Second Language Gender System Affects First Language Gender Classification



Gender Category Grammatical Gender Masculine Gender Translation Equivalent Feminine Gender 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Andonova, E., D’Amico, S., Devescovi, A., and Bates, E. 2004. Gender and lexical access in Bulgarian. Perception and Psychophysics, 66(3): 496–507.Google Scholar
  2. Athanasopoulos, P. 2006. Effects of the grammatical representation of number on cognition in bilinguals. Bilingual ism: Language and Cognition, 9(1): 89–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bassetti, B. 2005. Do Bilingual children think differently? grammatical gender and object perception in Italian-German bilingual children. European Second Language Association conference, Dubrovnik, September 14–17.Google Scholar
  4. Bates, E., and MacWhinney, B. 1989. Functionalism and the competition model. In MacWhinney, B., and Bates, E. (eds.), The crosslinguistic study of sentence processing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10–75.Google Scholar
  5. Bates, E., Devescovi, A., Pizzamiglio, L., D’Amico, S., and Hernandez, A. 1995. Gender and lexical access in Italian. Perception & Psychophysics, 57: 847–862.Google Scholar
  6. Boroditsky, L., and Schmidt, L. 2000. Sex, syntax and semantics. Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society. Philadelphia.Google Scholar
  7. Boroditsky, L. 2001. Does language shape thought? Mandarin and English speakers’ conceptions of time. Cognitive Psychology, 43: 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brysbaert, M., Fias, W., and Noel, M. P. 1998. The Whorfian hypothesis and numerical cognition: is “twenty-four” processed in the same way as “four-and-twenty”? Cognition, 66: 51–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Caplan, D., and Waters, G. S. 1999. Verbal working memory and sentence comprehension. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22: 77–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Choi, S., and Bowerman, M. 1991. Learning to express motion events in English and Korean: the influence of language-specific lexicalization patterns. Special Issue: Lexical and conceptual semantics. Cognition, 41(1–3): 83–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fairclough, N. L. 1995. Critical discourse analysis: the critical study of language. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
  12. Flaherty, M. 2001. How a language gender system creeps into perception. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 31(1): 18–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Grosjean, F. 2001. The bilingual’s language modes. In Nicol, J. (ed.), One mind, two languages. Oxford: Blackwell. 1–22.Google Scholar
  14. Hayakawa, S. I. 1949. Language in thought and action. New York: Harcourt, Brace & Co.Google Scholar
  15. Hodge, R., and Kress, G. 1988. Social semiotics. London: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  16. Hunt, E. B., and Agnoli, F. 1991. The Whorfian hypothesis: a cognitive psychology perspective. Psychological Review, 98: 377–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lakoff, G., and Johnson, M. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  18. MacDonald, M. C., and Christiansen, M. H. 2002. Reassessing working memory: comment on just and Carpenter (1992) and Waters and Caplan (1996). Psychological Review, 109(1): 35–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Majid, A., Bowerman, M., Kita, S., Haun, D. B. M., and Levinson, S. C. 2004. Can language restructure cognition? The case for space. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8: 108–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mullen, M. K. 1990. Children’s classifications of nature and artifact pictures into female and male categories. Sex Roles 23(9–10): 577–587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Phillips, W., and Boroditsky, L. 2003. Can quirks of grammar affect the way you think? Grammatical gender and object concepts. In Alterman, R., and Kirsh, D. (eds.), Proceedings of the Twenty-fifth Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society. Boston: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
  22. Roberson, D., Davidoff, J., Davies, I., and Shapiro, L. 2004. The development of colour categories in two languages: a longitudinal study. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133: 554–571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Saussure, F. 1916. Cours de Linguistique Général. Paris: Payot.Google Scholar
  24. Sera, M. D., Berge, C. A. H., and del Castillo, P. J. 1994. Grammatical and conceptual forces in the attribution of gender by English and Spanish speakers. Cognitive Development, 9(3): 261–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sera, M. D., Elieff, C., Forbes, J., Burch, M. C., Rodriguez, W., and Dubois, D. P. 2002. When language affects cognition and when it does not: an analysis of grammatical gender and classification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 131: 377–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Slobin, D. 1996. From “thought and language” to “thinking for speaking”. In Gumperz, J., and Levinson, S.(eds.). Rethinking linguistic relativity. New York: Cambridge University Press: 70–96.Google Scholar
  27. Vigliocco, G., Vinson, D. P., Paganelli, F., and Dworzynski, K. 2005. Grammatical gender effects on cognition: implications for language learning and language use. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 134(4): 501–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Whorf, B. 1956. Language, thought and reality: Selected writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf. Carroll, J. B. (ed.), Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  29. Zubin, D. A., and Koepcke, K. M. 1984. Affect classification in the German gender system. Lingua, 63: 41–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.New Bulgarian UniversitySofia
  2. 2.Institut für KognitionswissenschaftOsnabrück

Personalised recommendations