Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-kp629 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-26T02:15:29.910Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Bidirectional cross-linguistic influence in event conceptualization? Expressions of Path among Japanese learners of English*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 October 2010

AMANDA BROWN  and
MARIANNE GULLBERG
AMANDA BROWN*
Affiliation:
Syracuse University
MARIANNE GULLBERG
Affiliation:
Radboud University Nijmegen and Centre for Language Studies & Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics
*
Address for correspondence: Amanda Brown, Department of Languages, Literatures, and Linguistics, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY 13244, USAabrown08@syr.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Typological differences in expressions of motion are argued to have consequences for event conceptualization. In SLA, studies generally find transfer of L1 expressions and accompanying event construals, suggesting resistance to the restructuring of event conceptualization. The current study tackles such restructuring in SLA within the context of bidirectional cross-linguistic influence, focusing on expressions of Path in English and Japanese. We probe the effects of lexicalization patterns on event construal by focusing on different Path components: Source, Via and Goal. Crucially, we compare the same speakers performing both in the L1 and L2 to ascertain whether the languages influence each other. We argue for the potential for restructuring, even at modest levels of L2 proficiency, by showing that not only do L1 patterns shape construal in the L2, but that L2 patterns may subtly and simultaneously broaden construal in the L1 within an individual learner.

Keywords

bidirectional cross-linguistic influenceconceptualizationPath of motionJapaneseEnglish

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition , Volume 14 , Issue 1: Crosslinguistic influence in bilinguals' concepts and conceptualizations , January 2011 , pp. 79 - 94
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

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

Footnotes

*

This research received technical and financial support from the Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics and the Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (NWO; MPI 56–384, The Dynamics of Multilingual Processing, awarded to M. Gullberg and P. Indefrey). Riko Yasunaga and Erio Higashida provided assistance with transcriptions and coding. Three 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
Berman, R., & Slobin, D. I. (1994). Relating events in narrative: A cross-linguistic developmental study. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Brown, A., & Gullberg, M. (2010). Changes in encoding of Path of motion after acquisition of a second language. Cognitive Linguistics, 21 (2), 263–286.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cadierno, T., & Ruiz, L. (2006). Motion events in Spanish L2 acquisition. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 4, 183–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carroll, M., & Lambert, M. (2003). Information structure in narratives and the role of grammaticised knowledge. A study of adult French and German learners of English. In Dimroth, C. & Starren, M. (eds.), Information structure and the dynamics of language acquisition, pp. 267–287. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carroll, M., & Von Stutterheim, C. (2003). 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. 365–402. Berlin: Mouton.Google Scholar
Carroll, M., von Stutterheim, C., & Nuese, R. (2004). The language and thought debate: A psycholinguistic approach. In Habel, C. & Pechmann, T., (eds). Approaches to language production, pp. 183–218. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Choi, S., & Lantolf, J. P. (2008). The representation and embodiment of meaning in L2 communication: Motion events in the speech and gesture of advanced L2 Korean and L2 English speakers. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30 (2), 191–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook, V. (2003). Effects of the second language on the first. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dussias, P., & Sagarra, N. (2007). The effect of exposure on syntactic parsing in Spanish–English bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 10 (1), 101–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flecken, M., & Schmiedtová, B. (in press). Patterns of conceptualization in Dutch–German bilinguals.Google Scholar
Freleng, F. (1950). Canary Row [Film, animated cartoon]. New York: Time Warner.Google Scholar
Giacobbe, J. (1992). A cognitive view of the role of L1 in the L2 acquisition process. Second Language Research, 8 (3), 232–250.Google Scholar
Grosjean, F. (1998). Studying bilinguals: Methodological and conceptual issues. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1, 131–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gullberg, M., & Indefrey, P. (2003). Language background questionnaire. The Dynamics of Multilingual Processing. Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. http://www.mpi.nl/research/projects/Multilingualism/Questionnaire.pdf.Google Scholar
Hickmann, M., & Robert, S. (eds.) (2006). Space across languages: Linguistic systems and cognitive categories. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hohenstein, J. M., Eisenberg, A. R., & Naigles, L. R. (2006). Is he floating across or crossing afloat? Cross-influence of L1 and L2 in Spanish–English bilingual adults. Bilingualism: Language & Cognition, 9 (3), 249–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ibarretxe–Antunano, I. (2004). Motion events in Basque narratives. In Stromqvist, S. & Verhoven, L. (eds.), Relating events in narrative, volume 2: Typological and contextual perspectives, pp. 89–111, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Inagaki, S. (2001). Motion verbs with goal PPs in the L2 acquisition of English and Japanese. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23, 153–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Inagaki, S. (2002a). Japanese learners' acquisition of English manner-of-motion verbs with locational/directional PPs. Second Language Research, 18, 3–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Inagaki, S. (2002b). Motion verbs with locational/directional PPs in English and Japanese. Canadian Journal of Linguistics, 47, 187–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jarvis, S. (2000). Methodological rigor in the study of transfer: Identifying L1 influence in the interlanguage lexicon. Language Learning, 50, 245–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jarvis, S., & Pavlenko, A. (2008). Crosslinguistic influence in language and cognition. New York and London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kita, S. (1999). Japanese enter/exit verbs without motion semantics. Studies in Language, 23 (2), 307–330.CrossRefGoogle 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, 16–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kopecka, A., & Narasimhan, B. (eds.) (to appear). Events of “putting” and “taking”: A crosslinguistic perspective. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakusta, L., & Landau, B. (2005). Starting at the end: The importance of goals in spatial language. Cognition, 96, 1–33CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lucy, J. (1992). Language diversity and thought: A reformulation of the linguistic relativity hypothesis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matsumoto, Y. (1996). Subjective motion and English and Japanese verbs. Cognitive Linguistics, 7 (2), 183–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McNeill, D. (1992). Hand and mind. What the hands reveal about thought. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google 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. 102–107. 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), 113–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Odlin, T. (2005). Crosslinguistic influence and conceptual transfer: What are the concepts? Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 25, 3–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pavlenko, A., & Jarvis, S. (2002). Bidirectional transfer. Applied Linguistics, 23 (2), 190–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Regier, T., & Zheng, M. (2003). An attentional constraint on spatial meaning. In Proceedings of the 25th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, Vol. 36, pp. 171–217. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. I. (1996a). From “thought and language” to “thinking for speaking”. In Gumperz, J. J. & Levinson, S. C. (eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity, pp. 70–96. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. I. (1996b). Two ways to travel: Verbs of motion in English and Spanish. In Shibatani, M. & Thompson, S. A. (eds.), Grammatical constructions: Their form and meaning, pp. 195–219. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slobin, D. I. (1997). Mind, code and text. In Bybee, J., Haiman, J. & Thompson, S. A. (eds.), Essays on language function and language type: Dedicated to T. Givón, pp. 437–476. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slobin, D. I. (2004a). How people move: Discourse effects of linguistic typology. In Moder, C. L. & Martinovic–Zic, A. (eds.), Discourse across languages and cultures, pp. 195–211. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slobin, D. I. (2004b). The many ways to search for frog: Linguistic typology and the expression of motion events. In Stromqvist, S. & Verhoeven, L. (eds.), Relating events in narrative: Typological and contextual perspectives, pp. 219–257. Mawah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Stam, G. (2006). Thinking for speaking about motion: L1 and L2 speech and gesture. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 44 (2), 143–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strömqvist, S., & Verhoeven, L. (eds.). (2004). Relating events in narrative: Typological and contextual perspectives. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Talmy, L. (1985). Lexicalization patterns: Semantic structure in lexical forms. In Shopen, T. (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description, vol. 3, pp. 57–149. 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, pp. 480–519. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a cognitive semantics, vol. 1 & 2. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Tsujimura, N. (2002). Japanese enter/exit verbs revisited: A reply to Kita (1999). Studies in Language, 26, 165–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
von Stutterheim, C., & Nüse, R. (2003). Processes of conceptualization in language production: Language-specific perspectives and event construal. Linguistics, 41 (5), 851–881.Google Scholar
von Stutterheim, C., Nüse, R., & Murcia-Serra, J. (2002). Cross-linguistic differences in the conceptualisation of events. In Hasselgård, H., Johansson, S., Behrens, B. & Fabricius–Hansen, C. (eds.), Information structure in a cross-linguistic perspective, pp. 179–198. Amsterdam: Rodopi.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 Stechow, A. & Weingold, G. (eds.), Lexical knowledge in the organization of language, pp. 301–340. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar