Introduction
The universality of conceptual structures is an area that has been widely studies by scholars
from different fields ranging from psychology to linguistics. Studies have shown that whilethese structures are likely to be universal across cultures and languages, the boundaries of thecategories are influenced by language and culture (Imai and Gentner, 1997; Saalbach andImai, 2007). One very important conceptual structure found to be affected by language isindividuation, influencing the cognitive process of categorization.
Individuation is a very important concept used to classify an entity as an object or a substance.
The label „object‟ is used on entities that can be viewed as an individual unit in its entirety,
where the name for it is applied to the entire entity, not referring to a part of it or the material
it is made of. For example, a cup is an object. When we talk about a cup, there are certain
mental images being formed. Regardless of its properties like handles and the material it smade of, it will still be recognized as a cup. Entities like tables, whisks and animals are
considered as objects. „Substance‟ on the other hand, is used to refer to entities that cannot be
individuated. In other words, they cannot be separated or counted like objects. There is also
no notion of the whole, shape or entirety when references are made to substances. In addition,
they are usually classified and referred to by what it is made of and/or used with a measurequantity such as a glass of water, a pile of sand and a ball of clay. Other examples ofsubstances include rice and foam.
With the understanding of the concept of individuation, it is important to understand how andwhere different languages draw the distinction between the object and the substance. This inturn reveals how conceptual structures of the speaker are affected by the languages they know.
Individuation in English and Chinese
In English, count nouns are used with objects (i.e. syntactically individuated) while mass
nouns (i.e. syntactically unindividuated) are used for substances or a collective group of
objects (like furniture as a collective term for three tables and three chairs, where table andchair are considered count nouns). The distinction between mass and count nouns iscommonly referred to as the mass/count noun distinction and is governed by several grammar
rules like number-verb agreement and the use of quantifiers (Table 1).

1English

ChineseSVO

SVO

Noun Phrase

Det N

Num-CL-N

Classification of

Mass/count noun distinction

Use of Classifiers (which is also

Sentence
Structureused to show individuation)

Nouns
Number Marking

Use of plural form of noun toGrammatical marking of number

distinguish the singular and pluralon noun not present in thenumber for count nouns. This islanguage. Number marking is

usually done so by adding theoptional and when necessary,

suffix – (e)s.

numerals and numeral classifiers

Number is also marked on

are used.

determiners, such as this/theseand through the use of lexicalquantifiers.
Mass nouns however require theuse of a unitizer for it to bequantified
Number-Verb

The suffix –s is added to the verb

agreement

for singular nouns while the root

Not present

verb is used with plurals
e.g. He sings, They sing
Quantifiers

Different set of quantifiers used

Same quantifier can be used forfor mass and count nouns

all nouns. For example,

e.g. many/much, few/less很多书 „very many books‟，很多水 „very much water‟

Table 1 – Differences in Linguistic Features between English and Chinese

As such, speakers of the two languages respectively may categorize things differently arisingfrom inherent differences in how each language is structured, specifically with reference tothe grammaticalization of number as contrasted in Table 1.
Differences in thought arising from the presence of a classifier category in language havebeen widely investigated by many researchers and have gone to show support for the Saphir-2Whorf Hypothesis, providing evidence on how the structure of a language affects the way
speakers conceptualize their world. This effect of the classifier category is commonly known
as the classifier effect and has been found to influence individuals cognitively, especiallywhen categorization is involved. The classifier category is of particular interest to be studied
as the classifier system can categorize nouns into many different categories on the basis of its
semantic features such as shape, material and size which is not possible in Western nonclassifier languages that only carries count/mass grammar distinction (Saalbach and Imai,
2007). The classifier that a noun can take on is also very specific. Usually, most nouns canonly be associated with one specific classifier. In rare or novel noun cases, two different
classifiers may be used. The classifier „条 tiao‟ is used to distinguish objects that are longand bendable like 一条蛇 „a snake‟，一条线 „a string‟，一条绳子 „a rope‟. Cases like 一条雨伞 „an umbrella‟ or 一条桌子 „ a table‟ would be unacceptable as the objects do not havethe semantic features required by the classifier „条 tiao‟ . Consequently, understanding howclassifiers affect categorization is important as categorization has been found to influence
inference, choice and memory (Schmitt, 1998). This is in addition to the specificity of theclassifiers in categorizing objects as demonstrated.
Lucy‟s study (1992) on grammatical categories and cognition proposed in her study thatspeakers of classifier languages tend to focus more on substance (define substance andmaterial) than object, giving rise to a general material bias in similarity judgment tasks. This
has also been investigated by other researchers like Imai and Henrik who forwards theargument that the classifier effect is observable across all classifier languages. When Imai
(2000) adopted the study by Lucy and Guskins (2001) on Yucatec Mayan to Japanese, theJapanese monolinguals shared a similar performance profile in the tasks as the speakers of
Yucatec Mayan, indicating a classifier effect on categorization. It is of interest in this study toinvestigate if differences in the properties and characteristics of a classifier system differ suchas Chinese and Japanese will lead to differentials in categorization.
Cognitive Categorization in Monolinguals
In Imai (2000), she examined the conceptual distinction between shape and object in bothchildren and adults who were Japanese and English monolinguals. The subjects were required
to perform a non-word classification task where they had to select between a shape andmaterial alternative (what the entity was made of) which they consider to be the same as thestandard entity. They were given the instruction “Show me what the same as this (test object).”3

Figure 1 – Pictures of Sample Stimuli Set [extracted from Imai and Gentner (1997)]

There were a total of three item categories from which the ambiguous item was drawn from –complex object, simple object and substances. Complex objects are functional, manufactured
and the function they serve is shown by their shape. For example, a lemon juicer is pointed
and rounded to squeeze lemons (leftmost of Figure 1). Next, simple objects are entities thattake on a simple shape with no specific function to it (rightmost of Figure 1). Lastly,
substances have no shape and are made of non-solid materials with no boundaries (centre of
Figure 1). Within each category, there will be four items that are being tested. As seen in
Figure 1, the ambiguous object for each category is shown at the top with the shapealternative on the left and the material alternative on the right.
Results from the study showed that English monolinguals had a greater percent shape
response for all item categories. In other words, Japanese monolinguals were more substancebiased when make categorization decisions. This is attributed to the presence of classifiers in
the language. Would then differences in the classifier system affect how one performs
categorization?
Generally, Chinese has greater specificity in the use of classifiers while classifiers inJapanese take on a broader scope of objects. The size of the classifier category is also muchlarger than that of the Japanese. Earlier studies such as Schmitt and Shi (1998) and Kuo andSera (2009) have demonstrated that differences in classifier systems affects thought, and in
turn, categorization when they tested Japanese and Chinese native speakers in a similarity
judgment task based on scope of classifiers in each language. It is also proposed that there isan amplified classifier similarity effect in Chinese compared to Japanese as the classifierclasses are marked more systematically in the former (Saalbach, Zurich and Imai, 2011).

4

Aims of the Current Study
Extending from the finding of these studies, we predict the following that since Chinese havemore classifiers and narrower scope for each classifier in its classifier system,
Hypothesis 1(a) Chinese monolinguals will classify things according to its substance morethan Japanese monolinguals.
Hypothesis 1(b) English monolinguals will have the least substance responses since it is nota classifier language.
While it is necessary that we understand how different languages govern thought andcategorization, it is important that we understand how learning and acquisition of anotherlanguage, be it similar or different to the first, shapes our cognitive processes. This is in viewthat bilingualism and multilingualism is fast becoming a norm with increasing globalisation.
While some countries like Singapore are multilingual with its citizens raised as bilingualsfrom a young age, there are also conventionally monolingual societies like China which are
implementing the learning of English as a second language through schools. Next, there isincreased migration of individuals to cultures different from their own in search of educationand job opportunities resulting in the need to acquire a new language.
Following from earlier theories on language acquisition and bilingualism, learning a new
language, even if it is totally different from the previously known languages to the speaker, is
not the introduction of a separate system into the brain. The new and existing languages willinterfere and interact with each other, shaping the way we perceive and think about our worldand see things. The possibility of integration of the two languages is thus not very far off.
Inevitably, the process of language acquisition creates shifts in conceptual structures when
the languages interact. A previous study by Cook et al (2006) on conceptual differences
between their first language (L1) Japanese acquiring English as their second language (L2)and Japanese monolinguals revealed differences in categorization. There was a shift in
responses from substance to shape for the Japanese that acquire English as their L2. As such,
we make the next hypothesis,
Hypothesis 2(a) Sequential bilinguals (L1 Chinese, L2 English) will have more shape
responses in the tasks compared to monolinguals due to the influence of theL2 acquired5

Hypothesis 2(b) Sequential bilinguals (L1 Chinese, L2 English) will have more substances
responses in the tasks compared to simultaneous bilinguals in English dueto the interference of the L1
In the same study, Cook et al also noted that the Japanese group that stayed for a longer
period of time in an English-speaking country demonstrated a greater shift towards shape
responses than those who stayed for less than three years in the country, displaying
categorization more similar to the English monolingual. It is suggested that besides language,
culture also has an effect on categorization.
Classifier languages are usually associated with the East Asian culture which adopts a more
holistic approach, giving more attention to the relations between objects and its environment.
They tend to look at the constituent of an object in relation to the whole. On the other hand,Westerners (usually also speakers of Indo-European languages) take on a more analytic
approach cognitively and looks at objects independently, in its entirety. Given the proximityof language and culture, the two factors are very likely to come together and influence how
speakers of the languages categorize.
In a multilingual, multicultural and multiethnic society like Singapore, language and culture
do not share a simple and direct one-to-one relation. Instead, there is interplay of multiple
cultures and languages at work to shape thought. The average Singaporean grows up exposed
and learning both their ethnic language (also known as mother tongue in Singapore) and the
lingua franca, English. Thus, most Singaporeans are able to command at least two languages
with considerable proficiency from as early as three years old when preschool education
begin, making them native speakers of both languages. Following from this argument, bothlanguages should be equally represented in the brain and the influence of each language on
the other should be similar, resulting in a more “neutral” position, without bias.
However, the language of instruction in school is usually in English and serves as a lingua
franca across all ethnicities. English is also the official language of the country, giving it
greater economic importance. Moreover, Singapore was previously a British colony and on
the receiving end of the Western culture.
Even though there is still the ethnic culture present which resembles more to the East Asian
cultures, the influence seems to be less far-stretching. The ethnic language is also commonly
taught as a language class in school only and used with family and friends. There are also6

dialectal differences between Chinese and Singaporean Chinese, though the latter wasderived from the former. From this understanding, we make a third hypothesis on how culture
affects categorization.
Hypothesis 3 Simultaneous bilinguals in Singapore tend to categorize more like the English
monolingual due to stronger Western influences in the society and education
systemUndoubtedly, there is an interaction between linguistic categories and the backgroundknowledge available in the culture to shape how we look at the world we live in. Through thisstudy, it is of interest to examine how the factors of language and culture interact to affectthought, specifically categorization of different types of objects.
For the purpose of this study, all stimuli used will be referred to as items to encompass bothobjects and substances and not to confuse with the notion of an object which refers to anentity that can be viewed as an individual unit.
In summary, the hypotheses presented above can be represented using the representationalmodel of languages proposed below (Figure 2). The points of investigation are:i.

The representation of the Chinese language on the scale
On the scale below, English occupies the point with the highest percent shape
response and Japanese at the other end with much lower percent shape response.
Will Chinese have an even lower percent shape response due to its larger classifiercategory size?

ii.

The extent of similarity in categorization to English and Chinese for bilinguals
differing in language dominance, with the sequential bilinguals stronger in Chineseand simultaneous bilinguals who are balanced in both languages

7Classifier
Classifier
languages with small languages with bigclassifier category classifier categoryi.e. Japanesei.e. Chinese

Non-classifier languages
i.e. English

Simultaneous
EnglishEnglish-Chinese
Monolingual
Bilingual

Sequential
English-Chinese
BilingualChineseJapanese
Monolingual
Monolingualwith English
exposure

Figure 2(a) – Representational Model of Language and Categorization Responses of Singapore (Hypothesis)

Methodology
Subjects
A total of 3 groups of participants were involved in this study – 20 Chinese monolinguals (13males, 7 females), 22 Chinese-English sequential bilinguals (11 males, 11 females) and 22
English-Chinese simultaneous bilinguals (11 males, 11 females). Participants were between
the ages of 18 to 25 and are currently university undergraduates.
Chinese Monolinguals
Constrained by age and education factors, there were limitations in obtaining participants
who were pure monolinguals in Mandarin Chinese. As such, Mandarin speakers with some
exposure to English were used to form the baseline for this study. The participants are from
Hebei, China and are monolingual speakers of Mandarin Chinese before the age of nine. Only
Mandarin Chinese is used in the region. There are no other forms of Chinese varieties present.
When schooling starts at the age of six, all lessons were conducted in Mandarin. Formal
education in English starts at only about nine years of age. English lessons are usually held
once a week, two hours per lesson, and are sometimes conducted using Mandarin Chinese.
The duration of English lessons increases to about four to five hours a week as they progress
to high school. In these classes, students perform simple dialogue practices and are taught
vocabulary and writing skills. Their examinations test only for the written and listening skillsof the language. It is only at the university level that emphasis is placed on the spoken aspectof the English language. Nevertheless, most of the lessons are still conducted in Mandarin
Chinese.

8

For the purpose of this study, there were a few additional conditions for to qualify subjects asparticipants. They also must not have stayed in an English-speaking country for more than
three months, taken regular English lessons apart from school and only start to gain exposure
to the language after 8 years old.
Chinese-English bilinguals (henceforth referred to as sequential bilinguals)
The Chinese-English bilinguals are from the People‟s Republic of China and are currently
taking up residence in Singapore to pursue their undergraduate studies in Nanyang
Technological University (NTU). Participants have stayed in Singapore for at least ten
months and have either passed the Qualifying English Test (QET) upon admission to theuniversity or are undergoing English proficiency classes offered by the university. This
ensures a reasonable proficiency in English required by the study and keep the culture
variable similar to the group of English-Chinese bilinguals. The participants also must nothave been stayed in an English-speaking country for a prolonged period of time prior tocoming to Singapore. The profile of the Chinese-English bilinguals is very similar in theirbackground to the Chinese monolinguals in this study except for their country of residence
and the language of instruction in their respective universities (Chinese for Chinesemonolinguals in China and English for the Chinese-English bilinguals in Singapore). They
are considered to be Chinese language dominant.
English-Chinese bilinguals (henceforth referred to as simultaneous bilinguals)
The English-Chinese bilinguals are Singaporeans and have not taken up any residence
overseas prior to the study. Most are considered to be balanced in both English and their
Mother Tongue language (Chinese in this case), with no display of dominance in either
language. Their performance in the GCE O level for both languages serves as proficiency
indicators with the aspects of oral communication, writing and comprehension skills being
tested. Listening is also being tested for Chinese. All participants would have obtained aminimum score of B in both languages to demonstrate an above average command of thelanguages, qualifying them for the study. It is also noteworthy that all education in Singapore
is conducted in English.
Materials
The stimuli used for the study are based on Imai and Gentner‟s study in 1997 on “a crosslinguistic study of early word meaning: universal ontology and linguistic influence”. The
materials were kept as close to the original with the exception of the UFO object and leather

9sample. This provided a basis of comparison of differences between monolinguals inJapanese, English and Chinese. The stimuli come from three different item categories –
simple items, complex items and substances. There are four sets of selection tasks to be
carried out from each group. Pictures used are either self-taken or used with permission given
from online sources (Refer to Appendix A for images of the stimuli).
Test Object (Standard)Complex Item
1 Clear Plastic Clip
2 Ivory Plastic Tee Joint
3 Porcelain Lemon Juicer
4 Wood Whisk
Simple Item
1 Cork Pyramid
2 Dylite Zero
3 Red Angel Clay Half Egg

Shape Alternative

Substance Alternative

Metal Clip
Copper Tee Joint
Wood Lemon Juicer
Black Plastic Whisk

Clear Plastic Piece
Ivory Plastic Pieces
Porcelain Pieces
Wood Pieces

White Plastic Pyramid
Wood Zero
Gray Styrofoam Half Egg

4 Orange Wax Kidney
Substances
1 Lumpy Nivea(in reverse C-shape)
2 Crazy Foam (in Gamma shape)
3 Sawdust (Omega)
4 Decoration Sand (in S-shape)

Purple Plaster Kidney

Piece of Cork
Dylite Piece
Red Angel Clay
PiecesOrange Wax Pieces

Hair-styling Gel (in reverse Cshape)
Clay (in Gamma shape)
Brown Paper (Omega)
Glass Pieces (in S-shape)

Nivea Piles
Pile of Crazy Foam
Two Piles of Sawdust
Three Piles of Sand

Table 3 – Stimuli used for the study

Procedure
All participants were recruited through personal contacts of friends. Liaison was carried out
only through emails in three stages (Appendix B). In Stage I, participants were given theParticipant‟s Informed Consent Form (Appendix C & D) and a language questionnaire toqualify them as participants (Appendix E-G). All participants gave signed and informed
consent approved by the University before carrying out the testing in the next stage. In StageII, there were given a specific link to access the experiment and perform the tasks. Uponcompletion, in Stage III, a debriefing form was given to explain and clarify the rationale andpurpose of the study (Appendix H). Finally, all the results are then computed and analyzed
for discussion (refer to „Results‟ section).
Experiment
Online testing was chosen as the group of Chinese monolinguals were not accessible for faceto-face testing. This is different from how Imai (2000) and Cook et al (2006) conducted thestudy with the use of actual objects. Written form of instructions were given instead ofauditory commands to prevent biasing that may occur due to language variations, namely

10between Singaporean Chinese and Chinese Chinese. To avoid the language effect in theexperiment, the samples were counter-balanced with half the participants in each group andgender taking the test with instructions in Mandarin Chinese and the other half in English.
This is with the exception of the Chinese monolinguals with the test administered to all ofthem in Mandarin Chinese. The questions presented in the test were also randomized using acomputer program and balanced across all participants to minimize biasing due to groupeffect.
On the experiment page, participants were asked to click the on-screen to start the experiment(请点击这里开始试验). The picture of the ambiguous picture would be shown with the
instruction to „Click the picture that is the same as above‟ (请选择于以上相同的图片)
before flashing the shape and substance alternative to the image. Participants were asked toclick on the button to continue with the experiment. There are a total of twelve ambiguous
images. No names were given to the objects tested as the names may prime subjects towards
either language (Refer to Appendix I).

Results & Analysis
The ANOVA test for significance was done at 10% significance level to examine if there arestatistically significant differences in the results arising from the independent variables of test
language, language dominance and gender. The statistical test showed a main effect oflanguage dominance (p=.078) but no main effect of test language (p=.483) and gender(p=.112). This means that there is a found correlation between the responses given with thelanguage dominance of the participant (i.e. sequential and simultaneous bilinguals).
Differences arising from the factors of gender and test language are not statisticallysignificant. It is also worthy to note that there is an interaction effect between test language
and language dominance (p=.078). This suggests that there is a possible interaction between
the language dominance and language of the test administered in affecting the responses
given by the bilingual participants.

11

100.00%
90.00%% Shape Response

80.00%
70.00%
60.00%
50.00%

Simultaneous Bilinguals

40.00%

Sequential Bilinguals

30.00%

Chinese Monolinguals

20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
Complex Items

Simple Items

Substances

Item Category Type

Figure 3 – Average Percent Shape Response across Item Category Type and Group

Simultaneous Bilinguals
Sequential Bilinguals
Chinese Monolinguals

Complex Items
100.00%97.73%
88.75%

Simple Items
72.73%
59.09%
66.25%

Substances
78.41%
67.05%
68.75%

Table 3 – Average Percent Shape Response across Item Category Type and Group

It is also found that there is a very strong correlation between the item category and thealternative selected for the item. The ANOVA test showed a main effect of item category
type (p<<.001) when comparing responses of all participants across the item category types.
Thus, the responses generated are affected by the category which the complex item is in.
Consistent with Imai‟s study, all three groups of participants have the highest shape responseto the categorization of complex items, judging it to be more similar to its shape rather than
the substance alternative (Table 3). This is evident of a stronger shape preference across allgroups when dealing with complex items as the shape of the object is governed by thefunction they serve.
For simple and substance items, there is a significantly lower percent shape responsecompared to complex objects, which is also similar to Imai‟s study. However, there was agreater shape response for substances than simple items across all groups of participants. The
difference in the percent shape response for both item categories is significantly smaller (lessthan 9% while in Imai (2000), difference between the two item category for Japanese and12English monolinguals was at least 10%), showing a weaker distinction between the twocategories. Theoretically, responses for substances should show the lowest percent shape
response among the three item categories as they are shapeless and biased towards thesubstance material alternative. This was illustrated both by Imai‟s study (2000) on Japaneseand English monolinguals as well as Cook‟s study (2006) on Japanese monolinguals
acquiring English.
In both studies, participants had the highest percent shape response to complex items
followed by simple items then substances. This difference in finding is likely to be due todifferences in how the experiment is being carried out. While the experiment was conductedwith actual items in previous studies, the experiment in this study is done online with imagesof these items. When viewing photographs of the items, only two dimensions (length andwidth) of the items are captured. This is in contrast to seeing the actual item on three
dimensions (length, width and height). With the missing dimension of height, the item
captured in the photograph may look flat, making it more like the shape than the substancealternative. Hence, the disparity in findings from this study and earlier studies could be due tothis lack of dimension when viewing the picture instead of the actual item since the test items
used were very similar to Imai‟s study (2000). This could also have attributed to theconsistently higher percent shape responses across all three item categories for this study. As
such, the analyses following will omit the discussion of the percent shape responses ofsubstances as it is an anomalous finding inherent to the experimental setup.
Generally, it is found that simultaneous bilinguals had the highest percent shape responses for
all item categories followed by the Chinese monolinguals then the sequential bilinguals. This
supports the hypothesis of sequential bilinguals being more likely to choose the substancealternative to simultaneous bilinguals arising from their language dominance in Chinese.
However, contrary to what was hypothesized of their response compared to the Chinesemonolinguals, the sequential bilinguals had a higher preference for substance alternatives,
reflected by a lower percent shape response (Table 4).
Cook et al (2006) in a similar study reported of Japanese-English bilinguals‟ preference formaterial (substance) responses for simple objects and substances, similar to the Japanesemonolingual. However, the group that stayed in an English-speaking for more than three
years had responses which were more likened to the English monolingual, showing greater
shape preference compared to the bilinguals that stayed in an English-speaking country

13between six months to three years. And it is noted that the performance of the JapaneseEnglish bilingual across all item category type was in-between that of the English andJapanese monolingual, but this was not the case for our sequential monolinguals whencomparing with the Chinese monolingual (Table 4).
A possible explanation for this finding is that as most of the sequential bilinguals are still
undergoing English proficiency classes to acquire English, they gain greater sensitivity tolanguage cues. In such language classes, great emphasis is placed on teaching grammar rules
like the noun-verb agreement on number. As a result, language learners have a heightened
sensitivity to these cues in their second language, namely English. This extra sensitivity ofsequential bilinguals towards English in turn reverses their sensitivity in their first language,
Chinese and helps them to draw a greater distinction in individuation than the simultaneous
bilinguals.
On top of that, for the sequential bilinguals, only Chinese was used in their home country andcode-switching is a very rare phenomena. This is in contrast to multilingual Singapore wherecode-switching is considered normal with Singaporeans switching between English and theirmother tongue, as well as speaking the local dialect Singlish which is a mix of languages in
itself. Inevitably, their increased exposure to English also affects their view and use of thelanguage. Consequently, sequential bilinguals are more sensitive to the administered test
language, giving a lower percent shape response compared to the Chinese monolingual andsimultaneous bilingual. Additionally, their percent shape response performance is closer tothat of the Chinese monolinguals although comparatively lower.

Simultaneous Bilinguals
Sequential Bilinguals
Chinese Monolinguals
English Monolinguals1
Japanese Monolinguals2
Japanese-English Bilinguals3

Complex Items
100.00%97.73%
88.75%
95.00%
90.00%
88.00%

Simple Items
72.73%
59.09%
66.25%
72.00%
27.00%
31.00%

Substances
78.41%
67.05%
68.75%
50.00%
17.00%
17.00%

Table 4 – Comparison of Average Percent Shape Response across Studies

Comparing the results in this study with those of the English and Japanese monolinguals
reported in Imai (2000), the Chinese monolinguals are found to give responses in-between
1

Data for English monolinguals are extracted from Imai (2000)
Data for Japanese monolinguals are extracted from Imai (2000)
3
Data for Japanese-English bilinguals are extracted from Cook et al (2006).
2

14

that of the Japanese and English monolinguals with the exception of substances (which has
been clarified earlier in this section).
100.00%90.00%% Shape Response

80.00%
70.00%
60.00%
50.00%

Chinese Monolinguals

40.00%English Monolinguals

30.00%

Japanese Monolinguals

20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
Complex Items

Simple Items

Substances

Item Category Type
Figure 4 – Monolinguals Average Percent Shape Response across Item Categories

Even though it was hypothesized for Chinese monolinguals to have lower shape percent
responses compared to the Japanese because of the amplified classifier similarity effect, theresults have shown otherwise. This suggests other possible aspects of language that govern
thought such as language use. In Chinese, the use of classifiers is almost mandatory while itis optional in Japanese and at the same time, the use of the classifier is also more specific,
indicating a more marked distinction between objects and substances (Table 3). As such,
Chinese is possibly more alike to English than Japanese because of the stronger distinction
between objects, explaining their in-between responses to that of the Japanese and English
monolinguals.

Frequency of Use
Classifier Category Size
Scope of Classifiers

ChineseAlmost Mandatory
Much larger than Japanese
Narrow and specific use andis more systematicallymarkedJapanese
Usually Optional
Relatively Smaller thanChineseBroader scope of use

Table 5 – Classifier Features in Chinese and Japanese

15

Discussion
With the findings presented above, the following changes are made to the model proposed in
the introduction (Figure 2(a)).

Non-classifier languages
i.e. English

Classifier(Actual)(Test) Classifier
Classifier languages with small languages with bigclassifier category classifier category
languages withi.e. Japanese
big classifier
i.e. Chinesecategoryi.e. Chinese

Sequential Chinese
Simultaneous
EnglishEnglish-Chinese English-Chinese Monolingual with
Monolingual
Bilingual English exposure
Bilingual(Test) (actual)

ChineseJapanese
Monolingualwith
MonolingualEnglish exposure(Test)

Figure 2(b) – Representational Model of Languages and Categorization Responses of Speakers (Actual)

As hypothesized, the simultaneous bilinguals had a higher average percent shape responsethan the sequential bilinguals and their categorization of the ambiguous items in the task wascloser to that of the English monolinguals. This suggests that the language of the society does
affect thought since the medium of instruction in school and the lingua franca is English. In
addition, the presence of a dominant language in a bilingual will result in categorization
being performed closer to how a monolingual of that language would be. In this case, theperformance of the sequential bilinguals is relatively closer to that of the Chinesemonolinguals than that of the simultaneous bilinguals. This is very likely to be due to theirlanguage dominance in Chinese. A very closely related factor which may have had affected
the results is the subjects‟ proficiency in English and Chinese.
The simultaneous bilinguals in this study are considered to be fairly proficient in both English
and Chinese while the sequential bilinguals are more proficient in their Chinese than English,
hence showing language dominance in Chinese. Yet, it is important to have the understandingthat the Chinese standard of the sequential bilinguals is much higher than that of thesimultaneous bilinguals on the whole. This means that the Chinese could possibly have agreater grasp of classifiers in the language than the Singaporeans, creating greater sensitivity
in categorization. As for their proficiency in English, Singaporeans undoubtedly have ahigher proficiency in the language than the Chinese, given the early acquisition of thelanguage coupled with its pervasiveness in society today. However the lack of inquiry into
their language proficiency in English and Chinese at the point of testing makes it challenging
to come to absolute and concrete findings on the language effect.

16

It is also important to understand that there are variety differences in English and Chinese
between the participants in this study. In Singapore, the Colloquial Singapore English(otherwise known as Singlish) is known to mark number differently from English (referringto the British and/or American variety). The number marking system is argued by Kim,
Chang and Lee (2009) to be systematic and not randomly optional, in other words, governedby its own set of rules. There is also a frequent violation of the rule concerning number-verb
agreement. Hence, the finding from the comparison between Singapore simultaneous
bilinguals and English monolinguals only serve as an estimate given the differences between
standard English and the Singapore colloquial.
As for Chinese, the most important distinction between Chinese Chinese and Singapore
Chinese is the use of classifiers. Taking the classifier 粒 „li‟ as an example, we see that the
Chinese are more specific in its use than Singaporeans. In Singapore Chinese, anything that isround-like in shape can take on the classifier 粒 „li‟ such as 一粒西瓜 „a watermelon‟，一粒苹果 „an apple‟，一粒米 „a rice‟. However, the first two instances are considered
unacceptable in Chinese Chinese as the entity also need to be very small in order for theclassifier 粒 „li‟ to be used. The generic classifier 个 „ge‟ is used for round-like entities thatare bigger in size. In the case of the Chinese Chinese, 个 and not 粒 is used with thewatermelon. The differences in the specificity and classifier used may lead to perceptual
differences, as the classifier takes on nouns that has semantic features that it agrees with justlike the 个/粒 distinction in Chinese Chinese but not Singapore Chinese. This is pertinent toour study since classifiers are used to show individuation and categorizes nouns.
While the findings support the hypotheses concerning how language affects categorization bybilinguals, the first hypothesis of Chinese monolinguals giving greater substance responsethan Japanese monolinguals is found to be false. As seen from Figure 2(b), the responses
given by the Chinese monolinguals participants have a greater average shape responses(shaded blue triangle shows actual result; unshaded blue triangle refers to initially expected
result following from the hypothesis) than the Japanese monolinguals, i,e. Japanesemonolinguals were more likely to choose the substance alternative than the Chinesemonolinguals. A possible explanation for this occurrence is that count classifiers in theclassifier system in Chinese are parallel to the count/mass distinction in English in showing
individuation (Table 6). The proposition of classifiers as count syntax is first brought up by

17

Li, Barner and Huang (2008) when they investigated individuation and measurement in theacquisition of Mandarin Chinese.
EnglishNoun + count syntax → individuals
Noun + no count syntax (i.e., mass nounphrase) → unindividuated stuff orindividuals
Noun + measure word → measure of stuff
or set of individuals

Mandarin
Noun + count classifier → individuals
Noun + no count classifier (i.e., bare nounphrase) → unindividuated stuff orindividuals
Noun + measure word → measure of stuff or
set of individuals

Table 6 – Parallels between English and Mandarin to show individuation[Extracted from Li, Barner and Huang (2008)]

Given the similarity of English and Chinese in showing individuation, coupled with themandatory and frequent use of classifiers in Chinese, it may be that Chinese bears a greater
similarity to English than Japanese in drawing shape and substance distinction. As such, therepresentation of the Chinese language on the scale will be between Japanese and English,
closer to Japanese (indicated by blue circle with black outline). An additional feature,
frequency of use of classifiers (mandatory or optional), is probably required to make therepresentational model more comprehensive so that other classifier languages can be plottedon the scale based on the features of its classifier category.
Lastly, there was an existing limitation inherent in carrying out this study. The original study
by Imai and Gentner (1997) was done face-to-face with actual objects. However, this study
was done online due to the limitations in reaching the participants in China to form thebaseline for this study. This might have changed the dynamics of the experiment and therepresentation of the ambiguous object over still image may not be as accurate as an actual
viewing of the object. The dimensions and texture of the object is also not viewed as clearly
even though efforts were made to make as accurate a representation of the initial and real
object. The percent shape response is significantly and consistently higher in all three groupsof participants in the study than it was in Imai‟s study on universal ontological knowledge
investigating Japanese and English monolinguals. As such, differences could possibly havearisen from stimuli and experiment design differences. These differences can be tested either
by using the same questions and method of testing on Japanese and English monolinguals orby carrying out the face-to-face experiment with Chinese monolinguals and bilinguals in
English and Chinese.

18

Future WorkFirst and foremost, this study can be repeated with Japanese and English monolinguals. The
results from the repeated study can be compared to the results of the Japanese and English
monolinguals in Imai (2000) to determine if differences in experimental procedures have asignificant effect on the results. Alternatively, running the experiment with actual objects on
the same demographics of participants in this study will also determine if the findings of thisstudy are valid. One crucial question that can be addressed by doing so is if the distinction
between simple items and substance is significantly reduced when the test is carried out withimages instead of objects. It appears that the loss of perceptual dimension could havecontributed significantly to the variation in results.
However, if the problem caused by the lack of dimension in viewing substances can be
resolved, it will be very useful for the replication of this study across cultures and languages.
By being able to do the test online, researchers will not be as restricted in terms of time andparticipants. As many participants can take the test simultaneously, this makes it easier tocollect larger sample sizes to give statistically significant data. It also allows researchers to
not have to be personally present in a culture to access participants in the culture, just likehow Chinese monolinguals participants were accessed in this experiment. By being able to doso, it makes it easier to run additional studies on different cultures and language types. At thesame time, there can be larger number of participants to provide us with statisticallysignificant data. Possible solutions to resolve the loss of dimension when using images
include using a better quality camera and to take photographs of the substances occupying theentire frame since substances are regarded as boundless entities. A norming test can be
carried out with the general population to determine if these images accurately portray
substances.
Next, we can also compare different groups of bilinguals. As addressed earlier on, EnglishChinese bilinguals in Singapore do not speak solely the standard variety. The Colloquial
Standard English distinguishes itself from the standard with the lack of number-verb
agreement. This makes the language more resemblance in this aspect to Chinese where there
is no number-verb agreement in the language. Inevitably, a shift in responses towards the
Chinese monolinguals may occur. Running the same study on simultaneous Chinese-English
bilinguals in California will probably give a more accurate reflection of simultaneous
bilinguals as they speak the standard varieties of both English and Chinese.

19

We have looked into differences in categorization between simultaneous and sequential
bilinguals in this study. Hence, another aspect of bilingualism that will be worthy of
examining is how does the language proficiency affect categorization. Athanasopoulos andKasai (2008) found that there were minimal changes in categorization between monolinguals
and intermediate users of the second language. The greater shift in categorization patterncame from the participants who became advanced users of the acquired L2. By varying thefactors of proficiency and age of acquisition of each language, we can learn if language
proficiency does indeed affect thought. And for sequential bilinguals, does the order oflanguage acquisition matter? That is to say, will bilinguals who learn language A thanlanguage B think in the same way as bilinguals who learn language B then language A.
Pertaining to languages, as identified earlier, the frequency of use of classifiers can also
contribute to the cognitive process of categorization. By testing different classifier languages
on a spectrum, the results can help us to determine if the boundaries of individuation are truly
shaped by language and its linguistic features. A possible language to test on is Malay. Malay,
like Chinese, has a big classifier category but it is more like Japanese in its frequency of useof classifiers as Malay has an optional marking system. Hence, we would expect for the
responses of Malay monolinguals to be an in-between of the Chinese and Japanesemonolinguals if individuation indeed occurs on a spectrum.
Besides examining classifiers, we can also investigate if other forms of number marking
shapes individuation. One such language is Tamil where there is grammatical marking for
number, just like English. But the two languages are more different than they are the same.
Tamil and English have different sentence structures and while articles are mandatory inEnglish, they are not present in Tamil.

Conclusion
Through the examination of acquisition of a second language with contrasting linguisticfeatures from the first, we see changes in the way how the subjects perceive the world andperform categorization on a triad matching test. It seems that for participants who areundergoing or have shortly completed their English proficiency classes develop an extra
sensitivity to linguistic cues that are absent in their first language. However, we would expect
this sensitivity to decrease and wear off as subjects gain proficiency in their second language.
Their responses then will likely to be an in-between of monolinguals of the two languages,

20

like the simultaneous bilinguals. This supports the theory that different languages are notcognitively separate as the acquisition of a second language has been shown to create shifts in
categorization pattern towards the L2. This shift seems to be permanent as a result of thereorganization of the language system in our cognition. Lastly, it is possible that languages
may be more similar than we really think they are such as English and Chinese in showing
individuation and there may be other languages and aspects of these languages that sharesuch parallels.

21

References
Aikhenvald, Alexandra. Y. (2000). Classifiers: A Typology of Noun Categorization Devices.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Athanasopoulos, Panos. and Kasai, Chise. (2008). Language and thought in bilinguals: Thecase of grammatical number and nonverbal classification preferences. Applied
Psycholinguistics, 29:105-123
Athanasopoulos, Panos. and Kasia, Chise. (2011). Effects of second language on cognition in
English users of L2 Japanese. Vigo International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 8:13-27
Brinton, Laurel J. and Brinton, Donna. (2010). The Linguistic Structure of Modern English.
Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company
Cook, Vivian., Bassetti, Benedetta., Kasai, Chise., Miho Sasaki. and. Takashi, Jun Arata.
(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
Gao, Ming Y. and Malt, Barbara C. (2009). Mental representation and cognitive
consequences of Chinese individual classifiers. Language and Cognitive Processes, 24(7/8): 1124-1179
Gupta, Anthea, Fraser. (2008). The Language Ecology of Singapore. In Creese, A., Martin, P.
and Hornberger, N. H. (eds.), Encyclopaedia of Language and Education, 2nd Edition,
Volume 9: Ecology of Language (pp.99–111). United States: Springer
Henrik, Saalbach. and Imai, Mutsumi. (2010) Do Classifier Categories Structure ourConcepts? http://www.psych.unito.it/csc/cogsci05/frame/talk/f327-saalbach.pdf
Retrieved on Oct 22, 2011
Imai, Mitsumai. (2000). Universal Ontological Knowledge and a Bias toward LanguageSpecific Categories in the Construal of Individuation. In Niemeier, Susanne. and Dirven,
Ren . (eds.) Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, 198: 139-161
Imai, Mutsumi. and Gentner, Dedre. (1997). A cross-linguistic study of early word meaning:
universal ontology and linguistic influence. Cognition, 62:169-200
Kim, Chonghyuck, Qizhong Chang & Leslie Lee. (2009). Number Marking in Colloquial
Singapore English. Journal of Cognitive Science, 10(2): 149-172.
Kim, Chonghyuck, Qizhong Chang & Leslie Lee. (2007). Singlish number marking is not
random. Paper presented at SEALS17, Aug 31 - Sep 2 2007, University of Maryland.
Klein, Bernd. (2006). Classification of Bilingualism. In Bilingual Upbringing of Children in
the Home. Retrieved Oct 30, 2011 from http://www.bklein.de/buc/buc_classification.php
Kouider, Sid., Halberda, Justin., Wood, Justin. and Carey, Susan. (2006). Acquisition ofEnglish Number Marking: The Singular-Plural Distinction. Language Learning andDevelopment, 2(1):1-25
Kuo, Yi-Chun Jenny. and Sera, Maria D. (2009). Classifier effects on human categorization:
the role of shape classifiers in Mandarin Chinese. Journal East Asian Linguist, 18:1-19

22

Lucy, John A. (1992). Grammatical Categories and Cognition: A case study of the Linguistic
Relativity Hypothesis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Lucy, John A. and Gaskins, Susanne. (2001). Grammatical Categories and the developmentof classification preferences: a comparative approach. In Levinson, Stephen C. andBowerman (eds.). Language Acquisition and Conceptual Development. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press
Matsumoto-Gray, Katherine. (2009). Categorization: Connections between Language andSociety. Language, Meaning and Society, 2: 107-135
Pakir, Anne, (2008). Bilingual Education in Singapore. In Cummins, J. and Hornberger,
Nancy H. (eds.) Encyclopedia of Language and Education, 2nd Edition, Volume 5:
Bilingual Education (pp.191-203). United States: Springer
Saalbach, Henrik. and Imai, Mitsumai. (2007). Scope of Linguistic Influence: Does aClassifier System Alter Object Concepts?. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,
136 (3): 485-501
Saalbach, Herik., Zurich, ETH. and Imai, Mutsumi. (2011). The Relation between Linguistic
Categories and Cognition: The Case of Numeral Classifiers. Psychology Press
Schmitt, Bernd H. and Zhang, Shi. (1998). Language Structure and Categorization: A Studyof Classifiers in Consumer Cognition, Judgement and Choice. Journal of Consumer
Reasearch, 25(2):108-122
Singapore Examinations and Assessment Board. GCE O-Level Syllabuses Examined in 2011.
Retrieved October 13, 2011, fromhttp://www.seab.gov.sg/oLevel/GCEOsyllabus/schoolCandidates/2011_GCE_O.html
The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. (2011). WALS – Tamil. Retrieved Nov 12,
2011, from http://wals.info/languoid/lect/wals_code_tml
Yu, Liming. (2008). English-Chinese Bilingual Education in China. In Cummins, J. andHornberger, Nancy H. (eds.) Encyclopaedia of Language and Education, 2nd Edition,
Volume 5: Bilingual Education (pp.175-189). United States: Springer

23

Appendix A – Images of Stimuli Used
Test Object

Shape Alternative

Substance Alternative

Clear Plastic Clip

Metal Clip

Clear Plastic Piece

Ivory Plastic Tee Joint

Copper Tee Joint

Ivory Plastic Piece

Porcelain Lemon Juicer

Wood Lemon Juicer

Porcelain Pieces

Wood Whisk

Black Plastic Whisk

Wood Pieces

Cork Pyramid

White Plastic Pyramid

Piece of Cork

Dylite Zero

Wood Zero

Dylite Piece

24

Test Object

Shape Alternative

Substance Alternative

Red Angel Clay Half Egg

Gray Styrofoam Half Egg

Red Angel Clay Pieces

Orange Wax Kidney

Purple Plaster Kidney

Orange Wax Pieces

Lumpy Nivea

Hair-styling Gel

Nivea Piles

Crazy Foam

Clay

Pile of Crazy Foam

SawdustBrown Paper

Two Piles of Sawdust

Decoration Sand

Glass Pieces

Three Piles of Sand

25

Appendix B – Emails to Participants
Email #1 – Getting Participant‟s Consent and Language Background你好！首先，我非常感谢您愿意参与我的研究项目。
在这研究测试能开始前，我必须让你详细地了解研究项目的一切内容并且得到您的签
名表示同意。这一切已经列入在 „Informed Participants‟ Consent Form‟的档案里。电子
邮件还包括一个附件，其中包含了一份关于个人语言背景的问卷。请用普通话来回答。
请您详读这两份文件，若有疑问之处，请尽管把它们提出来。这一切所收集的资料都
不会损害到您的个人隐私或名誉。
我希望尽快您的回复以便进行下一阶段的测试。也因为报告呈交期也快到了。谢谢您！
祝您学业进步，江韵蕊
语言学 Year 4
南洋理工大学
P.S. 关于你的签名，你可以把你的签名拍下。然后把它的图像插入文件。

Hi!
Attached is the Participation Informed Consent Form (PCF) and a language questionnaire on
yourself. The PCF explains the purpose of the study and the process of the experiment. Do
read through it carefully and clarify any doubts that you may have.
In addition, I would need you to sign at the end of the form to show that you fully understandwhat is going to happen and how the information will be used, without any compromise to
your privacy. As for the language questionnaire, it is basically about yourself and yourlanguage abilities.
I will need you to email both forms back to me once you are done before moving on to thenext part of the study, which I will send you a link to go to.
With thanks,
Yun Rui
Linguistics & Multilingual Studies Year 4
Nanyang Technological University
P.S. For the signature, you could take a picture of your signature and insert it as an image orsign via paint and insert it as an image.

26

Email #2 – Instructions to access and carry out the experiment谢谢你的回复！下一个阶段就是进行测试。请你到这个网址进行测试：<link>测试里一共有十二个题目。测试的时间应不会超过十分钟。你应该一次完成所有的题目。在进行测试的时候请注意以下几点：1．点击按钮来开始测试
如果文字显示出乱码，请把游览器的编码设定改为 Unicode（UTF-8）.
2．按照屏幕上的指示进行测试。
3．当你完成所有的题目时，你会看到《谢谢你的参与》。
在进行测试时，若有遇到困难请通知我。谢谢！
Thank you for completing the language questionnaire and the participant‟s informed consent
form. For the next stage of testing, please follow this given link and access the experimentpage：<link>
The experiment will not take more than 10 minutes and you should finish all TWELVEQUESTIONS in one sitting. Here are some instructions when doing the test:
1. Click on the button to start the experiment.
2. Follow the on-screen instructions.
3. You will be able to see a „Thank You‟ page at the end of the experiment.
Do feel free to check with me should you face any problem in completing the experiment.
Thank you once again for your participation in my study!

Email #3 – Debriefing of Experiment谢谢你参与我的研究测试！在这电邮的附件里解释了这次试验的目的以便让你多了解
你所参与的测试。祝你在来临的考试里一切顺利。
Thank you once again for your participation in my study. Attached is an experimentdebriefing form where the purpose and the rationale of the study is explained, should you beinterested. All the best for your upcoming examinations!

27

Appendix C – Informed Participant’s Consent Form (English)
Informed Participant’s Consent Form
Student Investigator: Kong Yun Rui
The purpose of the study is to learn more about how bilinguals in English and Chinese think
as compared to monolinguals in the respective languages. A total of 60 participants will be
involved in this study.
If you agree to be in this study, the following will happen:
First, you will be required to do a questionnaire via email on your language background toprovide information on the demographics of the participants in this study. The information
given in this questionnaire will be used anonymously. After which, you will be required to go
online to answer a total of 12 multiple choice questions. The total time taken for thequestionnaire and online test will not exceed ten minutes each.
There is no underlying risk in this study known to the student investigator. There will also be
no remuneration or direct benefit to you from these procedures. However, the investigator
will learn more about bilinguals, and the knowledge gained may help others in the future.
If you have questions, you may reach Yun Rui at (+65) 91872371 or email
gracekongyr@gmail.com.
Participation in this research is entirely voluntary. You may refuse to participate or withdraw
at any time without penalty. All data and information collected will be kept completely
confidential to the extent allowed by the law.
Based on the foregoing, you agree to participate in the abovementioned study. In addition,
you declare that you understand the purpose, procedure and the risks involved in this study
and have read this informed consent form in detail.

___________________
Subject's Signature
Date

28

Appendix D – Informed Participant’s Consent Form (Chinese)
被试知情同意书
学生研究者: 江韵蕊这项研究的目是调查双语和单语的人在思考上是否有区分。一共有六十位参与者参与这项调查。
若你同意参加研究的话，首先你需要完成有关个人资料和在语言运用的问卷。之后，
你需要等入网络来回答十二个选择题。所收集的资料将一切会用匿名来使用，不会为你带来任何困扰。每一项资料收寻都能在十分钟内完成。
本研究没有研究者所意识到的潜在份鲜活副作用。虽然参与本研究对你没有直接的收益。但是，从本研究所得知的有可能在将来会帮助其他人。
若你还有疑问，请电邮韵蕊 gracekongyr@gmail.com. 。
参与本研究是完全自愿的。你随时都可以不参与或退出研究。你的名字或其他可以确
认你的信息将不会出现在材料中。

我申明我已经被告知本研究的目的，过程，可能的风险。我的所有的问题都得到满意
的回答。我已经详细阅读了本被试同意书。我下面的签名表明我愿意参加本研究。

___________________
签名
日期

29

Appendix E– Language Questionnaire (Chinese Monolinguals)
姓名:
年龄:
性别:
电邮地址:
教育水平/目前就读的学校:
国籍:
语言能力:
语言

接触语言的年龄经常用语言交谈的对象

用语言编写的频率

中文






朋友
家人
学校
其它: ____________

英文






朋友
家人
学校
其它: ____________












每次
常常
有时候
很少
从来没有
每次
常常
有时候
很少
从来没有

你是否曾到使用英文的国家参与过海外交流活动？
有。请注明哪一个国家和逗留的时间：_____________
没有你在学校以外还有上英文课吗？
有，请在以下注明详情:
频率: ___________________
请注明几时开始的 （请注明还有在进行吗）：_________________________________________________________________________No 没有你会怎么形容你目前的英语水平呢？
_________________________________________________________________________________

I hereby declare that all the information provided above is accurate to the best of my knowledge andallow the information to be used anonymously for research purposes only. 本人谨此声明以上所提供的
所有信息以我所知是准确的。同时，本人也允许研究者在匿名之下使用这些资料来做研究。
__________________
Signature 签名
Date 日期:

30Appendix F– Language Questionnaire (Chinese-English Sequential Bilinguals)
Name 姓名:
Age 年龄:Gender 性别:Email Address 电邮地址:
Education Level/School 教育水平/目前就读的学校:
Nationality 国籍:
Duration of Stay in Singapore 在新加坡居住的时间:
Language Proficiency 语言能力:
LanguageAge of Exposure

Domains of Spoken Use

Frequency of Written Use语言接触语言的年龄经常用语言交谈的对象

用语言编写的频率 All the time 每次 Most of the time 常常
Chinese Sometimes 有时候中文 Rarely 很少 Never 从来没有English Friends 朋友
 All the time 每次Family家人
 Most of the time 常常
英文 School 学校
 Sometimes 有时候 Others 其它: ____________
 Rarely 很少 Never 从来没有Have you gone on any overseas exchange programme to an English-speaking country (e.g. Europe,
America) before coming to Singapore? 你在前往新加坡前是否到使用英文的国家参与过海外交流活动？
Mandarin









Friends 朋友
Family 家人
School 学校
Others 其它: ____________

Yes, please specify where and duration of stay: ______________
有。请注明哪一个国家和逗留的时间：_____________No 没有

Did you pass the Qualifying English Test (QET) upon admission into NTU? 你是否顺利通过入读南大之前的英文测验？



Yes 是
No 不是

Are you still undergoing English Proficiency classes provided by the University?
你现在还有上大学所设的英语水平进修班吗 ？

Yes 有

No 没有
I hereby declare that all the information provided above is accurate to the best of my knowledge andallow the information to be used anonymously for research purposes only.
本人谨此声明以上所提供的所有信息以我所知是准确的。同时，本人也允许研究者在匿名之下使用这些
资料来做研究。
__________________
Signature 签名
Date 日期:

31Appendix G– Language Questionnaire (English-Chinese Simultaneous Bilinguals)
Name 姓名:
Age 年龄:Gender 性别:Email Address 电邮地址:
Education Level/School 教育水平/目前就读的学校:
Nationality 国籍:
Duration of Stay in Singapore 在新加坡居住的时间:
Language Proficiency 语言能力:
LanguageAge of Exposure

Domains of Spoken Use

Frequency of Written Use

O Level Score语言接触语言的年龄经常用语言交谈的对象

用语言书写的频率‘O’水准的成绩Friends 朋友
Family 家人
School 学校
Others 其它:____________







All the time 每次
Most of the time 常常
Sometimes 有时候Rarely 很少
Never 从来没有






Friends 朋友
Family 家人
School 学校
Others 其它:____________







All the time 每次
Most of the time 常常
Sometimes 有时候Rarely 很少
Never 从来没有Mandarin
Chinese中文

English英文Have you taken residence in any country outside of Singapore for more than 6 months? 你是否有在新加坡以外的国家居住过六个月以上？
Yes, please specify where and duration of stay: ______________
有。请注明哪一个国家和居住的时间: ________________
No 没有

I hereby declare that all the information provided above is accurate to the best of my knowledge andallow the information to be used anonymously for research purposes only.
本人谨此声明以上所提供的所有信息以我所知是准确的。同时，本人也允许研究者在匿名之下使用这些
资料来做研究。
__________________
Signature 签名
Date 日期:

32

Appendix H – Debriefing Form
研究项目名称：
Shape or Substance? : A Cross-linguistic Study of Bilinguals in English and Chinese
前人研究发现语言能影响我们的思维以及如何去分类我们所看到的。本研究的目的是调查学习另一个语言是否会影响我们思维的过程。 另外，也探讨在不同语言之间是否有这思维上的不同。
在本研究所用到的测试是从 Mutsumi Imai 和 Dedre Gentner 在 1997 年里的一项研究称“A cross-linguistic study of early word meaning: universal ontology and linguistic influence”.
从参与人的选择，研究者得到人们如何思考的见解。
若你对于你的参与有提问，请随时发电邮询问。我的电邮地址是gracekongyr@gmail.com 。 此外，你也能联络我的监督导师，Francis Bond 副教授。他
的电邮地是 bond@ieee.org.
谢谢你的参与！
Title of Project:
Shape or Substance? : A Cross-linguistic Study of Bilinguals in English and Chinese
Language has been found by some researchers to influence the way we categorize the things
we see around us. The purpose of this study is to investigate if the learning of anotherlanguage will affect this process and if there are differences between speakers of different
languages.
The experiment used in this study is a replication of an earlier study by Mutsumi Imai and
Dedre Gentner in 1997 on “A cross-linguistic study of early word meaning: universal
ontology and linguistic influence”. Through the choices you make in the experiment, we will
gain insights on how categorization is being done.
Should you have any concerns about your participation in this study, do feel free to contact
me at (+65) 91872371 or gracekongyr@gmail.com. Alternatively, my supervising professor,
Assoc Prof Francis Bond can be reached at bond@ieee.org .
Thank you for your participation in this study!

33

Appendix I – Screenshots of Online Experiment
1. To start the experiment:

2. Showing of Question:

3. Showing of Shape and Substance alternatives:34

4. To continue with the experiment:

Steps 2 to 4 are repeated until all 12 questions are done.
5. When the last question is completed, a „Thank You‟ page screen will be flashed.

35