color categorization in bilingual populations: korean-english ......color categorization in...

Color Categorization in Bilingual Populations:

Korean-English Bilinguals Prutha S. Deshpande

Cognitive Sciences

Advisors: Kimberly A. Jameson and Louis Narens Institute for Mathematical Behavioral Sciences

Cognitive Sciences

I would like to acknowledge the assistance of Helen Haan and Jacey Song in the collection of the Korean Language data.

This research was supported by a UROP award to Prutha Deshpande.

INTRODUCTION

Linguistic Relativity • Linguistic Relativity Hypothesis

– Influence of language on cognition • Traditional focus on the domain of color

categorization. • Rich history of cross-cultural empirical

research. Linguistic Relativity and Bilingualism: • Is the cognitive processing of non-linguistic

information impacted by bilingualism?

Gap in the Literature • Previous studies have primarily examined the

color cognition of bilinguals in their non-English language modes, in comparison with monolingual speakers of both languages.

• The present study addresses this gap by comparing the color categorization and naming behavior of bilinguals in both of their languages.

Rationale for choosing Korean-English Bilinguals

• The Korean color lexicon has interesting features that differentiate it from the English color lexicon.

• In particular, Korean has two highly salient basic color terms for the region of color space that in English would be described with the single color term “green” (Roberson, Hanley & Pak, 2009).

Choloksayk Yentwusayk

METHODS

Participants • Undergraduate students bilingual in Korean

and English, with varying proficiency in each of the languages.

• The final sample included 25 participants. • Participants scheduled for 2 sessions of 2

hours each. • One of the sessions was conducted in Korean,

while the other was conducted in English.

Assessments • Language Assessment • Color Vision Assessment

Ishihara Pseudoisochromatic

Plates Test

Farnsworth-Munsell 100 Hue

Test

Experimental Tasks 1. Naming

– Asked to name 330 colored chips – Provided confidence judgments

2. Focus Selection – Asked to select the best example or ‘focus’ of

the basic color terms elicited in Task 1. 3. Category Mapping

– For the same basic color terms as Task 2, asked to indicate every color that could be named with ‘X’ color term.

Task 1: Naming

Sample color chips (Lindsey & Brown, 2014)

Color chart approximating the samples used in this study (World Color Survey, Munsell chart)

Task 2: Focus Selection


Example: Indicate the focus of “Red”.

Task 3: Category Mapping


Example: Indicate all the colors that can be named “Red”.

OBJECTIVES

Objectives 1. Examine color category boundaries across

method used, i.e. Naming Method (Task 1) vs. Category Mapping Method (Task 3).

– Within an individual and language condition – To test for consistency in color categorization

2. Examine variations in color categorization across language of testing.

– Special emphasis on the “green” region of color space.

ANALYSES

OBJECTIVE 1

Consistency in Naming (Task 1) and Mapping (Task 3)

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

1 25

Perc

ent C

onsi

sten

cy

Participants (N=25)

Korean Language Condition

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

1 25

Perc

ent C

onsi

sten

cy

Participants (N=25)

English Language Condition

(Data sorted in a rank order)

Consistency in Naming (Task 1) and Focus Selection (Task 2)

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

1 25

Perc

ent C

onsi

sten

cy

Participants (N=25)


0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

1 25

Perc

ent C

onsi

sten

cy

Participants (N=25)



Consistency in Focus Selection (Task 2) and Mapping (Task 3)

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

1 25

Perc

ent C

onsi

sten

cy

Participants (N=25)


0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

1 25

Perc

ent C

onsi

sten

cy

Participants (N=25)



Average Consistency Across all 3 Tasks

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Perc

ent C

onsi

sten

cy

Participants (N=25)


0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Perc

ent C

onsi

sten

cy

Participants (N=25)


OBJECTIVE 2

Focal Selections of Basic Color Terms

AC

EG

I05

10152025

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40

Agreement Level

1. English Focal Selections


Agreement Level

AC

EG

I0

510

1520

25

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40

2. Korean Focal Selections


AC

EG

I05

10152025

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40

Agreement Level

1. English Focal Selections

AC

EG

I0

510

1520

25

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40

2. Korean Focal Selections

Modal Focal Choices Basic Color

Term English

Language Condition


Color Representation

Black J0 J0

White A0 A0

Gray F0 F0

Red G3 G3

Orange E5 E5

Yellow C10 C9

Brown H7 H7

Green G17 G17

Blue H29 H29

Purple H35 H34/H35

Pink E39 E39

Modal Focal Choices English

Language Condition

Frequency of Modal Choice


Frequency of Modal

Choice

Black 80% White 84%

White 72% Black 76%

Yellow 52% Blue 56%

Gray 48% Yellow 52%

Red 44% Orange 52%

Blue 44% Red 48%

Orange 40% Gray 40%

Green 32% Green 36%

Purple 28% Brown 32%

Brown 24% Purple 28%

Pink 24% Pink 24%

Focal Selections of Non-Basic Color Terms

AC

EG

I0

510

1520

25

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40

AC

EG

I0

510

1520

25

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40

2. In Korean

1. In English

Agreement Level

Aggregate Frequency of Basic Green By Naming Method (Task 1)

A

C

E

G

I0

510

1520

25

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40

English Language Condition (Monolexemic Green)

Frequency

Aggregate Frequency of Basic Green By Naming Method (Task 1)

A

C

E

G

I0

510

1520

25

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40


Frequency

A

C

E

G

I0

510

1520

25

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40

Korean Language Condition (Monolexemic Choloksayk)

Aggregate Frequency of Basic Green By Mapping Method (Task 3)

A

C

E

G

I0

510

1520

25

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40


Frequency

Aggregate Frequency of Basic Green By Mapping Method (Task 3)

A

C

E

G

I0

510

1520

25

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40


Frequency

A

C

E

G

I0

510

1520

25

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40

Korean Language Condition (Monolexemic Choloksayk)

Aggregate Frequency of 2nd Basic Green: Yentwusayk

A

C

E

G

I0

510

1520

25

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 22 34 35 36 37 38 39 40

By Naming Method (Task 1)

KOREAN LANGUAGE CONDITION

Frequency

Aggregate Frequency of 2nd Basic Green: Yentwusayk

A

C

E

G

I0

510

1520

25

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 22 34 35 36 37 38 39 40

By Naming Method (Task 1)

KOREAN LANGUAGE CONDITION

Frequency

A

C

E

G

I0

510

1520

25

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 22 34 35 36 37 38 39 40

By Mapping Method (Task 3)

Aggregate Frequency of Overall Basic Green By Naming Method (Task 1)

A

C

E

G

I0

510

1520

25

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40

Korean Language Condition (Monolexemic Choloksayk + Yentwusayk)

AND

Frequency

Aggregate Frequency of Overall Basic Green By Naming Method (Task 1)

A

C

E

G

I0

510

1520

25

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40


A

C

E

G

I0

510

1520

25

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40


Frequency

Aggregate Frequency of Overall Basic Green By Mapping Method (Task 3)


AND

A

C

E

G

I0

510

1520

25

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40

Frequency

Aggregate Frequency of Overall Basic Green By Mapping Method (Task 3)


A

C

E

G

I0

510

1520

25

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40

Frequency

A

C

E

G

I0

510

1520

25

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40


CONCLUSIONS

Conclusions: Objective 1 • Did we observe consistency of color

categorization and naming across the three methods of testing?


categorization and naming across the three methods of testing? – Task 1 and Task 3 (Eng. 68%, Kor. 88%)


categorization and naming across the three methods of testing? – Task 1 and Task 3 (Eng. 68%, Kor. 88%) – Task 1 and Task 2 (Eng. 80%, Kor. 80%)


categorization and naming across the three methods of testing? – Task 1 and Task 3 (Eng. 68%, Kor. 88%) – Task 1 and Task 2 (Eng. 80%, Kor. 80%) – Task 3 and Task 2 (Eng. 92%, Kor. 92%)


categorization and naming across the three methods of testing? – Task 1 and Task 3 (Eng. 68%, Kor. 88%) – Task 1 and Task 2 (Eng. 80%, Kor. 80%) – Task 3 and Task 2 (Eng. 92%, Kor. 92%)

• Future analysis of individual differences in overall consistency based on language fluency.

Conclusions: Objective 2 Focus Selection

• We observed a similarity in the aggregate modal focal choice frequency across the two language modes. – Kendall’s Tau = 0.748

• This implies similar focal selection structure across language modes, but not identical.

Conclusions: Objective 2 Naming Frequency

• The contour plots show highly similar denotative ranges for the naming of green in English and the Korean green Choloksayk.

• The naming of the second Korean green Yentwusayk was not as robust by naming frequency measures.

Conclusions: Objective 2 Mapping Frequency

• The contour plots of mapping frequency for English green and both Korean greens was robust. – In contrast to the naming of the second Korean green.

• This suggests a task dependent asymmetry in color categorization and naming. – Similar to observations in a Vietnamese language study

(Jameson & Alvarado, 2003).

Future Analyses Comparison with two datasets: • Survey of American English (1994) at the George

Washington University. – 31 Monolingual speakers

• Survey of the Korean language (1994) by Dr. Rodney E. Tyson. – 22 Monolingual speakers – 21 Bilingual speakers

(Components of the Mesoamerican/Multinational Color Survey, conducted by Dr. Robert E. MacLaury from 1978 to 1981)

Thank you!

ADDITIONAL DATA

Aggregate Confidence Levels in Naming 1. English Color Naming

ABCDEFGHIJ

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40

Confidence rating for each chip given on a scale of 1 to 5 in Task 1.

Aggregate Confidence Levels in Naming

ABCDEFGHIJ

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40

2. Korean Color Naming


Aggregate Confidence Levels in Naming 1. English Color Naming

ABCDEFGHIJ

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40

ABCDEFGHIJ

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40

2. Korean Color Naming


ABCDEFGHIJ

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40

Aggregate Naming of Basic Color Terms (Task 1)

ENGLISH LANGUAGE CONDITION

Agreement Level

ABCDEFGHIJ

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40


Aggregate Category Mapping of Basic Color Terms (Task 3)

Agreement Level

ABCDEFGHIJ

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40

ABCDEFGHIJ

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40

Aggregate Naming of Basic Color Terms (Task 1)


Aggregate Category Mapping of Basic Color Terms (Task 3)

Agreement Level

ENGLISH LANGUAGE CONDITION Monolexemic Color Term Usage

(37 terms - used by 2 or more participants)

N = 25

KOREAN LANGUAGE CONDITION Monolexemic Color Term Usage

(57 terms used by 2 or more participants)

N = 25

English Monolexemic Color Term Usage (Lindsey and Brown, 2014)

Term Usage in Color Naming

Measure English Naming (N=25) Korean Naming (N=25)

Number of

Terms

Number of Monolexemic

Terms Number of

Terms

Number of Monolexemic

Terms

Mean 49.52 17.04 47.72 20.20

SD 29.64 4.22 38.62 5.94

Median 47.00 16.00 28.00 16.00

Mode 16.00 16.00 18.00 11.00

Minimum 12.00 11.00 9.00 11.00

Maximum 116.00 29.00 127.00 32.00

color categorization in bilingual populations: korean-english ......color categorization in...

Documents