Advertisement

Grammar, Gender and Demonstratives in Lateralized Imagery for Sentences

  • Mikkel WallentinEmail author
  • Roberta Rocca
  • Sofia Stroustrup
Article

Abstract

We investigated biases in the organization of imagery by asking participants to make stick-figure drawings of sentences containing a man, a woman and a transitive action (e.g. she kisses that guy). Previous findings show that prominent features of meaning and sentence structure are placed to the left in drawings, according to reading direction (e.g. Stroustrup and Wallentin in Lang Cogn 10(2):193–207, 2018.  https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2017.19). Five hundred thirty participants listened to sentences in Danish and made eight drawings each. We replicated three findings: (1) that the first mentioned element is placed to the left more often, (2) that the agent in the sentence is placed to the left, and (3) that the grammatical subject is placed to the left of the object. We further tested hypotheses related to deixis and gender stereotypes. By adding demonstratives (e.g. Danish equivalents of this and that), that have been found to indicate attentional prominence, we tested the hypothesis that this is also translated into a left-ward bias in the produced drawings. We were unable to find support for this hypothesis. Analyses of gender biases tested the presence of a gender identification and a gender stereotype effect. According to the identification hypothesis, participants should attribute prominence to their own gender and draw it to the left, and according to the stereotype effect participants should be more prone to draw the male character to the left, regardless of own gender. We were not able to find significant support for either of the two gender effects. The combination of replications and null-findings suggest that the left-ward bias in the drawing experiment might be narrowly tied to left-to-right distribution in written language and less to overall prominence. No effect of handedness was observed.

Keywords

Imagery Reading direction Grammar Gender Demonstratives 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The experiment was funded via a seed-funding grant from the Interacting Minds Centre at Aarhus University. Funding for Roberta Rocca was provided by the DCOMM Grant the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Sklodowska-Curie Actions Grant Agreement No. 676063. We wish to thank students and staff from Stenhus Gymnasium and VUC Aarhus for their cooperation, especially Peter Fink and Søren Gubi Axelsen for their help with coordinating testing. We also wish to thank Anders Munch and Kim Stroustrup for helping with data collection and Liisalotte Elme and Arnault-Quentin Vermillet for their help with data coding.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Abele, A. E. (2003). The dynamics of masculine-agentic and feminine-communal traits: Findings from a prospective study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(4), 768.Google Scholar
  2. Amare, N. (2007). Where is she? Gender occurrences in online grammar guides. Research in the Teaching of English, 42(2), 163–187.Google Scholar
  3. Athanasopoulos, P., Bylund, E., Montero-Melis, G., Damjanovic, L., Schartner, A., Kibbe, A., et al. (2015). Two languages, two minds. Psychological Science, 26(4), 518–526.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614567509.Google Scholar
  4. Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B. M., & Walker, S. C. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 1, 1.  https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01.Google Scholar
  5. Benjamini, Y., & Hochberg, Y. (1995). Controlling the false discovery rate: A practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological), 57(1), 289–300.Google Scholar
  6. Boiteau, T. W., & Almor, A. (2017). Transitivity, space, and hand: The spatial grounding of syntax. Cognitive Science, 41(4), 848–891.  https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12355.Google Scholar
  7. Braine, L. G., Schauble, L., Kugelmass, S., & Winter, A. (1993). Representation of depth by children: Spatial strategies and lateral biases. Developmental Psychology, 29(3), 466–479.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.29.3.466.Google Scholar
  8. Braswell, G. S., & Rosengren, K. S. (2002). The role of handedness in graphic production: Interactions between biomechanical and cognitive factors in drawing development. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 20(4), 581–599.  https://doi.org/10.1348/026151002760390963.Google Scholar
  9. Carnaghi, A., Piccoli, V., Brambilla, M., & Bianchi, M. (2014). Gender hierarchy in the space: The role of gender status in shaping the spatial agency bias. The Journal of Social Psychology, 154(2), 105–114.Google Scholar
  10. Chafe, W. (1976). Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics and point of view. In C. N. Li (Ed.), Subject and topic (pp. 25–56). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  11. Chafe, W. (1994). Discourse, consciousness, and time. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  12. Chalabaev, A., Sarrazin, P., Fontayne, P., Boiché, J., & Clément-Guillotin, C. (2013). The influence of sex stereotypes and gender roles on participation and performance in sport and exercise: Review and future directions. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 14(2), 136–144.Google Scholar
  13. Chatterjee, A., Southwood, M. H., & Basilico, D. (1999). Verbs, events and spatial representations. Neuropsychologia, 37(4), 395–402.Google Scholar
  14. Chokron, S., & De Agostini, M. (2000). Reading habits influence aesthetic preference. Brain Research. Cognitive Brain Research, 10(1–2), 45–49.Google Scholar
  15. Coates, J. (2013). Women, men and language (3rd ed.). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  16. Coventry, K. R., Griffiths, D., & Hamilton, C. J. (2014). Spatial demonstratives and perceptual space: Describing and remembering object location. Cognitive Psychology, 69, 46–70.Google Scholar
  17. Delong, K. A., Troyer, M., & Kutas, M. (2014). Pre-processing in sentence comprehension: Sensitivity to likely upcoming meaning and structure. Language and Linguistics Compass, 8(12), 631–645.  https://doi.org/10.1111/lnc3.12093.Google Scholar
  18. Diessel, H. (1999). Demonstratives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.Google Scholar
  19. Diessel, H. (2006). Demonstratives, joint attention, and the emergence of grammar. Cognitive Linguistics, 17, 463.Google Scholar
  20. Dobel, C., Diesendruck, G., & Bölte, J. (2007). How writing system and age influence spatial representations of actions: A developmental, cross-linguistic study. Psychological Science: A Journal of the American Psychological Society/APS, 18(6), 487–491.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01926.x.Google Scholar
  21. Else-Quest, N. M., Hyde, J. S., Goldsmith, H. H., & Van Hulle, C. A. (2006). Gender differences in temperament: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 132(1), 33.Google Scholar
  22. Frazier, L. (1999). On sentence interpretation. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  23. Fritz, J. B., Elhilali, M., David, S. V., & Shamma, S. A. (2007). Auditory attention–focusing the searchlight on sound. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 17(4), 437–455.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conb.2007.07.011.Google Scholar
  24. Fuhrman, O., & Boroditsky, L. (2010). Cross-cultural differences in mental representations of time: Evidence from an implicit nonlinguistic task. Cognitive Science, 34(8), 1430–1451.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2010.01105.x.Google Scholar
  25. Gernsbacher, M. A., & Hargreaves, D. J. (1988). Accessing sentence participants: The advantage of first mention. Journal of Memory and Language, 27(6), 699–717.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596x(88)90016-2.Google Scholar
  26. Givón, T. (1984). Syntax: A functional-typological introduction (Vol. 1). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  27. Gleitman, L. R., January, D., Nappa, R., & Trueswell, J. C. (2007). On the give and take between event apprehension and utterance formulation. Journal of Memory and Language, 57(4), 544–569.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2007.01.007.Google Scholar
  28. Gudde, H. B., Coventry, K. R., & Engelhardt, P. E. (2016). Language and memory for object location. Cognition, 153, 99–107.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2016.04.016.Google Scholar
  29. Gundel, J. K., Hedberg, N., & Zacharski, R. (1993). Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language, 69(2), 274–307.Google Scholar
  30. Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, M. I. M. (2004). An introduction to functional grammar (3rd ed.). London: Hodder Arnold.Google Scholar
  31. Hansen, E., & Heltoft, L. (2011). Grammatik over det Danske Sprog (Grammar of the Danish Language). Copenhagen: Syddansk Universitetsforlag.Google Scholar
  32. Hegarty, P., & Buechel, C. (2006). Androcentric reporting of gender differences in APA journals: 1965–2004. Review of General Psychology, 10(4), 377.Google Scholar
  33. Hegarty, P., Watson, N., Fletcher, L., & McQueen, G. (2011). When gentlemen are first and ladies are last: Effects of gender stereotypes on the order of romantic partners’ names. British Journal of Social Psychology, 50(1), 21–35.Google Scholar
  34. Hendricks, R. K., & Boroditsky, L. (2017). New space-time metaphors foster new nonlinguistic representations. Topics in Cognitive Science, 9(3), 800–818.  https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12279.Google Scholar
  35. Herlitz, A., & Lovén, J. (2013). Sex differences and the own-gender bias in face recognition: A meta-analytic review. Visual Cognition, 21(9–10), 1306–1336.Google Scholar
  36. Kemmerer, D. (1999). ‘Near’ and ‘far’ in language and perception. Cognition, 73(1), 35–63.Google Scholar
  37. Kesebir, S. (2017). Word order denotes relevance differences: The case of conjoined phrases with lexical gender. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113(2), 262–279.  https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000094.Google Scholar
  38. Kirsner, R. S. (1979). Deixis in discourse: An exploratory quantitative study of the modern dutch demonstrative adjectives. In T. Givón (Ed.), Syntax and semantics (Vol. 12, pp. 355–376). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  39. Koenig, A. M., Eagly, A. H., Mitchell, A. A., & Ristikari, T. (2011). Are leader stereotypes masculine? A meta-analysis of three research paradigms. Washington: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  40. Kranjec, A., Lehet, M., Bromberger, B., & Chatterjee, A. (2010). A sinister bias for calling fouls in soccer. PLoS ONE, 5(7), e11667.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0011667.Google Scholar
  41. Kristensen, L. B. (2013). Context, you need: Experimental approaches to information structure processing. Copenhagen: University of Copenhagen.Google Scholar
  42. Kristensen, L. B., & Wallentin, M. (2015). Putting Broca’s region into context—fMRI evidence for a role in predictive language processing. In R. Willems (Ed.), Towards a cognitive neuroscience of natural language use (pp. 160–181). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Kuperberg, G. R., & Jaeger, T. F. (2015). What do we mean by prediction in language comprehension? Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 31(1), 32–59.  https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2015.1102299.Google Scholar
  44. Laanemets, A. (2013). The passive voice in spoken and written Danish, Norwegian and Swedish: A comparative corpus-based study. Languages in Contrast, 13(1), 67–89.  https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.13.1.04laa.Google Scholar
  45. Lee, J. F. (2016). Gender representation in Japanese EFL textbooks—A corpus study. Gender and Education, 30(3), 1–17.Google Scholar
  46. Levinson, S. C. (2003). Space in language and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Lovén, J., Herlitz, A., & Rehnman, J. (2011). Women’s own-gender bias in face recognition memory. Experimental Psychology, 58(4), 333–340.Google Scholar
  48. Maass, A., Pagani, D., & Berta, E. (2007). How beautiful is the goal and how violent is the fistfight? Spatial bias in the interpretation of human behavior. Social Cognition, 25(6), 833–852.  https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2007.25.6.833.Google Scholar
  49. Maass, A., & Russo, A. (2003). Directional bias in the mental representation of spatial events. Psychological Science, 14(4), 296–301.Google Scholar
  50. Maass, A., Suitner, C., Favaretto, X., & Cignacchi, M. (2009). Groups in space: Stereotypes and the spatial agency bias. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(3), 496–504.Google Scholar
  51. Maass, A., Suitner, C., & Nadhmi, F. (2014). What drives the spatial agency bias? An Italian–Malagasy–Arabic comparison study. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(3), 991–996.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034989.Google Scholar
  52. Myachykov, A., Ellis, R., Cangelosi, A., & Fischer, M. H. (2013). Visual and linguistic cues to graspable objects. Experimental Brain Research Experimentelle Hirnforschung Expérimentation Cérébrale, 229(4), 545–559.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-013-3616-z.Google Scholar
  53. Myachykov, A., & Garrod, S. (2008). Perception and word order in Russian and Finnish sentence production. Paper presented at the linearisation and segmentation in discourse. Multidisciplinary approaches to discourse, 2008 (MAD 08), 20–23 February, 2008, Lysebu, Oslo.Google Scholar
  54. Myachykov, A., Garrod, S., & Scheepers, C. (2012). Determinants of structural choice in visually situated sentence production. Acta Psychologica, 141(3), 304–315.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2012.09.006.Google Scholar
  55. Myachykov, A., & Tomlin, R. (2008). Perceptual priming and structural choice in Russian sentence production. Journal of Cognitive Science, 9(1), 31–48.  https://doi.org/10.17791/jcs.2008.9.1.31.Google Scholar
  56. Myachykov, A., Tomlin, R. S., & Posner, M. I. (2005). Attention and empirical studies of grammar. The Linguistic Review.  https://doi.org/10.1515/tlir.2005.22.2-4.347.Google Scholar
  57. Myers, T. (2015). The ‘in-group advantage’ for perceiving emotion across demographic groups and communication channels. PhD dissertation, The City University of New York, CUNY Academic Works. Retrieved from http://academicworks.cuny.edu/gc_etds/1065.
  58. Parmentier, F. B. R., Turner, J., & Perez, L. (2014). A dual contribution to the involuntary semantic processing of unexpected spoken words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(1), 38–45.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031550.Google Scholar
  59. Piwek, P., Beun, R.-J., & Cremers, A. (2008). ‘Proximal’ and ‘distal’ in language and cognition: Evidence from deictic demonstratives in Dutch. Journal of Pragmatics, 40(4), 694–718.Google Scholar
  60. Porreca, K. L. (1984). Sexism in current ESL textbooks. TESOL Quarterly, 18(4), 705–724.Google Scholar
  61. Rehnman, J., & Herlitz, A. (2006). Higher face recognition ability in girls: Magnified by own-sex and own-ethnicity bias. Memory, 14(3), 289–296.Google Scholar
  62. Rocca, R., Wallentin, M., Vesper, C., & Tylén, K. (2018). This and that back in context: Grounding demonstrative reference in manual and social affordances. Paper presented at the proceedings of the 40th annual meeting of the cognitive science society, Madison, Wisconsin.Google Scholar
  63. Román, A., El Fathi, A., & Santiago, J. (2013). Spatial biases in understanding descriptions of static scenes: The role of reading and writing direction. Memory and Cognition, 41(4), 588–599.Google Scholar
  64. Signorella, M. L., Bigler, R. S., & Liben, L. S. (1997). A meta-analysis of children’s memories for own-sex and other-sex information. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 18(3), 429–445.Google Scholar
  65. Steffens, M. C., Jelenec, P., & Noack, P. (2010). On the leaky math pipeline: Comparing implicit math-gender stereotypes and math withdrawal in female and male children and adolescents. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(4), 947.Google Scholar
  66. Strauss, S. (2002). This, that, and it in spoken American English: A demonstrative system of gradient focus. Language Sciences, 24(2), 131–152.Google Scholar
  67. Stroustrup, S., & Wallentin, M. (2018). Grammatical category influences lateralized imagery for sentences. Language and Cognition, 10(2), 193–207.  https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2017.19.Google Scholar
  68. Talmy, L. (2007). Atttention phenomena. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 264–293). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  69. Talmy, L. (2011). Semantics. In C. Maienborn, K. von Heusinger, & P. Portner (Eds.), An international handbook of natural language meaning (Vol. 1, pp. 622–642). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  70. Ter Bogt, T. F., Engels, R. C., Bogers, S., & Kloosterman, M. (2010). “Shake it baby, shake it”: Media preferences, sexual attitudes and gender stereotypes among adolescents. Sex Roles, 63(11–12), 844–859.Google Scholar
  71. Thomsen, D. B., & Kristensen, L. B. (2015). Semantic role assignment in Danish children and adults. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia, 46(2), 159–198.  https://doi.org/10.1080/03740463.2014.990291.Google Scholar
  72. Tomlin, R. S. (1995). Focal attention, voice, and word order. In P. Downing & M. Noonan (Eds.), Word order in discourse (pp. 517–552). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.Google Scholar
  73. Tylén, K., Weed, E., Wallentin, M., Roepstorff, A., & Frith, C. D. (2010). Language as a tool for interacting minds. Mind and Language, 25(1), 3–29.Google Scholar
  74. Vaid, J., Rhodes, R., Tosun, S., & Eslami, Z. (2011). Script directionality affects depiction of depth in representational drawings. Social Psychology, 42(3), 241–248.  https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000068.Google Scholar
  75. Wallentin, M. (2009). Putative sex differences in verbal abilities and language cortex: A critical review. Brain and Language, 108(3), 175–183.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2008.07.001.Google Scholar
  76. Willis, M., & Jozkowski, K. N. (2018). Ladies first? Not so fast: Linguistic sexism in peer-reviewed research. The Journal of Sex Research, 55(2), 137–145.Google Scholar
  77. Winawer, J., Witthoft, N., Frank, M. C., Wu, L., Wade, A. R., & Boroditsky, L. (2007). Russian blues reveal effects of language on color discrimination. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 104(19), 7780–7785.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0701644104.Google Scholar
  78. Wolff, N., Kemter, K., Schweinberger, S. R., & Wiese, H. (2013). What drives social in-group biases in face recognition memory? ERP evidence from the own-gender bias. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 9(5), 580–590.Google Scholar
  79. Wright, D. B., & Sladden, B. (2003). An own gender bias and the importance of hair in face recognition. Acta Psychologica, 114(1), 101–114.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Linguistics, Cognitive Science and SemioticsAarhus UniversityAarhusDenmark
  2. 2.Center of Functionally Integrative NeuroscienceAarhus University HospitalAarhus CDenmark
  3. 3.Interacting Minds CentreAarhus UniversityAarhusDenmark

Personalised recommendations