Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

A language compatibility effect occurs when there is a match between what a language provides and what a mathematical task demands. Here, we investigated whether such an effect exists for fraction processing in English, which names the numerator first, versus Korean, which names the denominator first. We developed two new tasks: a fraction span task where participants view and then recall four fractions and a fraction identification task where they view one fraction and then another and judge whether the two fractions are the same or not. We generally found that English speakers were advantaged when the numerator drove task performance and Korean speakers were advantaged when the denominator was critical. These findings, particularly from the fraction identification task, were inconsistent with the attentional focus hypothesis, which proposes that the serialisation bias of a language guides which fraction component is attended to first. Rather, they were better explained by the verbal encoding hypothesis, which states that a necessary condition for observing language compatibility effects may be that the fraction components must be encoded in verbal working memory and rehearsed there.

Keywords

Cross-language differences linguistic relativity language compatibility effect fractions inversion effect

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Alvarez

G. A.

Oliva

(2009). Spatial ensemble statistics are efficient codes that can be represented with reduced attention. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106, 7345–7350. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0808981106

Awh

Jonides

Reuter-Lorenz

P. A.

(1998). Rehearsal in spatial working memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24, 780–790. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.24.3.780

Bahnmueller

Nuerk

H. C.

Moeller

(2018). A taxonomy proposal for types of interactions of language and place-value processing in multi-digit numbers. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, Article 1024. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01024

Brysbaert

Fias

Noël

M. P.

(1998). The Whorfian hypothesis and numerical cognition: Is `twenty-four’ processed in the same way as ‘four-and-twenty’? Cognition, 66(1), 51–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0010-0277(98)00006-7

Contreras-Saavedra

C. E.

Willmes

Koch

Schuch

Benini

Philipp

A. M.

(2020). Multilingual two-digit number naming: The influence of composition rules on language switching. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 73(9), 1481–1494. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747021820916108

Dehaene

Piazza

Pinel

Cohen

(2003). Three parietal circuits for number processing. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 20, 487–506. https://doi.org/10.1080/02643290244000239

Dowker

Nuerk

H. C.

(2016). Editorial: Linguistic influences on mathematics. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, Article 1035. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01035

Ellis

N. C.

Hennelly

R. A.

(1980). A bilingual word-length effect: Implications for intelligence testing and the relative ease of mental calculation in Welsh and English. British Journal of Psychology, 71, 43–51. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.1980.tb02728.x

Fuson

K. C.

Kwon

(1992). Korean children’s understanding of multidigit addition and subtraction. Child Development, 63(2), 491–506. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1992.tb01642.x

10.

Gelman

Butterworth

(2005). Number and language: How are they related? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9, 6–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2004.11.004

11.

Gordon

(2004). Numerical cognition without words: Evidence from Amazonia. Science, 306, 496–499. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1094492

12.

Göbel

S. M.

Moeller

Pixner

Kaufmann

Nuerk

H. C.

(2014). Language affects symbolic arithmetic in children: The case of number word inversion. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 119, 17–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2013.10.001

13.

Imbo

Vanden Bulcke

De Brauwer

Fias

(2014). Sixty-four or four-and-sixty? The influence of language and working memory on children’s number transcoding. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, Article 313. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00313

14.

Kovas

Haworth

C. M.

Harlaar

Petrill

S. A.

Dale

P. S.

Plomin

(2007). Overlap and specificity of genetic and environmental influences on mathematics and reading disability in 10-year-old twins. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, and Allied Disciplines, 48(9), 914–922. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2007.01748.x

15.

Lee

K. M.

Kang

S. Y.

(2002). Arithmetic operation and working memory: Differential suppression in dual tasks. Cognition, 83(3), B63–B68. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0010-0277(02)00010-0

16.

LeFevre

J. A.

Fast

Skwarchuk

S. L.

Smith-Chant

B. L.

Bisanz

Kamawar

Penner-Wilger

(2010). Pathways to mathematics: Longitudinal predictors of performance. Child Development, 81(6), 1753–1767. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01508.x

17.

Lewis

C. A.

Bahnmueller

Wesierska

Moeller

Göbel

S. M.

(2020). Inversion effects on mental arithmetic in English- and Polish-speaking adults. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 73(1), 91–103. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747021819881983

18.

Logie

R. H.

(1986). Visuo-spatial processing in working memory. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 38A, 229–247. https://doi.org/10.1080/14640748608401596

19.

Miller

K. F.

Smith

C. M.

Zhu

Zhang

(1995). Preschool origins of cross-national differences in mathematical competence: The role of number-naming systems. Psychological Science, 6, 56–60. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1995.tb00305.x

20.

Miura

I. T.

Okamoto

Vlahovic-Stetic

Kim

C. C.

Han

J. H.

(1999). Language supports for children’s understanding of numerical fractions: Cross-national comparisons. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 74(4), 356–365. https://doi.org/10.1006/jecp.1999.2519

21.

Mix

K. S.

Paik

J. H.

(2008). Do Korean fraction names promote part-whole reasoning? Journal of Cognition and Development, 9, 145–170. https://doi.org/10.1080/15248370802022605

22.

Moeller

Shaki

Göbel

S. M.

Nuerk

H. C.

(2015). Language influences number processing—A quadrilingual study. Cognition, 136, 150–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2014.11.003

23.

Most

S. B.

Simons

D. J.

Scholl

B. J.

Jimenez

Clifford

Chabris

C. F.

(2001). How not to be seen: The contribution of similarity and selective ignoring to sustained inattentional blindness. Psychological Science, 12, 9–17. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00303

24.

Murray

Jones

D. M.

(2002). Articulatory complexity at item boundaries in serial recall: The case of Welsh and English digit span. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28(3), 594–598. https://doi.org/10.1037//0278-7393.28.3.594

25.

Naveh-Benjamin

Ayres

T. J.

(1986). Digit span, reading rate, and linguistic relativity. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A: Human Experimental Psychology, 38(4), 739–751. https://doi.org/10.1080/14640748608401623

26.

Zhou

(2005). Teaching and learning fraction and rational numbers: The origins and implications of whole number bias. Educational Psychologist, 40, 27–52. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4001_3

27.

Nuerk

H. C.

Weger

Willmes

(2001). Decade breaks in the mental number line? Putting the tens and units back in different bins. Cognition, 82(1), B25–B33. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0010-0277(01)00142-1

28.

Nuerk

H. C.

Weger

Willmes

(2005). Language effects in magnitude comparison: Small, but not irrelevant. Brain and Language, 92(3), 262–277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2004.06.107

29.

Paik

J. H.

Mix

K. S.

(2003). U.S. and Korean children’s comprehension of fraction names: A reexamination of cross-national differences. Child Development, 74(1), 144–154. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.t01-1-00526

30.

Pica

Lemer

Izard

Dehaene

(2004). Exact and approximate arithmetic in an Amazonian indigene group. Science, 306, 499–503. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1102085

31.

Pixner

Moeller

Hermanova

Nuerk

H. C.

Kaufmann

(2011). Whorf reloaded: Language effects on nonverbal number processing in first grade—A trilingual study. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 108(2), 371–382. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2010.09.002

32.

Poncin

Van Rinsveld

Schiltz

(2020). Units-first or tens-first: Does language matter when processing visually presented two-digit numbers? Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 73(5), 726–738. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747021819892165

33.

Purpura

D. J.

Logan

J. A.

(2015). The nonlinear relations of the approximate number system and mathematical language to early mathematics development. Developmental Psychology, 51(12), 1717–1724. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000055

34.

Song

Ginsburg

H. P

. (1987). The development of informal and formal mathematical thinking in Korean and U.S. children. Child Development, 58, 1286–1296. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1987.tb01458.x

35.

Stigler

J. W.

Lee

S. Y.

Stevenson

H. W.

(1986). Digit memory in Chinese and English: Evidence for a temporally limited store. Cognition, 23(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(86)90051-X

36.

Van Rinsveld

Schiltz

. (2016). Sixty-twelve = seventy-two? A cross-linguistic comparison of children’s number transcoding. The British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 34(3), 461–468. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjdp.12151

37.

Zuber

Pixner

Moeller

Nuerk

H. C.

(2009). On the language specificity of basic number processing: Transcoding in a language with inversion and its relation to working memory capacity. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 102(1), 60–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2008.04.003

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.10 MB

0.00 MB