Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-x2lbr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-08T16:52:11.804Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Convergence of temporal reference frames in sequential bilinguals: event structuring unique to second language users*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 November 2014

NORBERT VANEK  and
HENRIËTTE HENDRIKS
NORBERT VANEK*
Affiliation:
University of York, UK
HENRIËTTE HENDRIKS
Affiliation:
University of Cambridge, UK
*
Address for correspondence: Norbert Vanek, Centre for Language Learning Research, Department of Education, Derwent College, University of York, YO10 5DD, United Kingdomnorbert.vanek@york.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Previous research suggests that the way grammatical aspect is encoded in the speaker's L1 influences event conceptualisation and its subprocesses even in highly advanced L2. Given the lack of consensus regarding the susceptibility to restructuring L1 principles in L2, this work contributes to the debate with two innovative components: it tests whether the susceptibility to adjust L1 (Czech and Hungarian) structuring principles in L2 (English) is dependent on a specific degree of L1-L2 overlap in aspect marking, and it examines unique learner-specific structuring techniques that surface in picture descriptions and film retellings, to illustrate how bilinguals’ temporal reference frames converge. Besides signalling the construction of a unitary conceptual frame, L2 results clearly show the importance of language distance for explaining the nature of sequential bilinguals’ temporal structuring. To embrace the implications of the reported phenomenon, a novel proposal is developed, incorporating grammatical knowledge types already at the stage of conceptualisation.

Keywords

conceptual convergencetemporal structuringgrammatical aspectsequential bilingualsthinking for speaking

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition , Volume 18 , Issue 4 , October 2015 , pp. 753 - 768
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

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

*

The present research was kindly supported by the A. H. Lloyd Fund and the Levy-Plumb Fund at Christ's College Cambridge, the Cambridge European Trust as well as the Research Centre for English and Applied Linguistics at the University of Cambridge. We are grateful to Paul Hilder at the British Council Prague and to Ildikó Tóth at Katedra Budapest for facilitating data collection from Czech and Hungarian learners. We also thank the three reviewers for highly constructive advice on the earlier version of this article.

References

Abutalebi, J., & Green, D.W. (2007). Bilingual language production: The neurocognition of language representation and control. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 20, 242–275.Google Scholar
Athanasopoulos, P. (2011). Cognitive restructuring in bilingualism. In Pavlenko, A. (ed.), Thinking and Speaking in Two Languages, pp. 29–65. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Athanasopoulos, P., & Bylund, E. (2013). Does grammatical aspect affect motion event cognition? A crosslinguistic comparison of English and Swedish speakers. Cognitive Science, 37, 286–309.Google Scholar
Berman, R., & Slobin, D. (1994). Relating Events in Narrative: A Crosslinguistic Developmental Study. NJ, Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Bohnemeyer, J., & Pederson, E. (2011) (eds.), Event Representation in Language and Cognition. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Brown, A., & Gullberg, M. (2008). Bidirectional crosslinguistic influence in L1-L2 encoding of manner in speech and gesture. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30, 225–251.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, 79–94.Google Scholar
Bylund, E. (2011a). Language–specific patterns in event conceptualization: Insights from bilingualism. In Pavlenko, A. (ed.) Thinking and Speaking in Two Languages, 108–141. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bylund, E. (2011b). Ultimate attainment of event segmentation and temporal structuring patterns in speakers of L2 Swedish. Vigo International Journal of Applied Lingusitics, 8, 29–53.Google Scholar
Bylund, E., & Jarvis, S. (2011). L2 effects on L1 event conceptualization. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 14, 47–59.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: de Gruyter.Google 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.Google 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. (ed.), Typology and Second Language Acquisition, pp. 365–402. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Carroll, M., Murcia-Serra, J., Watorek, M., & Bendiscoli, A. (2000). The relevance of information organisation to second language acquisition studies: The descriptive discourse of advanced adult learners of German. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 441–466.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, pp. 183–217. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Carroll, M., & von Stutterheim, C. (2006). The impact of grammaticalised temporal categories on ultimate attainment in advanced L2-acquisition. In Byrnes, H. (ed.), Educating for advanced foreign language capacities: Constructs, curriculum, instruction, assessment, pp. 40–53. Washington: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Csirmaz, A. (2004). Perfective and imperfective in Hungarian: (Invisible) differences. In Blaho, S., Vicente, L. & de Vos, M. (eds.), Proceedings of Console XII., University of Leiden. Presented at Console XII. Patras, Greece, December 12–14, 2003.Google Scholar
Cook, V. (2003). The changing L1 in the L2 user's mind. In Cook, V. (ed.), Effects of the Second Language on the First, pp. 1–18. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Cook, V. (1992). Evidence for multicompetence. Language Learning, 42, 557–591.Google Scholar
Costa, A., Caramazza, A., & Sebastián-Gallés, N. (2000). The cognate facilitation effect: implications for models of lexical access. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26, 1283–1296.Google Scholar
De Bot, K., Lowie, W., & Verspoor, M. (2007). A dynamic systems theory approach to second language acquisition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 10, 7–21.Google Scholar
Dijkstra, T., & van Heuven, W. (2002). The architecture of the bilingual word recognition system: From identification to decision. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 5, 175–197.Google Scholar
Dong, Y., Gui, S., & MacWhinney, B. (2005). Shared and separate meanings in the bilingual mental lexicon. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 8, 221–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N.C. (2006). Selective attention and transfer phenomena in L2 acquisition: Contingency, cue competition, salience, interference, overshadowing, blocking, and perceptual learning. Applied Linguistics, 27, 164–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flecken, M., von Stutterheim, C., & Carroll, M. (2013). Principles of information organisation in L2 use: Complex patterns of conceptual transfer. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 51, 229–242.Google Scholar
Filipović, L., & Jaszczolt, K. M. (eds.), Space and Time in Languages and Cultures 1: Linguistic Diversity, pp. 135–156. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Gentner, D., & Goldin–Meadow, S. (2003). Language in Mind: Advances in the Study of Language and Thought. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Green, D. (1998). Mental control of the bilingual lexico-semantic system. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1, 67–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grosjean, F. (1998). Studying bilingualism: methodological and conceptual issues. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1, 131–149.Google Scholar
Gumperz, J., & Levinson, S. (1996). Introduction: Linguistic relativity re–examined. In Gumperz, J. & Levinson, S. (eds.), Rethinking Linguistic Relativity, pp. 1–20. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Habel, C., & Tape, H. (1999). Processes of segmentation and linearization in describing events. In Klabunde, R. & von Stutterheim, C. (eds.), Processes in Language Production, pp. 117–153. Wiesbaden: Deutscher Universitätsverlag.Google Scholar
Harley, B. (1998). The outcomes of early and later language learning. In Med, M. (ed.), Critical Issues in Early Second Language Learning, pp. 26–31. Scott Foresman: Addison Wesley.Google Scholar
Hendriks, H., Hickmann, M., & Demagny, A. (2008). How English native speakers learn to express caused motion in English and French. Acquisition et Interaction en Langue Étrangère, 27, 15–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hermans, D., Bongaerts, T., de Bot, K., & Schreuder, R. (1998). Producing words in a foreign language: Can speakers prevent interference from their first language? Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1, 213–229.Google Scholar
Hohenstein, J., Eisenberg, A., & Naigles, L. (2006). Is he floating across or crossing afloat? Cross–influence of L1 and L2 in Spanish–English bilingual adults. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 9, 249–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoshino, N., & Kroll, J. F. (2008). Cognate effects in picture naming: does cross-language activation survive a change of script? Cognition, 106, 501–511.Google Scholar
Hudson, R. (2007). Language Networks. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jarvis, S., & Pavlenko, A. (2008). Crosslinguistic influence in language and cognition. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kaushanskaya, M., & Marian, V. (2007). Bilingual language processing and interference in bilinguals: Evidence from eye tracking and picture naming. Language Learning, 57, 119–163.Google Scholar
Klein, W., & Li, P. (2009) (eds.), The Expression of Time. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Klein, W. (1994). Time in Language. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kroll, J. F., & Stewart, E. (1994). Category interference in translation and picture naming: Evidence for asymmetric connections between bilingual memory representations. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 149–174.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. (1999). Grammar and Conceptualization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar
Larson-Hall, J. (2008). Weighing the benefits of studying in a foreign language at a young starting age in a minimal input situation, Second Language Research, 24, 35–63.Google Scholar
Lemhöfer, K., Spalek, K., & Schriefers, H. (2008). Cross-language effects of grammatical gender in bilingual word recognition and production. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 312–330.Google Scholar
Levelt, W. (1989). Speaking: From Intention to Articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Levelt, W. (1999). Producing spoken language: A blueprint of the speaker. In Brown, C. & Hagoort, P. (eds.), The Neurocognition of Language, pp. 83–120. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Li, P., & Shirai, Y. (2000). The acquisition of lexical and grammatical aspect. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Lucy, J. (1992). Language Diversity and Thought: A Reformulation of the Linguistic Relativity Hypothesis. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (2008). A unified model. In Robinson, P. & Ellis, N. (eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition, pp. 341–371. New York: Routledge. Google Scholar
Malt, B., & Sloman, S. (2003). Linguistic diversity and object naming by non-native speakers of English. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 6, 47–67.Google Scholar
Muñoz, C. (2014). Contrasting effects of starting age and input on the oral performance of foreign language learners. Applied Linguistics, 35, 463–482.Google Scholar
Muñoz, C., & Singleton, D. (2011). A critical review of age-related research on L2 ultimate attainment. Language Teaching, 44, 1–35.Google Scholar
Natale, S. (2013). Linkage in narratives: A comparison between monolingual speakers of French and Italian, and early and late French-Italian bilinguals. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 51, 151–169.Google Scholar
Pavlenko, A. (2011). Thinking and speaking in two languages: Overview of the field. In Pavlenko, A. (ed.), Thinking and speaking in two languages, pp. 237–257. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Robinson, P., & Ellis, N. (2008). Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition. New York: Routledge Google Scholar
Salamoura, A., & Williams, J. N. (2007). The representation of grammatical gender in the bilingual lexicon: Evidence from Greek and German. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 10, 257–275.Google Scholar
Schmiedtová, B. (2004). At the same time: The expression of simultaneity in learner varieties. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Schmiedtová, B., von Stutterheim, C., & Carroll, M. (2011). Language-specific patterns in event construal of advanced second language speakers. In Pavlenko, A. (ed.), Thinking and Speaking in Two Languages, pp. 66–107. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Schmiedtová, B., & Flecken, M. (2008). The role of aspectual distinctions in event encoding: Implications for second language acquisition. In de Knop, S. & de Rycker, T. (eds.), Cognitive Approaches to Pedagogical Grammar, pp. 357–384. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Schmiedtová, B., & Sahonenko, N. (2008). Die Rolle des grammatischen Aspekts in Ereignis–Enkodierung: Ein Vergleich zwischen tschechischen und russischen Lernern des Deutschen. In Grommes, P. & Walter, M. (eds.), Fortgeschrittene Lernervarietäten: Korpuslinguistik und Zweitspracherwerbs–forschung, pp. 45–71. Linguistische Arbeiten. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. (1987). Thinking for speaking. Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 13, 435–444.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. (1996). From “thought and language” to “thinking for speaking”. In Gumperz, J. & Levinson, S. (eds.), Rethinking Linguistic Relativity, pp. 70–96. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Stromqvist, S., & Verhoeven, L. (2004). (eds.), Relating Events in Narrative, Vol. 2: Typological and Contextual Perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Talmy, L. (2008). Aspects of attention in language. In Robinson, P. & Ellis, N. C. (eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition, pp. 27–38. New York/London: Routlege.Google Scholar
Talmy, L. (2000). Towards a Cognitive Semantics: Typology and Process in Concept Structuring, Vol. 2. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Tolentino, L.C., & Tokowicz, N. (2011). Across languages, space and time: A review of the role of cross-language similarity in L2 (morpho)syntactic processing as revealed by fMRI and ERP methods. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 33, 91–125.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Tomita, N. (2013). Strategies for linking information by German and Japanese native speakers and by German learners of Japanese. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 51, 117–149.Google Scholar
Vanek, N. (2012). Language-specific perspectives in reference to time in the discourse of Czech, English and Hungarian speakers. In Filipović, L. & Jaszczolt, K. M. (eds.), Space and Time in Languages and Cultures I: Linguistic Diversity, pp. 135–156. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Vanek, N. (2013). Event linearization in advanced L2 user discourse: Evidence for language-specificity in the discourse of Czech and Hungarian learners of English. In Roberts, L., Ewert, A., Pawlak, M. & Wrembel, M. (eds.), EUROSLA Yearbook 13, pp. 47–80. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Von Stutterheim, C., Bouhaous, A., Carroll, M., & Sahonenko, N. (2012). Grammaticalized temporal categories, language specificity, and macroplanning in expository texts. Linguistics, 50, 341–371.Google Scholar
Von Stutterheim, C., & Lambert, M. (2005). Cross–linguistic analysis of temporal perspectives in text production. In Hendriks, H. (ed.), The Structure of Learner Varieties, pp. 203–230. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Von Stutterheim, C., & Nüse, R. (2003). Processes of conceptualisation in language production: Language-specific perspectives and event construal. Linguistics: An Interdisciplinary Journal of the Language Sciences, 41, 851–881.Google Scholar
Von Stutterheim, C., Nüse, R., & Murcia Serra, J. (2002). Crosslinguistic differences in the conceptualisation of events. In Behrens, B., Fabricius–Hansen, C. & Johansson, S. (eds.), Information Structure in a Cross–linguistic Perspective, pp. 179–198. Amsterdam: Rodopi.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolff, P., & Ventura, T. (2009). When Russians learn English: How the semantics of causation may change. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 12, 153–176.Google Scholar