Color Categorization in Bilingual Populations: Korean-English - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
color categorization in bilingual populations korean
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Color Categorization in Bilingual Populations: Korean-English - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

May 26, 2023 94 likes •701 views

Color Categorization in Bilingual Populations: Korean-English Bilinguals Prutha S. Deshpande Cognitive Sciences Advisors: Kimberly A. Jameson and Louis Narens Institute for Mathematical Behavioral Sciences Cognitive Sciences I would like to

slide-1
SLIDE 1

Color Categorization in Bilingual Populations: Korean-English Bilinguals

Prutha S. Deshpande

Cognitive Sciences

Advisors: Kimberly A. Jameson and Louis Narens

Institute for Mathematical Behavioral Sciences Cognitive Sciences

I would like to acknowledge the assistance of Helen Haan and Jacey Song in the collection of the Korean Language data.

slide-2
SLIDE 2

INTRODUCTION

slide-3
SLIDE 3

Linguistic Relativity

  • Linguistic Relativity Hypothesis

– Influence of language on cognition

  • Traditional focus on the domain of color

categorization.

  • Rich history of cross-cultural empirical

research. Linguistic Relativity and Bilingualism:

  • Is the cognitive processing of non-linguistic

information impacted by bilingualism?

slide-4
SLIDE 4

Gap in the Literature

  • Previous studies have primarily examined the

color cognition of bilinguals in their non- English language modes, in comparison with monolingual speakers of both languages.

  • The present study addresses this gap by

comparing the color categorization and naming behavior of bilinguals in both of their languages.

slide-5
SLIDE 5

Rationale for choosing Korean-English Bilinguals

  • The Korean color lexicon has interesting features that

differentiate it from the English color lexicon.

  • In particular, Korean has two highly salient basic

color terms for the region of color space that in English would be described with the single color term “green” (Roberson, Hanley & Pak, 2009).

Choloksayk Yentwusayk

slide-6
SLIDE 6

METHODS

slide-7
SLIDE 7

Participants

  • Undergraduate students bilingual in Korean

and English, with varying proficiency in each

  • f the languages.
  • The final sample included 25 participants.
  • Participants scheduled for 2 sessions of 2

hours each.

  • One of the sessions was conducted in Korean,

while the other was conducted in English.

slide-8
SLIDE 8

Assessments

  • Language Assessment
  • Color Vision Assessment

Ishihara Pseudoisochromatic Plates Test Farnsworth- Munsell 100 Hue Test

slide-9
SLIDE 9

Experimental Tasks

  • 1. Naming

– Asked to name 330 colored chips – Provided confidence judgments

  • 2. Focus Selection

– Asked to select the best example or ‘focus’ of the basic color terms elicited in Task 1.

  • 3. Category Mapping

– For the same basic color terms as Task 2, asked to indicate every color that could be named with ‘X’ color term.

slide-10
SLIDE 10

Task 1: Naming

Sample color chips (Lindsey & Brown, 2014) Color chart approximating the samples used in this study (World Color Survey, Munsell chart)

slide-11
SLIDE 11

Task 2: Focus Selection

Color chart approximating the samples used in this study (World Color Survey, Munsell chart) Example: Indicate the focus of “Red”.

slide-12
SLIDE 12

Task 3: Category Mapping

Color chart approximating the samples used in this study (World Color Survey, Munsell chart) Example: Indicate all the colors that can be named “Red”.

slide-13
SLIDE 13

OBJECTIVES

slide-14
SLIDE 14

Objectives

  • 1. Examine color category boundaries across

method used, i.e. Naming Method (Task 1)

  • vs. Category Mapping Method (Task 3).

– Within an individual and language condition – To test for consistency in color categorization

  • 2. Examine variations in color categorization

across language of testing.

– Special emphasis on the “green” region of color space.

slide-15
SLIDE 15

ANALYSES

slide-16
SLIDE 16

OBJECTIVE 1

slide-17
SLIDE 17

Consistency in Naming (Task 1) and Mapping (Task 3)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

1 25

Percent Consistency Participants (N=25)

Korean Language Condition

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

1 25

Percent Consistency Participants (N=25)

English Language Condition (Data sorted in a rank order)

slide-18
SLIDE 18

Consistency in Naming (Task 1) and Focus Selection (Task 2)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

1 25

Percent Consistency Participants (N=25)

Korean Language Condition

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

1 25

Percent Consistency Participants (N=25)

English Language Condition (Data sorted in a rank order)

slide-19
SLIDE 19

Consistency in Focus Selection (Task 2) and Mapping (Task 3)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

1 25

Percent Consistency Participants (N=25)

Korean Language Condition

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

1 25

Percent Consistency Participants (N=25)

English Language Condition (Data sorted in a rank order)

slide-20
SLIDE 20

Average Consistency Across all 3 Tasks

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Percent Consistency Participants (N=25)

English Language Condition

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Percent Consistency Participants (N=25)

Korean Language Condition

slide-21
SLIDE 21

OBJECTIVE 2

slide-22
SLIDE 22

ENGLISH LANGUAGE CONDITION

Monolexemic Color Term Usage

(37 terms - used by 2 or more participants) N = 25

slide-23
SLIDE 23

English Monolexemic Color Term Usage

(Lindsey and Brown, 2014)

slide-24
SLIDE 24

KOREAN LANGUAGE CONDITION

Monolexemic Color Term Usage

(57 terms used by 2 or more participants) N = 25

slide-25
SLIDE 25

Aggregate Confidence Levels in Naming

  • 1. English Color Naming

A B C D E F G H I J 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40

Confidence rating for each chip given on a scale of 1 to 5 in Task 1.

slide-26
SLIDE 26

Aggregate Confidence Levels in Naming

A B C D E F G H I J 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40

  • 2. Korean Color Naming

Confidence rating for each chip given on a scale of 1 to 5 in Task 1.

slide-27
SLIDE 27

Aggregate Confidence Levels in Naming

  • 1. English Color Naming

A B C D E F G H I J 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 A B C D E F G H I J 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40

  • 2. Korean Color Naming

Confidence rating for each chip given on a scale of 1 to 5 in Task 1.

slide-28
SLIDE 28

Focal Selections of Basic Color Terms

A C E G I 5 10 15 20 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40

Agreement Level

  • 1. English Focal Selections
slide-29
SLIDE 29

Focal Selections of Basic Color Terms

Agreement Level

A C E G I 5 10 15 20 25 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40

  • 2. Korean Focal Selections
slide-30
SLIDE 30

Focal Selections of Basic Color Terms

A C E G I 5 10 15 20 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40

Agreement Level

  • 1. English Focal Selections

A C E G I 5 10 15 20 25 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40

  • 2. Korean Focal Selections
slide-31
SLIDE 31

Modal Focal Choices

Basic Color Term English Language Condition Korean Language Condition Color Representation Black J0 J0 White A0 A0 Gray F0 F0 Red G3 G3 Orange E5 E5 Yellow C10 C9 Brown H7 H7 Green G17 G17 Blue H29 H29 Purple H35 H34/H35 Pink E39 E39

slide-32
SLIDE 32

Modal Focal Choices

English Language Condition Frequency of Modal Choice Korean Language Condition Frequency

  • f Modal

Choice Black 80% White 84% White 72% Black 76% Yellow 52% Blue 56% Gray 48% Yellow 52% Red 44% Orange 52% Blue 44% Red 48% Orange 40% Gray 40% Green 32% Green 36% Purple 28% Brown 32% Brown 24% Purple 28% Pink 24% Pink 24%

slide-33
SLIDE 33

Focal Selections of Non-Basic Color Terms

A C E G I 5 10 15 20 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 A C E G I 5 10 15 20 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40

  • 2. In Korean (30 terms)
  • 1. In English (23 terms)

Agreement Level

slide-34
SLIDE 34

Aggregate Frequency of Basic Green

By Naming Method (Task 1)

A C E G I 5 10 15 20 25

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40

English Language Condition (Monolexemic Green)

Frequency

slide-35
SLIDE 35

Aggregate Frequency of Basic Green

By Naming Method (Task 1)

A C E G I 5 10 15 20 25

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40

English Language Condition (Monolexemic Green)

Frequency

A C E G I 5 10 15 20 25 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40

Korean Language Condition (Monolexemic Choloksayk)

slide-36
SLIDE 36

Aggregate Frequency of Basic Green

By Mapping Method (Task 3)

A C E G I 5 10 15 20 25

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40

English Language Condition (Monolexemic Green)

Frequency

slide-37
SLIDE 37

Aggregate Frequency of Basic Green

By Mapping Method (Task 3)

A C E G I 5 10 15 20 25

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40

English Language Condition (Monolexemic Green)

Frequency

A C E G I 5 10 15 20 25 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40

Korean Language Condition (Monolexemic Choloksayk)

slide-38
SLIDE 38

Aggregate Frequency of 2nd Basic Green: Yentwusayk

A C E G I 5 10 15 20 25 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 22 34 35 36 37 38 39 40

By Naming Method (Task 1)

KOREAN LANGUAGE CONDITION

Frequency

slide-39
SLIDE 39

Aggregate Frequency of 2nd Basic Green: Yentwusayk

A C E G I 5 10 15 20 25 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 22 34 35 36 37 38 39 40

By Naming Method (Task 1)

KOREAN LANGUAGE CONDITION

Frequency

A C E G I 5 10 15 20 25 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 22 34 35 36 37 38 39 40

By Mapping Method (Task 3)

slide-40
SLIDE 40

Aggregate Frequency of Overall Basic Green By Naming Method (Task 1)

A C E G I 5 10 15 20 25 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40

Korean Language Condition (Monolexemic Choloksayk + Yentwusayk) AND

Frequency

slide-41
SLIDE 41

Aggregate Frequency of Overall Basic Green By Naming Method (Task 1)

A C E G I 5 10 15 20 25

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40

English Language Condition (Monolexemic Green)

A C E G I 5 10 15 20 25 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40

Korean Language Condition (Monolexemic Choloksayk + Yentwusayk)

Frequency

slide-42
SLIDE 42

Aggregate Frequency of Overall Basic Green By Mapping Method (Task 3)

Korean Language Condition (Monolexemic Choloksayk + Yentwusayk) AND

A C E G I 5 10 15 20 25 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40

Frequency

slide-43
SLIDE 43

Aggregate Frequency of Overall Basic Green By Mapping Method (Task 3)

Korean Language Condition (Monolexemic Choloksayk + Yentwusayk)

A C E G I 5 10 15 20 25 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40

Frequency

A C E G I 5 10 15 20 25

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40

English Language Condition (Monolexemic Green)

slide-44
SLIDE 44

CONCLUSIONS

slide-45
SLIDE 45

Conclusions: Objective 1

  • Did we observe consistency of color

categorization and naming across the three methods of testing?

slide-46
SLIDE 46

Conclusions: Objective 1

  • Did we observe consistency of color

categorization and naming across the three methods of testing?

– Task 1 and Task 3 (Eng. 68%, Kor. 88%)

slide-47
SLIDE 47

Conclusions: Objective 1

  • Did we observe consistency of color

categorization and naming across the three methods of testing?

– Task 1 and Task 3 (Eng. 68%, Kor. 88%) – Task 1 and Task 2 (Eng. 80%, Kor. 80%)

slide-48
SLIDE 48

Conclusions: Objective 1

  • Did we observe consistency of color

categorization and naming across the three methods of testing?

– Task 1 and Task 3 (Eng. 68%, Kor. 88%) – Task 1 and Task 2 (Eng. 80%, Kor. 80%) – Task 3 and Task 2 (Eng. 92%, Kor. 92%)

slide-49
SLIDE 49

Conclusions: Objective 1

  • Did we observe consistency of color

categorization and naming across the three methods of testing?

– Task 1 and Task 3 (Eng. 68%, Kor. 88%) – Task 1 and Task 2 (Eng. 80%, Kor. 80%) – Task 3 and Task 2 (Eng. 92%, Kor. 92%)

  • Future analysis of individual differences in
  • verall consistency based on language fluency.
slide-50
SLIDE 50

Conclusions: Objective 2

Focus Selection

  • We observed a similarity in the aggregate

modal focal choice frequency across the two language modes.

– Kendall’s Tau = 0.748

  • This implies similar focal selection structure

across language modes, but not identical.

slide-51
SLIDE 51

Conclusions: Objective 2

Naming Frequency

  • The contour plots show highly similar

denotative ranges for the naming of green in English and the Korean green Choloksayk.

  • The naming of the second Korean green

Yentwusayk was not as robust by naming frequency measures.

slide-52
SLIDE 52

Conclusions: Objective 2 Mapping Frequency

  • The contour plots of mapping frequency for

English green and both Korean greens was robust.

– In contrast to the naming of the second Korean green.

  • This suggests a task dependent asymmetry in

color categorization and naming.

– Similar to observations in a Vietnamese language study (Jameson & Alvarado, 2003).

slide-53
SLIDE 53

Future Analyses

Comparison with two datasets:

  • Survey of American English (1994) at the George

Washington University.

– 31 Monolingual speakers

  • Survey of the Korean language (1994) by Dr. Rodney
  • E. Tyson.

– 22 Monolingual speakers – 21 Bilingual speakers (Components of the Mesoamerican/Multinational Color Survey, conducted by Dr. Robert E. MacLaury from 1978 to 1981)

slide-54
SLIDE 54

Thank you!

This research was supported by a UROP award to Prutha Deshpande.

Questions?

slide-55
SLIDE 55

ADDITIONAL DATA

slide-56
SLIDE 56

A B C D E F G H I J 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40

Aggregate Naming of Basic Color Terms (Task 1)

ENGLISH LANGUAGE CONDITION

Agreement Level

slide-57
SLIDE 57

A B C D E F G H I J 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40

ENGLISH LANGUAGE CONDITION

Aggregate Category Mapping of Basic Color Terms (Task 3)

Agreement Level

slide-58
SLIDE 58

A B C D E F G H I J 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 A B C D E F G H I J 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40

Aggregate Naming of Basic Color Terms (Task 1)

ENGLISH LANGUAGE CONDITION

Aggregate Category Mapping of Basic Color Terms (Task 3)

Agreement Level

slide-59
SLIDE 59

Term Usage in Color Naming

Measure English Naming (N=25) Korean Naming (N=25) Number of Terms Number of Monolexemic Terms Number of Terms Number of Monolexemic Terms Mean 49.52 17.04 47.72 20.20 SD 29.64 4.22 38.62 5.94 Median 47.00 16.00 28.00 16.00 Mode 16.00 16.00 18.00 11.00 Minimum 12.00 11.00 9.00 11.00 Maximum 116.00 29.00 127.00 32.00