Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-747cfc64b6-fkkrz Total loading time: 0.222 Render date: 2021-06-17T03:25:44.087Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true }

L1–L2 convergence in clausal packaging in Japanese and English*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 November 2012

AMANDA BROWN
Affiliation:
Syracuse University
MARIANNE GULLBERG
Affiliation:
Lund University
Corresponding
E-mail address:

Abstract

This study investigates L1–L2 convergence among bilinguals at an intermediate (CEFR-B2) level of L2 proficiency, focusing on the clausal packaging of Manner and Path of motion. Previous research has shown cross-linguistic differences between English and Japanese in this domain (Allen et al., 2003; Kita & Özyürek, 2003, though note Brown & Gullberg, 2012). We compared descriptions of motion from monolingual English and Japanese speakers to L1 and L2 descriptions from Japanese users of English as a second (ESL) and foreign (EFL) language. Results showed no significant difference between the monolinguals, who predominately used single-clause constructions packaging Manner and Path. However, bilinguals, both ESL and EFL speakers, used significantly more multi-clause constructions in both their L1 and L2. Following Pavlenko (2011a), findings are interpreted as evidence for L1–L2 convergence. We discuss potential bi-directional cross-linguistic influences underpinning the L1–L2 convergence and implications for the restructuring of bilingual systems.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

Footnotes

*

This research received technical and financial support from Syracuse University, the Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, and the Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (NWO; MPI 56-384, The Dynamics of Multilingual Processing, awarded to Marianne Gullberg and Peter Indefrey). Riko Yasunaga, Eriko Higashida, and Hiromichi Ito provided assistance with transcriptions and coding. Two anonymous reviewers offered helpful comments and suggestions on a previous version of this article. All of these contributions are acknowledged with grateful thanks.

References

Allan, D. (1992). Oxford placement test. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Allen, S., Özyürek, A., Kita, S., Brown, A., Furman, R., Ishizuka, T., & Fujii, M. (2007). Language-specific and universal influences in children's syntactic packaging of Manner and Path: A comparison of English, Turkish, and Japanese. Cognition, 102 (1), 1648.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Allen, S., Özyürek, 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. 6372. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Ameel, E., Malt, B. C., Storms, G., & Van Assche, F. (2009). Semantic convergence in the bilingual lexicon. Journal of Memory and Language, 60 (2), 270290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aske, J. (1989). Path predicated in English and Spanish: A closer look. Proceedings of the Fifteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (BLS 15), 114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Athanasopoulos, P. (2006). Effects of the grammatical representation of number on cognition in bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 9 (1), 8996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Athanasopoulos, P. (2007). Interaction between grammatical categories and cognition in bilinguals: The role of proficiency, cultural immersion, and language of instruction. Language and Cognitive Processes, 22 (5), 689699.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Athanasopoulos, P., Sasaki, M., & Cook, V. J. (2004). Do bilinguals think differently from monolinguals? Evidence from colour categorization by speakers of Japanese. Presented at the European Second Language Association (EUROSLA) 14, San Sebastian, Spain.Google Scholar
Bassetti, B. (2011). The grammatical and conceptual gender of animals in second language users. In Cook, & Bassetti, (eds.), pp. 357–384.Google Scholar
Bassetti, B., & Cook, V. J. (2011). Relating language and cognition: The second language user. In Cook, & Bassetti, (eds.), pp. 143–190.Google Scholar
Berman, R., & Slobin, D. I. (1994). Relating events in narrative: A cross-linguistic developmental study. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Boroditsky, L. (2001). Does language shape thought? Mandarin and English speakers’ conceptions of time. Cognitive Psychology, 43 (1), 122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boroditsky, L., Schmidt, L. A., & Phillips, W. (2003). Sex, syntax, and semantics. In Gentner, D. & Goldin-Meadow, S. (eds.), Language in mind: Advances in the study of language and cognition, pp. 6179. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bowerman, M. (1982). Starting to talk worse: Clues to language acquisition from children's late speech errors. In Strauss, S. (ed.), U-shaped behavioral growth, pp. 101145. New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, A. (2008). Gesture viewpoint in Japanese and English: Cross-linguistic interactions between two languages in one speaker. Gesture, 8 (2), 256276.Google Scholar
Brown, A., & Gullberg, M. (2008). Bidirectional crosslinguistic influence in L1–L2 encoding of Manner in speech and gesture: A study of Japanese speakers of English. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30 (2), 225251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, A., & Gullberg, M. (2011). Bidirectional cross-linguistic influence in event conceptualization? Expressions of Path among Japanese learners of English. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 14 (1), 7994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, A., & Gullberg, M. (2012). Multicompetence and native speaker variation in clausal packaging in Japanese. Second Language Research, 28 (4), 415442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bullock, B. E., & Toribio, A. J. (2004). Introduction: Convergence as an emergent property in bilingual speech. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 7 (2), 9193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bylund, E. (2009). Effects of age of L2 acquisition on L1 event conceptualization patterns. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 12 (3), 305322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bylund, E. (2011). Segmentation and temporal structuring of events in early Spanish–Swedish bilinguals. International Journal of Bilingualism, 15 (1), 5684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cadierno, T., & Ruiz, L. (2006). Motion events in Spanish L2 acquisition. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 4, 183216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cenoz, J. (2003). The intercultural style hypothesis: L1 and L2 interaction in requesting behaviour. In Cook, (ed.), pp. 62–80.Google Scholar
Cenoz, J., Hufeisen, B., & Jessner, U. E. (2001). Cross-linguistic influence in third language acquisition. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Chen, F. J.-g. (2006). Interplay between forward and backward transfer in L2 and L1 writing: The case of Chinese ESL learners in the US. Concentric: Studies in Linguistics, 32 (1), 147196.Google Scholar
Chen, J.-Y., & Su, J.-J. (2011). Chinese–English bilinguals’ sensitivity to the temporal phase of an action event is related to the extent of their experience with English. In Cook, & Bassetti, (eds.), pp. 341–356.Google Scholar
Cook, V. J. (1992). Evidence for multicompetence. Language Learning, 42 (4), 557591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook, V. J. (2003a). Introduction: The changing L1 in the L2 user's mind. In Cook, (ed.), pp. 1–18.Google Scholar
Cook, V. J. (ed.) (2003b). Effects of the second language on the first. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Cook, V. J., & Bassetti, B. (eds.) (2011). Language and bilingual cognition. Hove: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Cook, V. J., Bassetti, B., Kasai, C., Sasaki, M., & Arata Takahashi, J. (2006). Do bilinguals have different concepts? The case of shape and material in Japanese L2 users of English. International Journal of Bilingualism, 10 (2), 137152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Czechowska, N., & Ewert, A. (2011). Perception of motion by Polish–English bilinguals. In Cook, & Bassetti, (eds.), pp. 287–314.Google Scholar
DeAngelis, G. (2007). Third or additional language acquisition. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google ScholarPubMed
Dewaele, J.-M. (1999). Word order variation in French interrogative structures. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 42, 125126.Google Scholar
Dijkstra, T., & van Heuven, W. J. B. (2002). The architecture of the bilingual word recognition system: From identification to decision. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 5 (3), 175197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Döpke, S. (1998). Competing language structures: The acquisition of verb placement by bilingual German–English children. Journal of Child Language, 25 (3), 555584.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ellis, N. C. (2011). Frequency-based accounts of SLA. In Gass, S. & Mackey, A. (eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition, pp. 193210. London: Routledge/Taylor Francis.Google Scholar
Filipovic, L. (2011). Speaking and remembering in one or two languages: Bilingual vs. monolingual lexicalization and memory for motion events. International Journal of Bilingualism, 15 (4), 466485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flege, J. E. (1987). The production of “new” and “similar” phones in a foreign language: Evidence for the effect of equivalence classification. Journal of Phonetics, 15, 4765.Google Scholar
Freleng, F. (1950). Canary Row [Film, animated cartoon]. New York: Time Warner.Google Scholar
Gass, S., & Selinker, L. (eds.) (1992). Language transfer in language learning. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gathercole, V. C. M., & Moawad, R. A. (2010). Semantic interaction in early and late bilinguals: All words are not created equally. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 13 (4), 385408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerard, L. D., & Scarborough, D. L. (1989). Language-specific lexical access of homographs by bilinguals. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15 (2), 305315.Google Scholar
Grosjean, F. (1989). Neurolinguists, beware! The bilingual is not two monolinguals in one person. Brain and Language, 36 (1), 315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grosjean, F. (1998). Studying bilinguals: Methodological and conceptual issues. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1 (1), 131149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gullberg, M., & Indefrey, P. (2003). Language background questionnaire. Developed in The Dynamics of Multilingual Processing. Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. http://www.mpi.nl/research/research-projects/the-dynamics-of-multilingual-processing/tools/Lang-Hist-Quest-Engl.pdf (retrieved October 17, 2012).Google Scholar
Gullberg, M. (2012). Bilingual multimodality in language documentation data. Language Documentation and Conservation, 6, 4754.Google Scholar
Hall, J. K., Cheng, A., & Carlson, M. (2006). Reconceptualizing multicompetence as a theory of language knowledge. Applied Linguistics, 27 (2), 220240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Inagaki, S. (2002a). Japanese learners’ acquisition of English manner-of-motion verbs with locational/directional PPs. Second Language Research, 18 (1), 327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Inagaki, S. (2002b). Motion verbs with locational/directional PPs in English and Japanese. Canadian Journal of Linguistics, 47 (3/4), 187234.Google Scholar
Jarvis, S. (2000). Methodological rigor in the study of transfer: Identifying L1 influence in the interlanguage lexicon. Language Learning, 50 (2), 245309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jarvis, S. (2010). Comparison-based and detection-based approaches to transfer research. In Roberts, L., Howard, M., Ó. Laoire, M. & Singleton, D. (eds.), EUROSLA Yearbook 10, pp. 169192. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Jarvis, S., & Pavlenko, A. (2008). Cross-linguistic influence in language and cognition. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I., & Papp, T. (2000). Foreign language and mother tongue. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Kellerman, E., & Sharwood Smith, M. (eds.) (1986). Crosslinguistic influence in second language acquisition. New York: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Kita, S., & Özyürek, A. (2003). What does cross-linguistic variation in semantic coordination of speech and gesture reveal? Evidence for an interface representation of spatial thinking and speaking. Journal of Memory and Language, 48 (1), 1632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McNeill, D. (1992). Hand and mind: What the hands reveal about thought. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Mastumoto, Y. (1996). Subjective motion and English and Japanese verbs. Cognitive Linguistics, 7 (2), 183226.Google Scholar
Mennen, I. (2004). Bi-directional interference in the intonation of Dutch speakers of Greek. Journal of Phonetics, 32 (4), 543563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller, N., & Hulk, A. (2001). Crosslinguistic influence in bilingual language acquisition: Italian and French as recipient languages. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 4 (1), 121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muysken, P. (1997). Media lengua. In Thomason, S. G. (ed.), Contact languages: A wider perspective, pp. 365427. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle 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 (5), 521549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Navarro, S., & Nicoladis, E. (2005). Describing motion events in adult L2 Spanish narratives. In Eddington, D. (ed.), Selected Proceedings of the 6th Conference on the Acquisition of Spanish and Portuguese as First and Second Languages, pp. 102107. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Negueruela, E., Lantolf, J. P., Jordan, S. R., & Gelabert, J. (2004). The “private function” of gesture in second language speaking activity: A study of motion verbs and gesturing in English and Spanish. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 14 (1), 113147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicol, J., Teller, M., & Greth, D. (2001). Production of verb agreement in monolingual, bilingual, and second language speakers. In Nicol, J. (ed.), One mind, two languages: Bilingual language processing, pp. 117133. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Odlin, T. (1989). Language transfer: Cross-linguistic influence in language learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Odlin, T. (2008). Conceptual transfer and meaning extensions. In Robinson, P. & Ellis, N. C. (eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition, pp. 306340. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Pavlenko, A. (1999). New approaches to concepts in bilingual memory. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 3 (1), 136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pavlenko, A. (2005). Bilingualism and thought. In de Groot, A. M. B. & Kroll, J. F. (eds.), Handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches, pp. 433453. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pavlenko, A. (2011a). Thinking and speaking in two languages: Overview of the field. In Pavlenko, (ed.), pp. 237–257.Google Scholar
Pavlenko, A. (ed.) (2011b). Thinking and speaking in two languages. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Ringbom, H. (2007). Crosslinguistic similarity in foreign language learning. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Runnqvist, E., FitzPatrick, I., Strijkers, K., & Costa, A. (in press). An appraisal of the bilingual language production system: Quantitatively or qualitatively different from monolinguals? In Bhatia, T. & Ritchie, W. C. (eds.), The handbook of bilingualism and multilingualism. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Schmid, M. S., & Kopke, B. (2007). In Schmid, M. S., Kopke, B., Keijzer, M. & Dostert, S. (eds.), Language attrition: Theoretical perspectives, pp. 17. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Schwanenflugel, P., & Rey, M. (1986). Interlingual semantic facilitation: Evidence for a common representational system in the bilingual lexicon. Journal of Memory & Language, 25 (5), 605618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 10 (3), 209231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slobin, D. I. (2006). What makes manner of motion salient? Explorations in linguistic typology, discourse and cognition. In Hickman, M. & Robert, S. (eds.), Space in languages: Linguistic systems and cognitive categories, pp. 5981. Amsterdam: John BenjaminsCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slobin, D. I., & Hoiting, N. (1994). Reference to movement in spoken and signed languages: Typological considerations. Proceedings of the Twentieth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (BLS 20), 487505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Su, I.-R. (2001). Transfer of sentence processing strategies: A comparison of L2 learners of Chinese and English. Applied Psycholinguistics, 22 (1), 83112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Su, I.-R. (2010). Transfer of pragmatic competences: A bi-directional perspective. The Modern Language Journal, 94 (1), 87102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Talmy, L. (1985). Lexicalization patterns: Semantic structure in lexical forms. In Shopen, T. (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description (vol. 3), pp. 57149. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Talmy, L. (1991). Path to realization: A typology of event conflation. Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (BLS 17), 480519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Talmy, L. (2000a). Toward a cognitive semantics (vol. 1): Concept structuring systems. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Talmy, L. (2000b). Toward a cognitive semantics (vol. 2): Typology and process in concept structuring. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Taylor, I. (1971). How are words from two languages organized in bilinguals’ memory? Canadian Journal of Psychology, 25 (3), 228240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tversky, B., Kugelmass, S., & Winter, A. (1991). Cross-cultural and developmental trends in graphic productions. Cognitive Psychology, 23 (4), 515557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weingold, G. (1995). Lexical and conceptual structures in expressions for movement and space: With reference to Japanese, Korean, Thai and Indonesian as compared to English and German. In Egli, U., Pause, P. E., Schwarze, C., von, A. Stechow & Weingold, G. (eds.), Lexical knowledge in the organization of language, pp. 301340. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Yelland, G. W., Pollard, J., & Mercuri, A. (1993). The metalinguistic benefits of limited contact with a second language. Applied Psycholinguistics, 14 (4), 423444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, Y., & Elder, C. (2011). Judgments of oral proficiency by non-native and native English speaking teacher raters: Competing or complementary constructs? Language Testing, 28 (1), 3150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

L1–L2 convergence in clausal packaging in Japanese and English*
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

L1–L2 convergence in clausal packaging in Japanese and English*
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

L1–L2 convergence in clausal packaging in Japanese and English*
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *