The Influence of Grammatical Number on Cognition of Bilinguals: A Test of the Linguistic Relativity Hypothesis
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
The linguistic relativity hypothesis has focused on the influence of grammar in language on speakers’ cognition. Previous studies show that speakers of languages with grammatical number (e.g., English) are more aware of the number of objects. Additionally, recent studies reveal that bilinguals who speak languages with different grammatical structures may alter their cognitive preferences based on their level of language proficiency. This research builds on these findings, following Lucy’s approach (1992a), to compare the cognition of monolingual speakers among members of a group consisting of thirty native Thai speakers and thirty native English speakers, with that of bilinguals (Thai-English) with varying proficiency levels in a group consisting of thirty basic-level Thai-English bilinguals, thirty intermediate-level Thai-English bilinguals and thirty advanced-level Thai-English bilinguals. Attention tests and memory tests were implemented to test the level of cognition of each participant, the results being analyzed using ANOVA and Scheffe’s test. The results showed that the English-speaking subjects paid more attention to the number of objects and memorized a greater number of them than the Thai-speaking subjects, suggesting that the presence of grammatical number in English and its absence in Thai played a significant role. The advanced-level Thai-English bilinguals paid more attention to the number of objects and memorized a greater number of them than the intermediate-level Thai-English bilinguals, the basic-level Thai-English bilinguals, and the monolingual Thai speakers, respectively, but paid less attention than the monolingual English speakers. However, there was no significant difference between the basic-level Thai-English bilinguals and the monolingual Thai speakers. This finding may lead us to conclude that: 1) grammatical representation affects speakers’ cognition, supporting the linguistic relativity hypothesis; and that 2) bilingualism affects cognition at different levels. This finding suggests the possibility that acquisition of a second language affects bilinguals’ cognition, and highlights the importance of promoting bilingualism in Thailand in order to enhance English proficiency and global competitiveness. By highlighting how grammatical differences affect attention and memory, the study suggests language education policies should focus on bilingualism and address cognitive impacts, helping Thai learners overcome linguistic challenges and enhance cognitive and language skills.
Article Details
References
Aemdit, C., & Prasithrathsint, A. (2016). The influence of English language
on bilinguals’ cognition: a test of the linguistic relativity hypothesis in Thai speakers. Sripatum Review of Humanities and Social Sciences, 16(2), 7-16. https://so05.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/spurhs/article/view/113304/88163
Athanasopoulos, P. (2006). Effects of the grammatical representation of
number on cognition in bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 9(1), 89–96. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728905002397
Athanasopoulos, P. (2007). Interaction between grammatical categories and
cognition in bilinguals: The role of proficiency, cultural immersion, and language of instruction. Language and Cognitive Process, 22(5),
-699. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960601049347
Athanasopoulos, P., & Kasai, C. (2008). Language and thought in bilinguals:
The case of grammatical number and nonverbal classification preferences. Applied Psycholinguistics, 29, 105-123. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716408080053
Bassetti, B., & Cook, V. (2011). Language and cognition: The second language user. In V. J. Cook, & B. Bassetti (Eds.), Language and bilingual cognition (pp. 143-190). Psychology Press.
Birjandi, P., & Sabah, S. (2012). A review of the language-thought debate:
Multivariant perspectives. Brain. Broad Research in Artificial Intelligence and Neuroscience, 3(1), 50-62. https://lumenpublishing.com/journals/
index.php/brain/article/view/1936
Boroditsky, L. (2003). Linguistic relativity. In D. Gentner & S. Goldin-
Meadow (Eds.), Language in mind: Advances in the study of language and thought (pp. 63-100). MIT Press.
Broadbent, D. E. (1958). Perception and communication. Pergamon.
Chanyeam, C. (2017). The relationship between the semantic system of ‘'cutting’' terms
and the cognitive system of English and northern Sgaw Karen speakers: a test of the linguistic relativity hypothesis. [Master’s thesis, Chulalongkorn University].
Charunrochana, J. M. L. (2000). The relationship between the nominal grammatical
categories and the cognitive system of Thai and English speakers. [Doctoral dissertation, Chulalongkorn University].
Cook, V., Bassetti, B., K., 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
Corbett, G. G. (2004). Number. Cambridge University Press.
Friedenberg, J., & Silverman, G. (2006). Cognitive science: an introduction
to the study of mind. Sage.
Gordon, P. (2004). Numerical cognition without words: Evidence from
Amazonia. Science, 306(5695), 496-499. https://doi.org/10.1126/
science.1094492
Green, D. W. (1998). Bilingualism and thought. Psychologica Belgica, 38,
-278.
Imai, M., & Gentner, D. (1997). A cross-linguistic study of early word
meaning: Universal ontology and linguistic influence. Cognition, 62, 169-200. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(96)00784-6
Kahneman, D. (1973). Attention and effort. Prentice-Hall.
Kalat, J. W. (1991). Introduction to psychology (4th ed.). Brooks/Cole Publishing
Company.
Kibort, A., & Corbett, G. G. (2008). Grammatical features inventory: Number:
University of Surrey.
Kirjavainen, M., Kite, Y., & Piaseckia, A. E. (2020). The effect of language-
specific characteristics on English and Japanese speakers’ ability to recall number information. Cognitive Science, 44(12), 1-32. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12923
Lucy, J. A. (1992a). Language diversity and thought: A reformulation of the
linguistic relativity hypothesis. Cambridge University Press.
Lucy, J. A. (1992b). Grammatical categories and cognition: A case study of
the linguistic relativity hypothesis. Cambridge University Press.
Ministry of Education. (2008). Basic Education Core Curriculum B.E. 2551
(A.D. 2008). https://tinyurl.com/dc3eea2d.
Office of Basic Education Commission. (2022). Teacher guides and lesson
plans in English subject for learning through distance learning television. https://dltv.ac.th.
Pavlenko, A. (2005). Bilingualism and thought. In A. De Groot & J. Kroll (Eds.),
Handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches (pp. 433-453). Oxford University Press.
Pavlenko, A. (2014). The bilingual mind: And what it tells us about language
and thought. Cambridge University Press.
Reines, M. F., & Prinz, J. (2009). Reviving Whorf: The return of linguistic
relativity. Philosophy Compass, 4(6), 1022–1032.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-9991.2009.00260.x
Ruthirago, N. (2011). The relationship between the grammar of counterfactual
construction and the cognitive system of Thai and German speakers: Linguistic relativity hypothesis revisited. [Master’s thesis, Kasetsart University].
Sapir, E. (1957). Language, culture, and personality. University of California Press.
Slobin, D. I. (1996). From "thought and language" to "thinking for speaking." In J. J. Gumperz & S. C. Levinson (Eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity (pp. 70–96). Cambridge University Press.
Thongnium, K. (2017). The effect of grammatical gender on cognition of
Russian-English bilinguals compared with Russian monolinguals and English monolinguals. [Master’s thesis, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok].
Treisman, A. (1964). Monitoring and storage of irrelevant messages in
selective attention. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 3, 449–459.
Whorf, B. L. (1956). Language, thought and reality: Selected writings of
Benjamin Lee Whorf. In J. B. Carroll (Ed.), Science and Linguistics
(pp. 207-219). MIT Press.