Dedicated comparatives aid comparisons of magnitude: a study with Pitjantjatjara-English bilinguals

When expressing comparisons of magnitude, Pitjantjatjara, a language indigenous to the land now known as Australia, employs contextually driven comparators (e.g., Anyupa is tall. Uma is short) rather than a dedicated morphological or syntactic comparative construction (e.g., Anyupa is taller than Uma). Pitjantjatjara also has a small number of lexicalized numerals, employing 'one', 'two', 'three', then 'many'. It is hypothesized that having dedicated comparatives in language and elaborated number systems aid comparisons of magnitudes. Fluent Pitjantjatjara-English bilinguals participated in tasks assessing their accuracy and reaction times when comparing two types of magnitude: numerosity (quantities of dots), and extent (line lengths). They repeated the comparisons in both languages on different days, allowing for the effect of language being spoken on responses to be assessed. No differences were found for numerosity; however, participants were less accurate when making comparisons of extent using Pitjantjatjara. Accuracy when using Pitjantjatjara decreased as the magnitude of the comparison increased and as differences between the comparators decreased. This result suggests a potential influence of linguistic comparison strategy on comparison behavior.

The salience and symbolism of numbers across cultural beliefs and practice

Numbers are ubiquitous to modern existence and have evolved with humanity over millenia. They structure, record and quantify human behaviour, spiritual belief systems and the evolution of innovation across all spheres of life. Furthermore, cultural identities and interpersonal expression often have numerical components to them for instance rites of passage, population demography and fiscal measures. The salience of numbers in both historical and contemporary cultural life arguably plays a role in individual psyches and the experience of distress or wellness. This paper illustrates the cultural relativism of numbers through superstition and foreboding to auspiciousness in different societies. As a short hand for the quantification of multiple phenomena in low literacy to high technology populations, rural and urban societies as well as traditional and evolving societies, numbers have and will continue to be core to all cultures as they have from prehistoric to contemporary times.

Variability in the Alignment of Number and Space Across Languages and Tasks

While the domains of space and number appear to be linked in human brains and minds, their conceptualization still differs across languages and cultures. For instance, frames of reference for spatial descriptions vary according to task, context, and cultural background, and the features of the mental number line depend on formal education and writing direction. To shed more light on the influence of culture/language and task on such conceptualizations, we conducted a large-scale survey with speakers of five languages that differ in writing systems, preferences for spatial and temporal representations, and/or composition of number words. Here, we report data obtained from tasks on ordered arrangements, including numbers, letters, and written text. Comparing these data across tasks, domains, and languages indicates that, even within a single domain, representations may differ depending on task characteristics, and that the degree of cross-domain alignment varies with domains and culture.

Current Perspectives on Cognitive Diversity

To what extent is cognition influenced by a person’s cultural background? This question has remained controversial in large fields of the cognitive sciences, including cognitive psychology, and is also underexplored in anthropology. In this perspective article, findings from a recent wave of cross-cultural studies will be outlined with respect to three aspects of cognition: perception and categorization, number representation and counting, and explanatory frameworks and beliefs. Identifying similarities and differences between these domains allows for general conclusions regarding cognitive diversity and helps to highlight the importance of culturally shaped content for a comprehensive understanding of cognition.

Mapping spatial frames of reference onto time: a review of theoretical accounts and empirical findings

When speaking and reasoning about time, people around the world tend to do so with vocabulary and concepts borrowed from the domain of space. This raises the question of whether the cross-linguistic variability found for spatial representations, and the principles on which these are based, may also carry over to the domain of time. Real progress in addressing this question presupposes a taxonomy for the possible conceptualizations in one domain and its consistent and comprehensive mapping onto the other-a challenge that has been taken up only recently and is far from reaching consensus. This article aims at systematizing the theoretical and empirical advances in this field, with a focus on accounts that deal with frames of reference (FoRs). It reviews eight such accounts by identifying their conceptual ingredients and principles for space-time mapping, and it explores the potential for their integration. To evaluate their feasibility, data from some thirty empirical studies, conducted with speakers of sixteen different languages, are then scrutinized. This includes a critical assessment of the methods employed, a summary of the findings for each language group, and a (re-)analysis of the data in view of the theoretical questions. The discussion relates these findings to research on the mental time line, and explores the psychological reality of temporal FoRs, the degree of cross-domain consistency in FoR adoption, the role of deixis, and the sources and extent of space-time mapping more generally.

How thought is mapped into words

To English speakers, the distinctions between blue and green, cup and glass, or cut and break seem self-evident. The intuition is that these words label categories that have an existence independent of language, and language merely captures the pre-existing categories. But cross-linguistic work shows that the named distinctions are not nearly as self-evident as they may feel. There is diversity in how languages divide up domains including color, number, plants and animals, drinking vessels and household containers, body parts, spatial relations, locomotion, acts of cutting and breaking, acts of carrying and holding, and more. Still, studies documenting variability across languages also uncover striking commonalities. Such commonalities indicate that there are sources of constraint on the variation. Both the commonalities and divergences carry important lessons for Cognitive Science. They speak to the causal relations among language, thought, and culture; the possibility of cross-culturally shared aspects of perception and cognition; the methods needed for studying general-purpose, nonlinguistic concepts; and how languages are learned. WIREs Cogn Sci 2013, 4:583-597. doi: 10.1002/wcs.1251 CONFLICT OF INTEREST: The authors have declared no conflicts of interest for this article. For further resources related to this article, please visit the WIREs website.

Nature and culture of finger counting: diversity and representational effects of an embodied cognitive tool

Studies like the one conducted by Domahs et al. (2010, in Cognition) corroborate that finger counting habits affect how numbers are processed, and legitimize the assumption that this effect is culturally modulated. The degree of cultural diversity in finger counting, however, has been grossly underestimated in the field at large, which, in turn, has restricted research questions and designs. In this paper, we demonstrate that fingers as a tool for counting are not only naturally available, but are also-and crucially so-culturally encoded. To substantiate this, we outline the variability in finger counting and illustrate each of its types with instances from the literature. We argue that the different types of finger counting all constitute distinct representational systems, and we use their properties-dimensionality, dimensional representation, base and sub-base values, extendibility and extent, sign count, and regularity-to devise a typology of such systems. This allows us to explore representational effects, that is, the cognitive implications these properties may have, for instance, for the efficiency of information encoding and representation, ease of learning and mastering the system, or memory retrieval and cognitive load. We then highlight the ambivalent consequences arising from structural inconsistencies between finger counting and other modes of number representation like verbal or notational systems, and we discuss how this informs questions on the evolution and development of counting systems. Based on these analyses, we suggest some directions for future research in the field of embodied cognition that would profit substantially from taking into account the cultural diversity in finger counting.