Can Language Affect Our Cognition? The Case of Grammatical and Conceptual Gender
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study investigated the effect of grammatical gender on object categorization. To this end, two experiments were designed. In the first experiment, German and Arabic native speakers’ perceptions of similarity between objects and people were compared via picture matching tasks in which the participants were asked to match a series of people’s pictures to pictures of a series of inanimate objects along with body parts. The pictures chosen were of opposite grammatical gender in German and Arabic (none of the chosen pictures was neuter in German).The results indicated that there was a significant difference between both groups’ choice pattern, i.e., each group had a tendency to match the pictures based on their mother tongues’ grammatical gender. Further, to investigate the effects of grammatical gender on concepts of objects in bilingual speakers of two languages that assign opposite gender to the same object, the second experiment was implemented. In experiment two, similar to experiment one, picture matching tasks were carried out by Spanish native speakers and Persian-Spanish bilinguals as experimental groups and Persian native speakers as control group. The results revealed that there was a significant difference between Spanish native speakers and Persian native speakers’ performances. However, the inferential analysis did not show any significant difference between Persian-Spanish bilinguals’ performance with those of the other two groups. The overall findings showed that mother tongue significantly affects the cognition of the speakers while second language does not have such salience in affecting the cognition.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it