Hostname: page-component-76d6cb85b7-kcxw8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-07-13T23:45:52.496Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Grammatical preferences in aspect marking in first language and second language: The case of first language Dutch, English, and German and first language Dutch second language English, and first language Dutch second language German

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 April 2013

BÉRYL HILBERINK-SCHULPEN ,
ULRIKE NEDERSTIGT  and
MARIANNE STARREN
BÉRYL HILBERINK-SCHULPEN*
Affiliation:
Radboud University Nijmegen
ULRIKE NEDERSTIGT
Affiliation:
Radboud University Nijmegen
MARIANNE STARREN
Affiliation:
Radboud University Nijmegen
*
ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE Béryl Hilberink-Schulpen, Department of Business Communication, Radboud University Nijmegen, Erasmusplein 1, Nijmegen 6525 HT, The Netherlands. E-mail: b.hilberink@let.ru.nl
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Production studies on event conceptualization have shown that the language inventory has a clear influence on event descriptions in different languages (e.g., Carroll & von Stutterheim, 2010). In our perception study with native speakers of German, English, and Dutch and Dutch learners of German and English, we were able to show that in addition to preferred verbalization patterns, there are other verbalization patterns that are rated as equally likely. Our results suggest that a more differentiated explanation is needed than that proposed by Slobin (1996b). Grammatical aspects of a language are easier to acquire and apply than lexical aspects. These differences can be explained in terms of automatization and cognitive control of first language and second language processes (Levelt, 1989).

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 35 , Issue 6 , November 2014 , pp. 969 - 1000
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Allen, S. E. M., Ozyürek, A., Kita, S., Brown, A., Turanli, R., & Ishizuka, T. (2003). Early speech about manner and path in Turkish and English: Universal or language-specific? In Beachley, B., Brown, A., & Conlin, F. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 27th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (Vol. 1, pp. 63–72). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Dörnyei, Z. (1998). Do language learners recognize pragmatic violations? Pragmatic vs. grammatical awareness in instructed L2 learning. TESOL Quarterly, 32, 233–261.Google Scholar
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Bohnemeyer, J., Eisenbeiss, S., & Narasinhan, B. (2006). Ways to go: Methodological considerations in Whorfian studies on motion events. Essex Research Reports in Linguistics, 50, 1–20.Google Scholar
Booij, G. (2008). Constructional idioms as products of linguistic change: The aan het + INFINITIVE construction in Dutch. In Bergs, A. & Diewald, G. (Eds.), Constructions and language change (pp. 79–104). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Branigan, H. (2007). Syntactic priming. Language and Linguistics Compass, 1, 1–16.Google Scholar
Cadierno, T. (2004). Expressing motion events in a second language: A cognitive typological perspective. In Achard, M. & Niemeier, S. (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics, second language acquisition, and foreign language teaching (pp. 13–49). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Cadierno, T. (2010). Motion in Danish as a second language: Does the learner's L1 make a difference? In Han, Z. H. & Cadierno, T. (Eds.), Linguistic relativity in SLA: Thinking for speaking (pp. 1–33). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Cadierno, T., & Ruiz, L. (2006). Motion events in Spanish L2 acquistion. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 4, 183–216.Google Scholar
Carroll, M., Natale, S., & Starren, M. (2008). Acquisition du marquage du progressif par des apprenants germanophone de lítalien et néelandophones du français. Paper presented at Aile 26.Google Scholar
Carroll, M., & von Stutterheim, C. (2002). Typology and information organisation: Perspective taking and language-specific effects in the construal of events. In Ramat, A. G. (Ed.), Typology and second language acquisition (pp. 365–403). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Carroll, M., & von Stutterheim, C. (2010). Event representation, event-time relations and clause structure: A cross-linguistic study of English and German. In Bohnemeyer, J. & Pederson, E. (Eds.), Event representation in language and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Carroll, M., von Stutterheim, C., & Nüse, R. (2004). The language and thought debate: A psycholinguistic approach. In Pechmann, T. & Habel, C. (Eds.), Multidisciplinary approaches to language production. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Flecken, M. (2011). What native speaker judgements tell us about the grammaticalization of a progressive aspectual marker in Dutch. Linguistics, 49, 479–524.Google Scholar
Gumperz, J. J., & Levinson, S. E. (Eds.). (1996). Rethinking linguistic relativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Han, Z. H. (2010). Grammatical morpheme inadequacy as a function of linguistic relativity: A longitudinal case study. In Han, Z. H. & Cadierno, T. (Eds.), Linguistic relativity in SLA: Thinking for speaking (pp. 154–182). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Hasko, V. (2010). The role of thing for speaking in adult L2 speech: The case of (non)unidirectionality encoding by American learners of Russian. In Han, Z. H. & Cadierno, T. (Eds.), Linguistic relativity in SLA: Thinking for speaking (pp. 34–58). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Kellermann, E., & Van Hoof, A. (2003). Manual accents. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 41, 251–269.Google Scholar
Krause, O. (2000). Progressive Verbalkonstruktionen im Deutschen: Ein korpusbasierter Sprachvergleich mit dem Niederländischen und dem Englischen. Hannover, Germany: University of Hannover.Google Scholar
Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lightbown, P. M. (2000). Anniversary article: Classroom SLA research and second language teaching. Applied Linguistics, 21, 431–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montrul, S., & Slabakova, R. (2001). Is Native-like competence possible in L2 acquisition. In Do, A. H.-L., Domínguez, L., & Johansen, A. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 25th Boston University Conference on Language Develoment (Vol. 2, pp. 522–533). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Naigles, L. R., Eisenberg, A. R., Kako, E. T., Highter, M., & McGraw, N. (1998). Speaking of motion: Verb use in English and Spanish. Language and Cognitive Processes, 13, 521–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Natale, S. (2008). Semantische Gebrauchsdeterminanten der Verbalperiphrasen stare + gerundio. Eine datenbasierte Studie. Heidelberg: Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg.Google Scholar
Papafragou, A., Massey, C., & Gleitman, L. (2002). Shake, rattle, ‘n’ roll: The representation of motion in language and cognition. Cognition, 84, 189–219.Google Scholar
Papafragou, A., Massey, C., & Gleitman, L. (2006). When English proposes what Greek presupposes: The cross-linguistic encoding of motion event. Cognition, 98, B75–B87.Google Scholar
Posner, M. I., & Snyder, C. R. R. (1975). Attention and cognitive control. In Solso, R. N. (Ed.), Information processing and cognition: The Loyola Symposium. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Schiffrin, R. M., & Schneider, W. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing: II. Perceptual learning, automatic attending, and general theory. Psychological Review, 84, 127–190.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. (1996a). Adult language acquisition: A view from a child language study. In Perdue, C. (Ed.), Adult language acquisition: Cross-linguistic perspectives (pp. 239–252). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. (1996b). From “thought and language” to “thinking for speaking.” In Gumperz, J. J. & Levinson, S. E. (Eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. (2000). Verbalized events, a dynamic approach to linguistic relativity and determinism. In Niemeier, S. & Dirve, R. (Eds.), Evidence for linguistic relativity (pp. 107–138). Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. (2008). Relations between paths of motion and path of vision: A cross-linguistic and developmental exploration. In Gathercole, V. M. (Ed.), Routes to language: Studies in honor of Melissa Bowerman (pp. 197–221). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Stam, G. A. (2010). Can an L2 speaker's patterns of thinking for speaking change? In Han, Z. H. & Cadierno, T. (Eds.), Linguistic relativity in SLA: Thinking for Speaking (pp. 59–83). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Talmy, L. (1985). Lexicalization patterns: Semantic structure in lexical forms. In Shopen, T. (Ed.), Language typology and semantic description (Vol. 3, pp. 36–149). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Talmy, L. (1991). Path to realization: A typology of event conflation. Paper presented at the 17th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
von Stutterheim, C., & Carroll, M. (2006). The impact of grammatical temporal categories on ultimate attainment in L2 learning. In Byrnes, H., Weger-Guntharp, H., & Sprang, K. (Eds.), Educating for advanced foreign language capacities: Constructs, curriculum, instruction, assessment (pp. 40–53). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
von Stutterheim, C., Carroll, M., & Klein, W. (2009). New perspectives in analyzing aspectual distinctions across languages. In Klein, W. & Li, P. (Eds.), The expression of time (pp. 195–216). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
von Stutterheim, C., & Nüse, R. (2003). Processes of conceptualization in language production: Language-specific perspectives and event construal. Linguistics, 41, 851–881.Google Scholar