-part-of-speech/homogeneous-by-part-of-speech (Brown & Berko, 1960)
- relational-contextual/descriptive-analytic, descriptive-whole/inferential-category (Chiu, 1972)
- functional/conceptual (Moran, Mefford & Kimble, 1964)
������������ �� �� ��������������� ���
- iconic, enactive/functional, logical (Moran, 1973)
- thematic/taxonomic (Ji, Zhang & Nisbett, 2002; Smiley & Brown, 1979).
All of these pairs, however, share a general idea that the former denotes the organization of
objects based on how they are used or their relationships with the real world (functional,
thematic, complementary, syntagmatic relations) while the latter denotes the organization of
objects based on how they are associated or their relationships with each other (associative,
taxonomic, paradigmatic relations) (Smiley & Brown, 1979, p. 250). Thus, in this study the
compound terms ‘SynThem’ and ‘ParaTax’ respectively are used to subsume diverse
terminology in the literature (Murahata, to appear).
2.2 Background to concept research: categorizing objects and word association
There have been two different lines of concept research in the field of developmental
psychology: categorizing objects and word association. Though research studies along these
lines have been conducted in different arenas with different research methods, they keep track
of the same concern, that is, how words and concepts are organized in the mind or in the mental
lexicon (Smiley & Brown, 1979, p. 250). For example, cognitive psychologists from the word
association tradition hold the view that associative responses to stimulus words reflect the
functioning of concept and thought processes of an individual (Zareva, 2007, p. 124). In the
sections that follow we will briefly review some of the main findings in those concept research
studies which seem relevant to the present study.
2.2.1 Categorizing objects by monolinguals and L2 users
As for categorizing objects by monolinguals, it has been shown that young children prefer
categorizations based on the SynThem relation while mature monolinguals prefer
categorizations more based on the ParaTax relation (Ervin, 1961; Smiley & Brown, 1979). This
change of categorization preference has been called the thematic-taxonomic
(SynThem-ParaTax) shift (Entwisle et al., 1964). For example, Smiley and Brown (1979)
explored the shift by using a picture matching task where participants were given a standard
picture and two other pictures, either thematically related or taxonomically related, and were
asked which of the two pictures went best with the standard word. They found that the higher
the participants’ ages, the clearer the shift from SynThem to ParaTax categorization preferences
they showed.
Chiu (1972) conducted a cross-linguistic study to see how monolingual children of
different linguistic backgrounds categorize objects. They were given an object selection task
where Chinese- and English-speaking participants were asked to select any two out of the three
objects in a set which were alike or went together. It was found that Chinese children preferred
to select objects on the basis of the SynThem relation, while American children on the basis of
�������� �� � ����������
the ParaTax relation. This finding was of importance in that the ParaTax preference for
categorizing objects cannot be universally manifested in all groups of older ages as often
depicted as the SynThem-ParaTax shift, and also that the language of children could possibly
influence their categorization preference patterns.
From a socio-psychological perspective, Ji et al. (2002) examined how adults from
different linguistic (cultural) backgrounds categorize objects in order to see a linguistic
(cultural) influence on categorizing objects. They presented monolingual English and Chinese
college students with triads of SynThem and ParaTax relations (‘Cow’ [the standard], ‘Milk’
[the SynThem relation to the standard], ‘Panda’ [the ParaTax relation to the standard]) and
asked them to decide which went best with the standard. The results revealed that English
monolinguals showed a marked preference for categorization on the basis of ParaTax, while
Chinese monolinguals showed a preference for categorization on the basis of SynThem. This
finding was well in accordance with the finding by Chiu (1972) for a possible linguistic
influence on object categorization.
Murahata and Murahata (2007) conducted a cross-linguistic experiment by replicating the
data collecting method used in Ji et al. (2002). Participants were Japanese adult users of English
with different levels of English proficiency and English monolinguals. They were asked to
judge how strong the relations between ParaTax objects and SynThem objects were. They
found that English monolinguals judged ParaTax relations to be more strongly than Japanese
users of English, and that advanced Japanese L2 users judged ParaTax relations more strongly
than less advanced Japanese L2 users.
2.2.2 Word association by monolinguals and L2 users
The other line of concept research concerns what word come to mind when people are
given a word as stimulus. Wakabayashi (1973) examined word associations by Japanese
monolinguals and English monolinguals. He found a substantial difference between the two
groups. While the English monolinguals overwhelmingly produced ParaTax associations, the
Japanese counterparts produced much more SynThem associations than English monolinguals.
Though Wakabayashi himself did not suggest a linguistic influence on word association
preferences, his result coincided with the findings in the case of categorizing objects.
Reviewing a series of his own and associates’ research into word associations by Japanese
speakers of different ages, Kashu (1973) found no straight SynThem-ParaTax shift in Japanese
speakers as often been observed among English speakers such as Smiley and Brown (1979).
Japanese speakers were more likely to make SynThem associations across all age groups.
Moreover, the proportion of ParaTax associations further decreased as their ages went higher.
This finding was replicated in several word association experiments by Araki (1995).
Moran (1973) longitudinally examined cross-linguistic differences in the growth of
cognitive dictionaries between young Japanese and American children by using a free word
������������ �� �� ��������������� ���
association task. He found a marked shift from SynThem to ParaTax associations among
American children as they grew older. This clearly supported Ervin’s (1961) finding that
English-speaking children of increasing ages showed marked increases in ParaTax responses.
On the other hand, a reverse pattern of association preferences was found in Japanese children.
They showed an overwhelming preference for SynThem associations with increasing
frequency as they grew older. Moran’s (1973) findings show that the preference changes the
SynThem-ParaTax shift for American children and no preference shift (i.e., the
SynThem-SynThem shift) for Japanese children. This suggests a theoretical consequence for
the growth of monolingual children’s cognitive dictionaries that there may be a universal
preference modification pattern of word associations in young children. In other words,
children first organize words in their mental lexicon based on the SynThem relation and later
modify or stay with its organization as a consequence of acquiring their L1.
As for word association by bilinguals, Yoneoka (1987) tried to replicate Moran’s (1973)
finding of the SynThem-ParaTax shift among English and Japanese speakers of different ages.
She found a clear shift in the association patterns among English speakers, from SynThem in
young children to ParaTax in adults. On the other hand, Japanese speakers’ responses did not
show a general SynThem-ParaTax shift. This supported Moran’s (1973) finding.
The findings in the studies above related to concept development or change, either by
monolinguals or bilinguals, hold two implications. Firstly, young children overwhelmingly
categorize lexical items or concepts in the mind based on the SynThem relation. Then later as
they grow older they seem to modify their categorical preference patterns to either the ParaTax
or SynThem relation depending on the language they are exposed to as their L1. In the case of
Japanese monolinguals, they first categorize objects based on the SynThem relation and even as
they grow older they are still likely to categorize objects in fundamentally the same way based
on the SynThem relation. One the other hand, English monolinguals come to categorize objects
based more on the ParaTax relation as they grow older. Secondly, this L1-influenced
categorization preference could again be modified by exposure to another language. For
example, Japanese adult users of English came to categorize objects based more on the ParaTax
relation as their L2 proficiency went higher.
3. The study
3.1 Research questions
There are three research questions in the present study. The first two are related to cognitive
processes, the object categorization either based on the SynThem or ParaTa relation, and the
third is related to the period of time taken for each response and cognitive processing:
�������� �� � ����������
1) Do Japanese child L2 users basically categorize objects based on the SynThem
relation as often found in previous studies?
2) Does L2 exposure influence the way incipient child L2 users categorize objects?
3) Are there any differences in response times between groups of different amounts of
L2 exposure?
The first question is to see if the SynThem categorization preference can also be found in child
L2 users. The second question concerns whether or not as English exposure increases such
children shift their categorical preferences, say, categorize objects based more on the ParaTax
relation as English monolinguals do. The third research question asks about any differences in
response times between groups of different amounts of L2 exposure. Hunt and Agnoli (1991)
hold that examining ‘current practice’ is one of the best ways to determine cross-linguistic
effects on cognition as psychologists and psycholinguists often study differences in the time
required to perform a certain task. Moreover, as Cook (1997) concluded after reviewing several
empirical studies, “L2 users are less effective in speed of processing” (p. 289) languages, either
L1 or L2. Thus we can predict that children with more L2 exposure respond slower than those
with little L2 exposure.
3.2 Participants
Participants of the present study were 76 children, 5th and 6th graders (10 to 11 year-olds),
from two elementary schools, K-ES and S-ES. Both schools are located in central cities of a
Western prefecture in Japan. Thus, little difference exists in socio-economic backgrounds
between the children from the two elementary schools. However, at the time of the experiment,
the children at K-ES received no formal English teaching. On the other hand, the children at
S-ES had been receiving two hours a week English teaching from the 3rd grade. In English
class children engage in a variety of language activities by Japanese teachers of English (JTEs),
who received formal teacher training at a national university and are qualified as English
teachers. They try to use English most of the time during the class. S-ES also has a full-time
ALT who helps those JTEs by team teaching. Some children at S-ES had also learned English
outside of school for more than one year.
The participants were divided into three groups according to the amount of English
exposure. The Non-EX group (K-ES children) consists of 26 children with no formal English
learning at school and outside of school; the EX group (S-ES children), 32 with two hours a
week English learning at school but no English learning or less-than-one-year English learning
outside of school; the EX-EX group (S-ES children), 18 with two hours a week English
learning at school and more-than-a-year English learning outside of school.
������������ �� �� ��������������� ���
3.3 The task
A picture categorization
(2002) was given to the partic
goods and Vehicles, and four tr
trial, three pictures were given
ParaTax stimulus. Figure 2 b
standard stimulus, the banana
the ParaTax stimulus.
Table 1 shows all the stimuli f
Table 1Entity Types
Animals
Daily Goods
Vehicles
(or matching) task after Smiley & Brown (
cipants. There were three different entity type
rials for each entity type, which make up 12 tr
n as stimuli: the standard stimulus, the SynThe
below shows an Animal entity trial. The mo
bottom left the SynThem stimulus, and the
Figure 2. An animal entity trial
for the 12 trials used in the present study.
1. Twelve trials used as stimuli in the taskStandard SynThem ParaTax
Monkey Banana Panda
Cow Milk Sheep
Camel Horse Desert
Fish Crab Fishing-ro
Pencil Notebook Pen
Fork Salad Chopstick
Ring Wedding Necklace
Piano Notes Violin
Train Railroad Bus
Truck Logs Taxi
Car Road Bicycle
Airplane Clouds Helicopte
(1979) and Ji et al.
es: Animals, Dailey
rials in total. In each
em stimulus, and the
onkey on top is the
panda bottom right
x
od
ks
e
e
er
�������� �� � ����������
These 12 trials were random
participant was given the stan
pictures (the SynThem stimu
stimulus. Then they were to d
deciding, the participant was r
pointing to either of the alterna
Figure
The time-recorder beside the
responses, that is, from the tim
when he or she pointed to one o
Still Green) was used to measu
To find the answer to the
basically categorize objects ba
the means of the two respons
were calculated. Figure 4 show
the two response types. The m
trials]) while the mean of the
(73.3% [2.93/4.00]) of the Ja
SynThem relation. A t-test w
response types was statistically
the answer to the first research
prefer to categorize objects ba
mly given to the participants. As shown in F
ndard picture (stimulus) alone and then wa
ulus and the ParaTax stimulus) in circles b
decide which stimulus best went with the sta
required to say in Japanese, ‘Kocchi (This one
ative stimuli.
3. The ‘object categorization’ experiment
experimenter measured the length of time ta
me when the participant saw the two pictures i
of the pictures. A time-keeping software called
ure the length of time.
4. Results and discussion
first research question, that is, whether Japa
ased on the SynThem relation as often found
e types (SynThem and ParaTax) for all the p
ws its results. There was a large difference be
ean of the SynThem response was 2.93 (SD=
ParaTax response was 1.07 (SD=1.231). N
apanese children’s categorization responses
was performed on the data and the differenc
y significant (t (227) = 11.429, p < .000 (two-
h question was positive in that Japanese childr
ased on the SynThem relation.
Figure 3, first each
as shown two more
below the standard
andard stimulus. On
e)’, with their finger
aken for each of the
n circles to the time
d SGwatch (© 2005
anese child L2 users
in previous studies,
participants (N=72)
etween the means of
1.233; Max=4.00 [4
early three quarters
were based on the
ce between the two
-tailed)). Therefore,
ren overwhelmingly
������������ �� �� ��������������� ���
Figure 4. Means of SynThem and ParaTax responses for all the participants (N=76)
Secondly, the means of the two response types for each of the three groups were calculated
to examine if there were any differences between groups of different amounts of L2 exposure.
That is, is it possible to find any L2 exposure effects on categorization preferences in child L2
users? Figure 5 shows group means of SnyThem and ParaTax responses. As you can see, the
proportions of SynThem responses (grey bars) constantly declined while those of ParaTax
responses (black bars) rose. Particularly important was the large gap between the non-EX group
and the EX and EX-EX groups. The means of the ParaTax relation for the latter groups (1.15
and 1.61) was nearly twice or three times as large as that for the non-EX group (0.59). Statistical
analyses (ANOVA) also showed significant differences between the two categorical types (F (1,
73) = 59.532, p < .000) and the interaction between group and categorical type (F (2, 73) =
2.93
1.07
SymThem
ParaTax
3.41
2.84
2.39
0.59
1.15
1.61
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
Non-EX EX EX-EX
SynThemParaTax
Figure 5. Group means of SynThem and ParaTax responses�
�������� �� � ����������
6.103, p < .004). These results are evidently an indication of L2 learning influence on child L2
users’ objects categorization. That is, as a consequence of learning a L2, Japanese children
gradually shifted their object categorization preference patterns from the SynThem relation to
the ParaTax relation.
The third research question was whether or not there are any differences in response times
between groups of different amounts of L2 exposure. Behind this question is a psychological
premise that one of the best ways to determine cross-linguistic effects on cognition is to
measure differences in the time required to perform a certain task (Hunt & Agnoli, 1991). Table
2 and Figure 6 show group means of response times (seconds) for each of the three groups.
Table 2. Group means (SDs) of response times (seconds)
Non-EX EX EX-EX
(N=26) (N=32) (N=18)
Means 2.331 1.982 1.813
SD 1.816 1.023 0.957
Figure 6. Group means of response times (seconds)
As you can see in Figure 6, there are clear differences in response times between groups. To our
great surprise, the response times became faster as L2 exposure increased (2.331 seconds for
the Non-EX group, 1.982 seconds for the EX group, 1.813 seconds for the EX-EX group)
contrary to our prediction. One-way ANOVA was performed on the data and the result was
statistically significant (F (2, 73) = 10.760, p < .000). Furthermore, t-tests were performed on
the data to see differences between groups. As the t-test (two-tailed) values in Table 3 show, all
of the pairs between the three groups were statistically significant, indicating clear differences
2.331
1.982
1.813
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
2
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
Non-EX EX EX-EX
������������ �� �� ��������������� ���
in response times between groups. This indicates that L2 learning not only influences child L2
users’ cognitive processes, but also influences their current practice, that is, their on-line
cognitive processing.
Table 3. T-test (two-tailed) values of response times between groups
EX EX-EX
Non-EX t (56) = 3.027, p < .003 t (42) = 4.257, p < .000
EX t (48) = 2.026, p < .043
The main findings of the present study can be summarized as follows. Firstly, Japanese
child incipient L2 users largely categorized objects on the SynThem relation. This finding is in
support of those found in the previous concept and word association studies such as
Wakabayashi (1973), Kashu (1973), Yoneoka (1987), and Murahata and Murahata (2007).
Secondly, as L2 exposure increased, they modified, though slightly, their categorical
preferences and came to categorize objects based more on the ParaTax relation as adult English
monolinguals do (Smiley & Brown, 1979).
Thirdly, there were clear differences in response times between groups of different
amounts of L2 exposure. Existing research evidence has shown, as Cook (1997, pp. 281-283)
summarized, that bilinguals are less effective than monolinguals in the speed of linguistic
processing such as anaphora comprehension tasks, acceptability judgments, decoding tasks
such as ‘Mark the third letter from the left’ and list recognition and lexical decision tasks.
Contrary to these findings in linguistic processing tasks, in the present study the child L2 users
with more L2 exposure responded faster than those with less L2 exposure in an object
categorization, that is, non-linguistic, task. Though what was attributable to this ‘acceleration
effect’ of cognitive processing in a non-linguistic task was not clear, this finding implies an
additive aspect of bilingualism which maintains that knowing another language other than the
L1 extends our cognitive capabilities in some way. In other words, learning “a second language
increases the normal capacity of the individual and, so, confers a benefit rather than creates a
problem” (Cook, 1997, p.289).
5. Conclusion
This study was an attempt to explore whether L2 learning influences cognitive processes
and processing of child L2 users who are learning English in a very limited L2 exposure context.
The findings depicted in detail above evidently showed it does. As the amount of L2 exposure
increased, child L2 users not so dramatically but definitely shifted their categorical preferences
toward those of adult English monolinguals and their processing speed also became faster.
Accordingly, these findings certainly provide further evidence for a L2 users’ compound state
�������� �� � ����������
of mind with more than one cognitive apparatus, that is, multi-cognition.
What is the most striking finding was that even two-hour-a-week L2 exposure made a
significant difference in children’s cognitive dispositions. If this very early influence of L2
learning on children’s cognition is to be recapitulated in future studies, this could possibly form
a presumption for SLA research particularly from a bilingual cognition perspective. That is, the
threshold of cognitive modification as a consequence of L2 learning can be manifested far
earlier than has been expected.
There remain some important issues that we should discuss on the relationship between L2
learning and L2 users’ cognition. For example, why do L2 users come to respond faster in a
non-linguistic task as their L2 exposure increases? Is it also true for on-line processing of other
cognitive tasks? Secondly, how do an individual’s cognitive processes and processing change
over time? All of the studies related to this kind of research to date have been conducted
cross-sectionally. Conducting longitudinal studies is of particular importance to find out about
real shifts or changes of cognition in L2 users.
References
Araki, N. (1995). Shogakusei no Gengorensou nikansuru Shinrigakuteki Kenkyu (A
psychologial study of word association by elementary school students). Tokyo: Kazama
Shobo.
Athanasopoulos, P. (2006). Effects of the grammatical representation of number on cognition
in bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and cognition, 9, 89-96.
Athanasopoulos, P. (2009). Cognitive representation of color in bilinguals: The case of Greek
blues. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 12, 83-95.
Athanasopoulos, P., Sasaki, M., & Cook, V. J. (2004). Do bilinguals think differently from
monolinguals? Evidence from colour categorization by speakers of Japanese. Paper
presented at the 14th European Second Language Association Conference. San Sebastian,
Spain.
Brown, R. & Berko, J. (1960). Word association and the acquisition of grammar. Child
Development, 31, 1-14.
Chiu, L-H. (1972). A cross-cultural comparison of cognitive styles in Chinese and American
children. International Journal of Psychology, 7, 235-242.
Choi, S. (1997). Language-specific input and early semantic development: evidence from
children learning Korean. In D. I. Slobin (ed.) The Cross-linguistic study of language
������������ �� �� ��������������� ���
acquisition: vol. 5. Expanding the contexts (pp. 41-133). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Choi, S. & Bowerman, M. (1991). Learning to express motion events in English and Korean:
the influence of language-specific lexicalization patterns. Cognition, 41, 83-121.
Choi, S., McDonough, L., Bowerman, L., & Mandler, J. M. (1999). Early sensitivity to
language-specific spatial categories in English and Korean. Cognitive Development, 14,
241-268.
Cook, V. J. (1991). The poverty-of-stimulus argument and multi-competence. Second
Language Research, 7, 103-117.
Cook, V. J. (1997). The consequences of bilingualism for cognitive processing. In A. M. B. de
Groot & J. F. Kroll (eds.) Tutorials in bilingualism: psychological perspectives (pp.
279-299). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Cook, V. J., Iarossi, E., Stellakis, N. & Tokumaru, Y. (2003). Effects of the L2 on the syntactic
processing of the L1. In Vivian Cook (ed.) Effects of the second language on the first (pp.
193-213). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Cook, V. J. (2008). Multi-competence: black hole or wormhole for second language acquisition
research? In Z. H. Han (ed.) Understanding second language process (pp. 16-26).
Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Cook, V. J., 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, 137-152.
Cook, V. J., & Bassetti, B. (to appear). Language and Bilingual Cognition. London:
Psychology Press.
de Saussure, F. (1916). Course in general linguistics. C. Bally & A. Sechehaye (eds.) R. Harris
(Translated and Annotated) (1983). Chicago and La Salle, IL: Open Court.
Entwisle, D. R., Forsyth, D. F., & Muuss, R. (1964). The syntactic-paradigmatic shift in
children's word associations. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 3, 19-29.
Ervin, S M. (1961). Changes with age in the verbal determinants of word-association. American
Journal of Psychology, 74, 361-372.
Hunt, E. & Agnoli, F. (1991). The Whorfian hypothesis: A cognitive psychology perspective.
Psychological Review, 98, 377-389.
Imai, M. & Gentner, D. (1997). A cross-linguistic study of early word meaning: universal
ontology and linguistic influence. Cognition, 62, 169-200.
Jarvis, S. & Pavlenko, A. (2008). Crosslinguistic influence in language and cognition. New
York: Routledge.
�������� �� � ����������
Ji, L., Zhang, Z., & Nisbett, R. E. (2002). Culture, language and categorization. Unpublished
manuscript. Queens University, Kingston, Ontario. Quoted in R. E. Nisbett (2003). The
geography of thought: How Asians and Westerns think differently ... and Why. New York:
Free Press.
Kasai, C., & Takahashi, J. A. (2005). Effects of L2 on the cognitive decision of shapes and
mass: A report of the cases of Japanese University students. Bulletin of the Faculty of
Regional Studies, Gifu University, 17, 21-33.
Kashu, K. (1973). Nihongo no rensou mekanizumu (Mechanism of word association among
Japanese speakers). Jinbunronkyu (Humanities Review: Journal of the Literary
Association of Kwansei Gaguin University), 23, 1-22.
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Markman, E. M. (1989). Categorization and naming in children. Cambridge, MA: The MIT
Press.
Moran, L. J. (1973). Comparative growth of Japanese and north American cognitive
dictionaries. Child Development, 44, 862-865.
Moran, L. J., Mefford, R. B., & Kimble, J. P. (1964). Idiodynamic sets in word associations.
Psychological Monographs, 78, (2, Whole No. 579).
Murahata, G. (2010). Shogakko Eigo ga Jidou no Ninchi ni Ataeru Eikyo (Influence of English
learning on elementary school children’s cognition). Paper presented at the 36th Annual
Conference of The Japan Society of English Language Education (Kansai University,
Osaka).
Murahata, G. (to appear). Conceptual preference modification in incipient Japanese-English
bilingual children: the case of categorizing objects on the basis of 'SynThem' and 'ParaTax'
relations. SELES (Shikoku English Language Education Society) Journal, 30.
Murahata, G. & Murahata, Y. (2007). Does L2 learning influence cognition?: evidence from
categorical and thematic organization of objects. Research Reports of the Department of
International Studies (The Department of International Studies, Faculty of Humanities and
Economics, Kochi University), 8, 17-27.
Murahata, G. & Murahata, Y. (2008). V. Cook’s multi-competence and its consequences for
SLA research and L2 pedagogy. Research Reports of the Department of International
Studies (The Department of International Studies, Faculty of Humanities and Economics,
Kochi University), 9, 109-128.
Murphy, V. A., & Pine, K. J. (2003). L2 influence on L1 linguistic representations. In V. J.
Cook (ed.) Effects of the second language on the first (pp. 142-167). Clevedon, UK:
Multilingual Matters.
������������ �� �� ��������������� ���
Smiley, S. S., & Brown, A. L. (1979). Conceptual preferences for thematic or taxonomic
relations: a nonmonotonic age trend from preschool to old age. Journal of Experimental
Child Psychology, 28, 249-257.
Tokumaru, Y. (2002). Cross-linguistic influence of L2 English on L1 Japanese in
Japanese-English bilinguals. Proceedings II Simposio International Bilinguismo.
Wakabayashi, N. (1973). Nihongo no imirensou no zure to eigokyoiku. Eigokyoiku (The
English Teachers’ Magazine), Special Issue, January, 68-82.
Wolter, B. (2001). Comparing the L1 and L2 mental lexicon: a depth of individual word
knowledge model. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23, 41-69.
Yoneoka, J. (1987). Word associations of Japanese and Americans compared with Moran and
the S-P shift. The Kumamoto Shodai Ronshu (The Review of Kumamoto University of
Commerce), 33, 117-133.�
Zareva, A. (2007). Structure of the second language mental lexicon: how does it compare to
native speakers’ lexical organization? Second Language Research, 23, 123-153.
�������� ���� ��� �������� ��� ����
��������� �������� ��� ����
�������� �� � ����������
top related