語言相對論（linguistic relativity），又稱為薩丕爾-沃夫假說（Sapir-Whorf hypothesis），主張語言可以影響人們如何感知世界。雖然相關行為研究支持語言能夠影響思維的說法，但仍有學者對此提出質疑（如Pinker，2007 [1994]），認為儘管實驗中使用非語言的刺激，實驗中仍可能有潛在的語言干擾。因此，Thierry（2016）建議，語言相對論的議題可透過認知神經領域的研究方式，去探測基於無意識感知處理的自發大腦活動。
本研究旨在藉由兩個事件相關腦電位（event-related potentials，ERP）實驗檢視中文分類詞在前語言層面（pre-linguistic level）及語言層面（linguistic level）對於中文母語者的名物知覺的影響。在實驗一中，我們參考胡世強（2019）的實驗設計，並做些微調整，共計招募三十位中文母語者及七位英文母語者。我們採用特異刺激典範（oddball paradigm），而受試者的任務則是在看到目標刺激時按鍵。實驗刺激分為標準刺激（使用相同分類詞的圖片，出現機率80%）、特異刺激（使用和標準刺激不同分類詞的圖片，包含維度內違反特異刺激（within-dimension deviant）及維度間違反特異刺激（between-dimension deviant），出現機率15%）與目標刺激（圖片為一隻貓，出現機率5%）。中文母語者的維度內及維度間違反特異刺激在175-250毫秒間誘發顯著的P2效應，而英文母語者只有維度間違反特異刺激誘發P2效應。我們推測在英語母語者中發現的P2效應，可能是由刺激材料中的物體外觀所誘發，而非語言的影響。在實驗二中，中文母語者同實驗一中的受試者，實驗二亦採用特異刺激典範，但是刺激材料為中文字詞。字詞刺激分為標準刺激（出現機率80%）、維度內及維度間違反特異刺激（出現機率15%）與目標刺激（為字詞「老鼠」，出現機率5%）。雖然在標準刺激和特異刺激並無觀察到顯著P2效應，但我們發現維度內違反特異刺激在250-350毫秒間，於大腦前方的位置誘發較早的N400。
綜合兩個實驗的結果，在中文母語者中所發現的P2及N400效應，顯示出無論在前語言層面或語言層面，中文分類詞皆可能影響中文母語者對於名物的知覺。本研究也支持語言相對論的論點—語言中的某些因素可以影響人們對於世界的感知，且不同語言的使用者也可能有不同的認知處理方式。

Linguistic relativity, also called Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, refers to the proposal that the language people speak can influence the way they perceive the real world. Although previous behavioral research has suggested that language can affect thoughts, it could not convince the opposing side due to possible verbal interference even in experiments adopting a nonverbal design (e.g. Pinker, 2007 [1994]). Thierry (2016) thus suggested that researchers should test linguistic relativity by investigating mental processes, especially automatic and unconscious ones, with cognitive neuroscience approaches.
The current study aimed to examine the effect of Mandarin Chinese classifiers on Mandarin Chinese speakers' perception of the real-world objects at both the pre-linguistic and linguistic levels with two ERP experiments. In Experiment 1, we replicated the experiment design in Hu (2019), but with substantial modifications. Thirty Mandarin Chinese speakers and 7 English speakers were recruited, and they were shown pictorial stimuli to perform a target detection task in an oddball paradigm. The standard stimuli (probability 80%) were photos of objects sharing the same classifier, the deviants (probability 15%) which were photos of objects either dimensionally congruent with the standard classifiers (within-dimension deviants) or dimensionally incongruent with the standard classifiers (between-dimension deviants), and the targets (probability 5%) were photos of a cat. For the Mandarin Chinese group, both within- and between-dimension deviants evoked a significant P2 effect (175-250 ms), but for the English group, a P2 effect was found only in the condition of between-dimension stimuli vs. standards. The P2 effect we found in the English group in Experiment 1 might be related to the appearance of the stimuli instead of the effect of language. In Experiment 2, the participants were the same Mandarin Chinese speakers in Experiment 1, and they were shown word stimuli to perform a target detection task in an oddball paradigm. The word stimuli were also divided into the standards (probability 80%), the within- and between-dimension deviants (probability 15%), and the target (which was laoshu 老鼠 'rat', probability 5%). Although a P2 deviancy effect was not found, we found an early anterior N400 (250-350 ms) in the comparisons of within-dimension deviants vs. standards.
The P2 and N400 effects found in the Mandarin Chinese group in the present study reveal that the Mandarin Chinese classifiers can affect Mandarin Chinese speakers' perception of the real-world objects pre-linguistically and linguistically, supporting linguistic relativity that certain language factors can affect people's perception of the world, and that different language speakers may process things differently.

Allan, K. (1977). Classifiers. Language: Journal of the Linguistic Society of America, 53(2), 285–311. doi:10.2307/413103.

Bloom, P., & Keil, F. C. (2001). Thinking through language. Mind & Language, 16(4), 351-367. doi:10.1111/1468-0017.00175.

Boroditsky, L. (2011). How language shapes thought. Scientific American, 304(2), 62-65. doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0211-62.

Boroditsky, L., Schmidt, L. A., & Phillips, W. (2003). Sex, syntax, and semantics. In D. Gentner & S. Goldin-Meadow (Eds.), Language in Mind: Advances in the Study of Language and Thought (pp. 61-79). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Boutonnet, B., Athanasopoulos, P., & Thierry, G. (2012). Unconscious effects of grammatical gender during object categorization. Brain Research, 1479, 72-79. doi:10.1016/j.brainres.2012.08.044.

Boutonnet, B., Dering, B., Viñas-Guasch, N., & Thierry, G. (2013). Seeing objects through the language glass. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 25(10), 1702-1710. doi:10.1162/jocn_a_00415.

Bowerman, M., & Levinson, S. C. (2001). Introduction. In M. Bowerman & S. C. Levinson (Eds). Language Acquisition and Conceptual Development (pp. 1-16). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Brodeur, M. B., Dionne-Dostie, E., Montreuil, T., & Lepage, M. (2010). The bank of standardized stimuli (BOSS), a new set of 480 normative photos of objects to be used as visual stimuli in cognitive research. PLoS ONE, 5(5), 1–13. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0010773.

Brodeur, M. B., Guérard, K., & Bouras, M. (2014). Bank of standardized stimuli (BOSS) phase II: 930 new normative photos. PLoS ONE, 9(9), 1–10. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0106953.

Camblin, C. C., Gordon, P. C., & Swaab, T. Y. (2007). The interplay of discourse congruence and lexical association during sentence processing: Evidence from ERPs and eye tracking. Journal of Memory and Language, 56(1), 103-128. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2006.07.005.

Chan, S.-H. (2019). An elephant needs a head but a horse does not: An ERP study of classifier-noun agreement in Mandarin. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 52, N.PAG. doi:10.1016/j.jneuroling.2019.100852.

Christie, S., & Gentner, D. (2012). Language and cognition in development. In M. Spivey, K. McRae, & M. Joanisse (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Psycholinguistics (pp. 653-673). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139029377.034.

Clifford, A., Holmes, A., Davies, I. R. L., & Franklin, A. (2010). Color categories affect pre-attentive color perception. Biological Psychology, 85(2), 275–282. doi:10.1016j.biopsycho.2010.07.014.

Costa, A., Strijkers, K., Martin, C., & Thierry, G. (2009). The time course of word retrieval revealed by event-related brain potentials during overt speech. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the United States of America, 106(50), 21442-21446.

Csibra, G., Czigler, I., & Ambrò, À. (1994). Effects of stimulus alternation, repetition and response requirements on event-related potentials to patterned visual stimuli. Biological Psychology, 37(2), 115-132. doi:10.1016/0301-0511(94)90026-4.

Czigler, I. (2007). Visual mismatch negativity: Violation of nonattended environmental regularities. Journal of Psychophysiology (Mismatch Negativity), 21(3–4), 224–230. doi:10.1027/0269-8803.21.34.224.

Czigler, I., Balázs, L., & Pató, L. G. (2004). Visual change detection: event-related potentials are dependent on stimulus location in humans. Neuroscience Letters, 364(3), 149-153. doi:10.1016/j.neulet.2004.04.048.

Czigler, I., Balázs, L., & Winkler, I. (2002). Memory-based detection of task-irrelevant visual changes. Psychophysiology, 39(6), 869–873. doi:10.1111/1469-8986.3960869.

Davidoff, J., Davies, I., & Roberson, D. (1999). Colour categories in a stone-age tribe. Nature, 398(6724), 203-204. doi:10.1038/18335.

de Villiers, J. G., & de Villiers, P. A. (2003). Language for thought: coming to understand false beliefs. In D. Gentner & S. Goldin-Meadow (Eds.), Language in Mind: Advances in the Study of Language and Thought (pp. 335-386). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Dehaene, S., Spelke, E., Pinel, P., Stanescu, R., & Tsivkin, S. (1999). Sources of mathematical thinking: behavioral and brain-imaging evidence. Science, 284(5416), 970-974. doi:10.1126/science.284.5416.970.

Delorme, A., & Makeig, S. (2004). EEGLAB: An open source toolbox for analysis of single-trial EEG dynamics including independent component analysis. Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 134 (1), 9. doi:10.1016/j.jneumeth.2003.10.009.

Federmeier, K. D., & Kutas, M. (2001). Meaning and modality: Influences of context, semantic memory organization, and perceptual predictability on picture processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27(1), 202–24. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.27.1.202.

Folstein, J. R., & Van Petten, C. (2007). Influence of cognitive control and mismatch on the N2 component of the ERP: A review. Psychophysiology, 45, 152–170. doi:10.1111/j.1469-8986.2007.00602.x.

Franklin, A., Drivonikou, G. V., Bevis, L., Davies, I. R. L., Kay, P., & Regier, T. (2008). Categorical perception of color is lateralized to the right hemisphere in infants, but to the left hemisphere in adults. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 105, 3221–3225. doi:10.1073/pnas.0712286105.

Frank, M. C., Everett, D. L., Fedorenko, E., & Gibson, E. (2008). Number as cognitive technology: Evidence from Pirahã language and cognition. Cognition, 108(3), 819-824. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2008.04.007.

Friederici, A. D., & Jacobsen, T. (1999). Processing grammatical gender during language comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 28(5), 467–484. doi:10.1023/A:1023264209610.

Flecken, M., Athanasopoulos, P., Kuipers, J. R., & Thierry, G. (2015). On the road to somewhere: Brain potentials reflect language effects on motion event perception. Cognition, 141, 41–51. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2015.04.006.

Folstein, J. R., & Petten, C. V. (2007). Influence of cognitive control and mismatch on the N2 component of the ERP: A review. Psychophysiology, 45, 152-170. doi:10.1111/j.1469-8986.2007.00602.x.

Gallistel, C. R. (2002). Language and spatial frames of reference in mind and brain. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6(8), 321-322. doi:10.1016/S1364-6613(02)01962-9.

Gentner, D. (2003). Why we’re so smart? In D. Gentner & S. Goldin-Meadow(Eds.), Language in Mind: Advances in the Study of Language and Thought (pp. 195-235). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Gilbert, A. L., Regier, T., Kay, P., & Ivry, R. B.. (2006). Whorf hypothesis is supported in the right visual field but not the left. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 103(2), 489-494.

Gordon, P. (2010). Worlds without words: commensurability and causality in language, culture, and cognition. In B. C. Malt & P. Whorf (Eds.), Words and the Mind: How Words Capture Human Experience. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hahne, A., & Friederici, A. D. (1999). Electrophysiological evidence for two steps in syntactic analysis: Early automatic and late controlled processes. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 11(2), 194–205. doi:10.1162/089892999563328.

Hare, B., Call, J., & Tomasello, M. (2001). Do chimpanzees know what conspecifics know? Animal Behaviour, 61(1), 139-151. doi:10.1006/anbe.2000.1518.

Haun, D. B. M., Rapold, C. J., Call, J., Janzen, G., & Levinson, S. C. (2006). Cognitive cladistics and cultural override in hominid spatial cognition. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 103(46), 17568-17573.

Her, O.-S. (2012). Distinguishing classifiers and measure words: A mathematical perspective and implications. Lingua, 122(14). 1668-1691. doi:10.1016/j.lingua.2012.08.012.

Her, O.-S., & Hsieh, C.-T. (2010). On the semantic distinction between classifiers and measure words in Chinese. Language and Linguistics, 11(3), 527-551.

Her, O.-S., & Lai, W.-J. (2012). Classifier: The many ways to profile ‘one’, a case study of Taiwan Mandarin. International Journal of Computer Processing of Languages, 24(1), 79-94. doi:10.1142/S17938406I2400053.

Her, O.-S., & Lin, K. (2015). Fenleci yu liangci de qufen-yi Taiwan diqu huayu wei li [On the Differentiation of Classifiers and Measure Words-Taiwan Mandarin]. Hanyuxuebao [Chinese Linguistics], (4), 56-58.

Holmes, K. J., & Wolff, P. (2010). Simulation from schematics: dorsal stream processing and the perception of implied motion. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 32(32).

Hsieh, M.-L. (2008). The internal structure of noun phrases in Chinese. In O.-S. Her & K. Chui (Eds.), Taiwan Journal of Linguistics: Book Series in Chinese Linguistics (No. 2). Taipei, Taiwan: Crane Publishing Co.

Hsu, C.-C., Tsai, S.-H., Yang, C.-L., & Chen, J.-Y. (2014). Processing classifier-noun agreement in a long distance: An ERP study on Mandarin Chinese. Brain and Language, 137, 14–28. doi:10.1016/j.bandl.2014.07.002.

Hsu, C.-H., Tsai, J.-L., Lee, C.-Y., & Tzeng. O. J.-L. (2009). Orthographic combinability and phonological consistency effects in reading Chinese phonograms: An event-related potential study. Brain and Language, 108(1), 56–66.

Hu, S.-C. (2019). Linguistic relativity: An ERP study on Mandarin classifiers. [Master’s thesis, National Taiwan Normal University]. National Taiwan Normal University Electronic Theses & Dissertations. http://doi.org/10.6345/NTNU201900059

Huang, C.-R., Chen, K.-J., & Lai, C.-H. (Eds.). (1997). Mandarin Daily Dictionary of Chinese Classifiers. Taipei: Mandarin Daily Press.

Huang, S. & Chen, J.-Y. (2014). The effects of numeral classifiers and taxonomic categories on Chinese and English speakers’ recall of nouns. Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 23(1), 27–42. doi:10.1007/s10831-013-9108-0.

Humboldt, W. V. (1836). Über die Verschiedenheit des menschlichen Sprachbaues und ihren Einfluss auf die geistige Entwicklung des Menschengeschlechts (Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin). Berlin: Dümmelers Verlag. (Reprinted: 1960. Bonn: Dümmelers Verlag; English translation by P. Heath. 1988. On language: the diversity of human language-structure and its influence on the mental development of mankind. Cambridge University Press.)

Imai, M., & Gentner, D. (1997). A cross-linguistic study of early word meaning: universal ontology and linguistic influence. Cognition, 62(2), 169-200. doi:10.1016/S0010-0277(96)00784-6.

Imai, M., & Mazuka, R. (2003). Re-evaluating linguistic relativity: language-specific categories and the role of universal ontological knowledge in the construal of individuation. In D. Gentner & S. Goldin-Meadow (Eds.), Language in Mind: Advances in the Study of Language of Language and Thought (pp. 430-464). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Imai, M., & Saalbach, H. (2010). Categories in Mind and Categories in Language: Do Classifier Categories Influence Conceptual Structures? In B. C. Malt & P. Wolff (Eds.), Words and the Mind: How Words Capture Human Experience (pp. 138–164). Oxford University Press.

Kutas, M., & Donchin, E. (1978). Variations in the latency of P300 as a function of variations in semantic categorizations. Multidisciplinary Perspectives in Event-related Brain Potential Research, 600, 9-77.

Kutas, M., & Hillyard, S. A. (1980). Reading senseless sentences: Brain potentials reflect semantic incongruity. Science, 207(4427), 203-205. doi:10.1126/science.7350657.

Kutas, M., & Iragui, V. (1998). The N400 in a semantic categorization task across 6 decades. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 108(5), 456-471. doi:10.1016/s0168-5597(98)00023-9.

Kwon, N., Sturt, P., & Liu, P. (2017). Predicting Semantic Features in Chinese: Evidence from ERPs. Cognition, 166, 433–46. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2017.06.010.

Levinson, S. C. (1999). Frames of reference and Molyneux’s question: cross-linguistic evidence. In P. Bloom, M. A. Peterson, L. Nadel, & M. F. Garrett (Eds.), Language and Space (pp. 109-169). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Levinson, S. C., Kita, S., Huan, D. B. M., & Rasch, B. H. (2002). Returning the tables: language affects spatial reasoning. Cognition, 84(2), 155-188. doi:10.1016/S0010-0277(02)00045-8.

Lijffijt, M., Lane, S. D., Meier, S. L., Boutros, N. N., Burroughs, S., Steinberg, J. L., Moeller, F. G., & Swann, A. C. (2009). P50, N100, and P200 sensory gating:
Relationships with behavioral inhibition, attention, and working memory. Psychophysiology, 46(5), 1059–68. doi:10.1111/j.1469-8986.2009.00845.x.

Loewenstein, J., & Gentner, D. (2005). Relational language and the development of relational mapping. Cognitive Psychology, 50(4), 315-353. doi:10.1016/j.cogpsych.2004.09.004.

Lopez-Calderon, J., & Luck, S. J. (2014). ERPLAB: An open-source toolbox for the analysis of event-related potentials. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, 213. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2014.00213.

Lucy, J. A. (2001). Sapir–Whorf hypothesis. In N. J. Smelser & P. B. Baltes (Eds.), International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences (pp. 13486-13490). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Luck, S. J. (2014). An Introduction to the Event-Related Potential Technique. 2nd edn. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Luck, S. J. (2018). Hints for ICA-based artifact correction. ERP Info. https://erpinfo.org/blog/2018/6/18/hints-for-using-ica-for-artifact-correction (9 May, 2019).

Luck, S. J., & Hillyard, S. A. (1994). Electrophysiological correlates of feature analysis during visual search. Psychophysiology, 31(3), 291–308. doi:10.1111/j.1469-8986.1994.tb02218.x.

Lu, G., & Hou, G. (2020). Effects of semantic congruence on sign identification: An ERP study. Human Factors, 62(5), 800–811. doi:10.1177/0018720819854880.

Lupyan, G. (2012). Linguistically modulated perception and cognition: the label-feedback hypothesis. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 54. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00054.

Milligan, K., Astington, J. W., & Dack, L. A. (2007). Language and theory of mind: meta-analysis of the relation between language ability and false-belief understanding. Child Development, 78(2), 622-646. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01018.x.

Müller, F. M. (1909). The Science of Thought. London: Longmans, Green & Co.

Mueller, J. L., Hahne, A., Fujii, Y., & Friederici, A. D. (2005). Native and nonnative speakers’ processing of a miniature version of Japanese as revealed by ERPs. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 17(8), 1229–44. doi:10.1162/0898929055002463.

Newcombe, N. S. (2005). Language as destiny? or not: essay review of Space in Language and Cognition: Explorations in Cognitive Diversity by Stephen C. Levinson. Human Development, 48(5), 309-314. doi:10.1159/000086876.

Papafragou, A., Hulbert, J., & Trueswell, J. (2008). Does language guide event perception? Evidence from eye movements. Cognition, 108(1), 155-184. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2008.02.007.

Patel, S. H., & Azzam, P. N. (2005). Characterization of N200 and P300: Selected studies of the event-related potential. International Journal of Medical Sciences, 2(4), 147-154. doi:10.7150/ijms.2.147. Available from https://www.medsci.org/v02p0147.htm.

Pinker, S. (2007 [1994]). The Language Instinct: How the Mind Creates Language. New York: Harper Perennial Modern Classics.

Polich, J. (1985). N400s from sentences, semantic categories, number and letter strings?. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 23(4), 361-364.

Polich, J. (2003). Overview of P3a and P3b. In J. Polich (Ed.), Detection of Change: Event-related Potential and fMRI Findings (pp. 83-98). Boston: Kluwer Academic Press.

Polich, J. (2007). Updating P300: An integrative account of P3a and P3b. Clinical Neurophysiology: Official Journal of the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology, 118(10), 2128–2148. doi:10.1016/j.clinph.2007.04.019.

Potts, G. F., & Tucker, Don M. (2001). Frontal evaluation and posterior representation in target detection. Brain Research. Cognitive Brain Research, 11(1), 147–56. doi:10.1016/s0926-6410(00)00075-6.

Pyers, J. E., & Senghas, A. (2009). Language promotes false-belief understanding: evidence from learners of a new sign language. Psychological Science, 20(7), 805-812. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02377.x.

R Core Team. (2018). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. URL https://www.R-project.org/.

Roberson, D., Davidoff, J., Davies, I. R. L., & Shapiro, L. R. (2005). Color categories: Evidence for the cultural relativity hypothesis. Cognitive Psychology, 50(4), 378-411. doi:10.1016/j.cogpsych.2004.10.001.

Roberson, D., Davies, I., & Davidoff, J. (2000). Color categories are not universal: Replications and new evidence from a stone-age culture. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 129(3), 369-398. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.129.3.369.

Roberson, D., & Hanley, J. R. (2010). Relativity Speaking: An Account of the Relationship between Language and Thought in the Color Domain. In B. C. Malt & P. Wolff (Eds.), Words and the Mind: How Words Capture Human Experience (pp. 183-198). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Saalbach, H., & Imai, M. (2007). Scope of linguistic influence: Does a classifier system alter object concepts? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136(3), 485–501. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.136.3.485.

Slobin, D. I. (1996). From “thought and language” to “thinking for speaking.” In J. J. Gumperz & S. C. Levinson (Eds.), Rethinking Linguistic Relativity (pp. 70-96). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Slobin, D. I. (2003). Language and thought online: cognitive consequences of linguistic relativity. In D. Gentner & S. Goldin-Meadow (Eds), Language in Mind: Advances in the Study of Language and Thought (pp. 157-191). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Speed, L. J., Chen, J., Huettig, F., & Majid, A. (2021). Classifier categories reflect but do not affect conceptual organization. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory & Cognition, 47(4), 625–40. doi:10.1037/xlm0000967.

Strijkers, K., Costa, A., & Thierry, G. (2010). Tracking lexical access in speech production: electrophysiological correlates of word frequency and cognate effects. Cerebral Cortex, 20(4), 912-928. doi:10.1093/cercor/bhp153.

Strijkers, K., Holcomb, P. J., & Costa, A. (2011). Conscious intention to speak proactively facilitates lexical access during overt object naming. Journal of Memory and Language, 65(4), 345-362. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2011.06.002.

Tai, J. H.-Y. (1992). Variation in classifier systems across Chinese dialects: towards a cognition-based semantic approach. Chinese Languages and Linguistics, 1, 587-608.

Tai, J. H.-Y. (1994). Chinese classifier systems and human categorization. In M. Y.

Chen & O. J. L. Tzeng (Eds.), In Honor of William S.-Y. Wang: Interdisciplinary Studies on Language and Language Change. Taipei: Pyramid Press.

Tai, J. H.-Y., & Chao, F.-Y. (1994). A semantic study of the classifier zhang(張). Journal of the Chinese Language Teachers Association, 29, 67-68.

Tai, J. H.-Y., & Wang, L. (1990). A semantic study of the classifier tiáo. Journal of the Chinese Language Teachers Association, 25(1), 35–56.

Thierry, G. (2016). Neurolinguistic relativity: how language flexes human perception and cognition. Language Learning, 66(3), 690-713. doi:10.1111/lang.12186.

Thierry, G., Athanasopoulos, P., Wigget, A., Dering, B., & Kuipers, J.-R. (2009). Unconscious effects of language-specific terminology on preattentive color perception. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(11), 4567-4570.

Thierry, G., Cardebat, D., & Démonet, J.-F. (2003). Electrophysiological comparison of grammatical processing and semantic processing of single spoken nouns. Cognitive Brain Research, 17(3), 535–547. doi:10.1016/S0926- 6410(03)00168-X.

Tien, Y. M., Tzeng, O. J.L, & Hung, D. L. (2002). Semantic and cognitive basis of Chinese classifiers: a functional approach. Language and Linguistics, 3(1), 101-132.

Turatto, M., Angrilli, A., Mazza, V., Umiltà, C., & Driver, J. (2002). Looking without seeing the background change: electrophysiological correlates of change detection versus change blindness. Cognition, 84(1), B1-B10. doi:10.1016/S0010-0277(02)00016-1.

Vigliocco, G., Vinson, D. P., Paganelli, F., & Dworzynski, K. (2005). Grammatical gender effects on cognition: implications for language learning and language use. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 134(4), 501-520. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.134.4.501.

Watson, J. B. (1913). Psychology as the behaviorist views it. Psychological Review, 20(2), 158–177.

Waxman, S. R., & Markow, D. B. (1995). Words as invitations to form categories: evidence from 12- to 13 month-old infants. Cognitive Psychology, 29(3), 257-302. doi:10.1006/cogp.1995.1016.

Whorf, B. L. (1956). Language, Thought, and Reality: Selected Writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf. J. B. Carroll (Ed.), Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

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, 104(19), 7780-7785.

Winkler, I., Czigler, I., Sussman, E., Horváth, J., & Balázs, L. (2005). Preattentive binding of auditory and visual stimulus features. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 17(2), 320 –339.

Wolff, P., & Holmes, K. J. (2011). Linguistic relativity. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 2(3), 253-265.

Zhang, S., & Schmitt, B. (1998). Language-dependent classification: The mental representation of classifiers in cognition, memory, and ad evaluations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 4(4), 375–85. doi:10.1037/1076-898X.4.4.375.