Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-t5pn6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T18:33:58.319Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Grammatical aspect influences motion event perception: findings from a cross- linguistic non-verbal recognition task*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 January 2014

MONIQUE FLECKEN ,
CHRISTIANE VON STUTTERHEIM  and
MARY CARROLL
MONIQUE FLECKEN*
Affiliation:
Radboud University Nijmegen, Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition, and Behaviour, the Netherlands
CHRISTIANE VON STUTTERHEIM
Affiliation:
Heidelberg University, Germany
MARY CARROLL
Affiliation:
Heidelberg University, Germany
*
†Address for correspondence: Monique Flecken, Donders Centre for Cognition, Radboud University, Montessorilaan 3, 6525 HR Nijmegen, The Netherlands. e-mail: m.flecken@donders.ru.nl
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Using eye-tracking as a window on cognitive processing, this study investigates language effects on attention to motion events in a non-verbal task. We compare gaze allocation patterns by native speakers of German and Modern Standard Arabic (MSA), two languages that differ with regard to the grammaticalization of temporal concepts. Findings of the non-verbal task, in which speakers watch dynamic event scenes while performing an auditory distracter task, are compared to gaze allocation patterns which were obtained in an event description task, using the same stimuli. We investigate whether differences in the grammatical aspectual systems of German and MSA affect the extent to which endpoints of motion events are linguistically encoded and visually processed in the two tasks. In the linguistic task, we find clear language differences in endpoint encoding and in the eye-tracking data (attention to event endpoints) as well: German speakers attend to and linguistically encode endpoints more frequently than speakers of MSA. The fixation data in the non-verbal task show similar language effects, providing relevant insights with regard to the language-and-thought debate. The present study is one of the few studies that focus explicitly on language effects related to grammatical concepts, as opposed to lexical concepts.

Keywords

Linguistic relativityverbal aspectmotion event cognitionnon-verbal taskeye trackingvisual attentionArabicGerman
Type
Research Article
Information
Language and Cognition , Volume 6 , Issue 1 , March 2014 , pp. 45 - 78
Copyright
Copyright © UK Cognitive Linguistics Association 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.)

Footnotes

*

We would like to thank the DFG (German Research Foundation) and the NWO Veni scheme (Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research) for financial support for this study.

References

references

Altmann, G. & Kamide, Y. (2009). Discourse-mediation of the mapping between language and the visual world: eye-movements and mental representation. Cognition, 111, 55−71.Google Scholar
Athanasopoulos, P. (2011). Colour and bilingual cognition. In Cook, V. & Bassetti, B. (eds.), Language and bilingual cognition (pp. 241−262). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Athanasopoulos, P. & Kasai, C. (2008). Language and thought in bilinguals: the case of grammatical number and nonverbal classification preferences. Applied Psycholinguistics, 29 (1), 105−123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bates, D., Maechler, M. & Bolker, B. (2012). Package ‘lme4’. Linear mixed effects models using S4 classes [Computer software]. Retrieved fromhttp://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/lme4/index.html.Google Scholar
Boroditsky, L., Schmidt, L.m & 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. 59−80). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bylund, E. (2009). Effects of age of L2 acquisition on L1 event conceptualization patterns. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 12 (3), 305–322.Google Scholar
Cadierno, T. (2004). Expressing motion events in a second language: a cognitive typological approach. In Achard, M. & Neimeier, S. (eds.), Cognitive linguistics, second language acquisition and foreign language pedagogy (pp. 13−49). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Carroll, M., Weimar, K., Flecken, M., Lambert, M. & von Stutterheim, C. (2012). Tracing trajectories: motion event construal by advanced L2 French−English and L2 French−German speakers. Language in Interaction and Acquisition, 3 (2), 202−230.Google Scholar
Casasanto, D. (2008). Who’s afraid of the big bad Whorf? Cross-linguistic differences in temporal language and thought. Language Learning, 58 (1), 63−79.Google Scholar
Casasanto, D. & Boroditsky, L. (2008). Time in the mind: using space to think about time. Cognition, 106 (2), 579–593.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cook, V. & Bassetti, B. (eds.) (2011). Language and bilingual cognition. New York: Psychology Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flecken, M. (2011). Event conceptualization by early bilinguals: insights from linguistic and eye tracking data. Bilingualism: Language & Cognition, 14 (1), 61−77.Google Scholar
Gennari, S., Sloman, S., Malt, B. & Fitch, T. (2002). Motion events in language and cognition. Cognition, 83, 49–79.Google Scholar
Griffin, Z. (2004). Why look? Reasons for eye movements related to language production. In Henderson, J. & Ferreira, F. (eds.), The integration of language, vision, and action: eye movements and the visual world (pp. 213–247). New York: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
Griffin, Z. & Bock, K. (2000). What the eyes say about speaking. Psychological Science, 11, 274–279.Google Scholar
Gumperz, J. & Levinson, S. (eds.) (1996). Rethinking linguistic relativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Huettig, F., Chen, J., Bowerman, M. & Majid, A. (2010). Do language-specific categories shape conceptual processing? Mandarin classifier distinctions influence eye gaze behavior, but only during linguistic processing. Journal of Cognition and Culture, 10, 39−58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huettig, F., Rommers, J. & Meyer, A. (2011). Using the visual world paradigm to study language processing: a review and critical evaluation. Acta Psychologica, 137, 151−171.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Imai, M. & Mazuka, R. (2003). Re-evaluation of linguistic relativity: language-specific categories and the role of universal ontological knowledge in the construal of individuation. In Gentner, D. & Goldin-Meadow, S. (eds.), Language in mind: advances in the issues of language and thought (pp. 430−464). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. (2008). Cognitive Grammar: a basic introduction. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, S. (2003). Space in language and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lucy, J. (1992). Grammatical categories and cognition: a case study of the linguistic relativity hypothesis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lucy, J. (1996). The scope of linguistic relativity: an analysis and review of empirical research. In Gumperz, J. & Levinson, S. (eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity (pp. 37−69). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lucy, J. (2011). Language and cognition: the view of anthropology. In Cook, V. & Bassetti, B. (eds.), Language and bilingual cognition (pp. 43−68). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Lucy, J. & Gaskins, S. (2001). Grammatical categories and the development of classification preferences: a comparative approach. In Levinson, S. & Bowerman, M. (eds.), Language acquisition and conceptual development (pp. 257−283). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lucy, J. & Gaskins, S. (2003). Interaction of language type and referent type in the development of nonverbal classification preferences. In Gentner, D. & Goldin-Meadow, S. (eds.), Language in mind: advances in the study of language and thought (pp. 465−492). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Majid, A., Boster, J. S. & Bowerman, M. (2008). The cross-linguistic categorization of everyday events: a study of cutting and breaking. Cognition, 109 (2), 235−250.Google Scholar
Meyer, A., Sleiderink, A. & Levelt, W. (1998). Viewing and naming objects: eye movements during noun phrase production. Cognition, 66, 25–33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Papafragou, A., Hulbert, J. & Trueswell, J. (2008). Does language guide event perception? Evidence from eye movements. Cognition, 108 (1), 155–184.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. & Selimis, S. (2010). Event categorization and language: a cross-linguistic study of motion. Language and Cognitive Processes, 25 (2), 224−260.Google Scholar
Pavlenko, A. (ed.) (2011) Thinking and speaking in two languages. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Rayner, K. (2009). Eye movements and attention in reading, scene perception and visual search. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62 (8), 1457−1506.Google Scholar
Schmiedtová, B. (2011). Do L2 speakers think in the L1 when speaking in the L2? VIAL International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 8, 138–179.Google Scholar
Schmiedtová, B., von Stutterheim, C. & Carroll, M. (2011). Implications of language-specific patterns in event construal of advanced L2 speakers. In Pavlenko, A. (ed.), Thinking and speaking in two languages (pp. 66−107). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.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
Slobin, D. (2006). What makes manner of motion salient? Explorations in linguistic typology, discourse, and cognition. In Hickmann, M. & Robert, S. (eds.), Space in languages: linguistic systems and cognitive categories (pp. 59−81). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Smith, C. (1991). The parameter of aspect. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soroli, E. & Hickmann, M. (2010). Language and spatial representations in French and in English: evidence from eye-movements. In Marotta, G., Lenci, A., Meini, L. & Rovai, F. (eds.), Space in language (pp. 581–597).Pisa: Editrice Testi Scientifici.Google Scholar
von Stutterheim, C. & Carroll, M. (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). Georgetown: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
von Stutterheim, C., Andermann, M., Carroll, M., Flecken, M. & Schmiedtová, B. (2012). How grammaticized concepts shape event conceptualization in language production: insights from linguistic analysis, eye tracking data, and memory performance. Linguistics, 50 (4), 833−867.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Talmy, L. (1985). Lexicalization patterns: semantic structure in lexical forms. In Shopen, T. (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description (Vol. 3, Grammatical categories and the lexicon, pp. 57−149). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a cognitive semantics (Vol. II, Typology and process in concept structuring). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Thierry, G., Athanasopoulos, P., Wiggett, A., Dering, B. & Kuipers, J. R. (2009). Unconscious effects of language-specific terminology on pre-attentive color perception. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106 (11), 4567–4570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trueswell, J. & Papafragou, A. (2010). Perceiving and remembering events cross-linguistically: evidence from dual-task paradigms. Journal of Memory and Language, 63, 64−82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar