1887
Volume 4, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2542-3835
  • E-ISSN: 2542-3843
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This study explores conceptual meaning in the construal of distinct temporal concepts by L1 Italian speakers, and considers the possibility that L1 constrained perspectives may influence the L2 English production of these speakers in the form of Conceptual Transfer (CT). Adopting a Cognitive Linguistics framework, reports are used as a data collection technique capable of accessing the meanings that both L1 Italian and L1 English speakers seek to convey in relation to the target concepts in English. Analysis of the reports revealed distinctly different approaches by the two language groups in the construal of these concepts. Results of this initial exploratory study point to cross-linguistic difference in the temporal meanings expressed, a role for L1 constrained construal in second language acquisition, the potential for CT based on this and the potency of reports in revealing this and other relevant factors.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/jsls.19016.aus
2021-04-16
2021-05-06
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Bertinetto, P. M.
    (1991) Il verbo. In: Renzo, L. & Salvi, G. (1991) (Ed.), Grande grammatica di consultazione: Volume 2. Bologna: Il Mulino.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Bertinetto, P. M. & Squartrini, M.
    (1996) La distribuzione del Perfetto Semplice e del Perfetto Composto nelle diverse varieta’ di italiano. Romance Philiology49,4, 383–419.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Bowles, M. A.
    (2010) The think aloud controversy in second language acquisition. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203856338
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203856338 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bylund, E. & Jarvis, S.
    (2011) L2 effects on L1 event conceptualisation. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition14(1), 47–59. 10.1017/S1366728910000180
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728910000180 [Google Scholar]
  5. Bylund, E. & Athanasopoulos, P.
    (2014) Linguistic relativity in SLA: Toward a new research program. Language Learning, 64, 952–985. doi:  10.1016/0010‑0285(81)90008‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(81)90008-6 [Google Scholar]
  6. Carroll, M. & von Stutterheim, C.
    (2003) Typology and information organisation: perspective taking and language-specific effects in the construal of events. In: Giacalone-Ramat, A. (Ed) Typology and Second Language Acquisition. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 66–97.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Collins, L.
    (2007) L1 differences and L2 similarities: teaching verb tenses in English. ELT Journal, 61 (4), 295–303. doi:  10.1093/elt/ccm048
    https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccm048 [Google Scholar]
  8. Croft, W.
    (2001) Radical Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  9. Croft, W. & Cruse, D. A.
    (2004) Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511803864
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511803864 [Google Scholar]
  10. de Swart, H.
    (2007) A cross-linguistic discourse analysis of the Perfect. Journal of Pragmatics, 39, 2273–2307. 10.1016/j.pragma.2006.11.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2006.11.006 [Google Scholar]
  11. Ericsson, K. A. & Simon, H. A.
    (1993) Protocol Analysis: verbal reports as data. London: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/5657.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/5657.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  12. Fuster, C. & Neuser, H.
    (2019) Exploring intentionality in lexical transfer. International Journal of Multilingualism. doi:  10.1080/14790718.2018.1559845
    https://doi.org/10.1080/14790718.2018.1559845 [Google Scholar]
  13. Gass, S. M. , & Selinker, L.
    (2008) Second language acquisition: An introductory course. New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203932841
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203932841 [Google Scholar]
  14. Güss, C. D.
    (2018) What Is Going Through Your Mind? Thinking Aloud as a Method in Cross-Cultural Psychology. Frontiers in Psychology. 9, 1–11. 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01292
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01292 [Google Scholar]
  15. Jarvis, S.
    (2007) Theoretical and methodological issues in the investigation of conceptual transfer. Vigo International Journal of Applied Linguisitcs, 4, 43–71.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. (2011) Conceptual Transfer: Crosslinguistic effects in event construal. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 14(1), 1–8. 10.1017/S1366728910000155
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728910000155 [Google Scholar]
  17. (2016) Clarifying the scope of conceptual transfer. Language Learning, 66(3), 608–635. 10.1111/lang.12154
    https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12154 [Google Scholar]
  18. Jessner, U.
    (2006) Linguistic awareness in multilinguals: English as a third language. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Pres. 10.3366/edinburgh/9780748619139.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.3366/edinburgh/9780748619139.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  19. Langacker, R. W.
    (1991) The foundations of cognitive grammar. Stanford: Stamford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Leech, G.
    (1998) Meaning and the English Verb. Longman: London.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Levelt, W. J. M.
    (1989) Speaking: from intention to articulation. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Li, P. & Shirai, Y.
    (2000) The Acquisition of Lexical and Grammatical Aspect. Mouton de Gruyter: Berlin. 10.1515/9783110800715
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110800715 [Google Scholar]
  23. Lott, D.
    (1983) Analysing and counteracting interference errors. ELT Journal. 7(3) 256–261. 10.1093/elt/37.3.256
    https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/37.3.256 [Google Scholar]
  24. Michaelis, L. A.
    (2004) Type Shifting in construction grammar: An integrated approach to aspectual coercion. Cognitive Linguistics. 15,1,1–67. 10.1515/cogl.2004.001
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2004.001 [Google Scholar]
  25. (2006) Time and Tense. In: Aarts, B. & McMahon, A. The Handbook of English Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Odlin, T.
    (2005) Crosslinguistic Influence and Conceptual Transfer: What are the concepts?Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 25, 3–25. 10.1017/S0267190505000012
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190505000012 [Google Scholar]
  27. Pavlenko, A. & Jarvis, S.
    (2008) Cross-linguistic influence in language and cognition. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Raitasalo, K. , Knibbe, R. & Kraus, L.
    (2005) Retrieval strategies and cultural differences in answering survey questions on drinking: A cross-national comparison. Addiction Research and Theory, l3, 4, 359–372. 10.1080/1606635042000334179
    https://doi.org/10.1080/1606635042000334179 [Google Scholar]
  29. Rosch, E. H.
    (1973) “Natural categories” Cognitive Psychology, 4(3), 328–350. 10.1016/0010‑0285(73)90017‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(73)90017-0 [Google Scholar]
  30. Schmiedtová, B.
    (2013) Traces of L1 patterns in the event construal of Czech advanced speakers of L2 English and L2 German. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching51, 2, 87–116. 10.1515/iral‑2013‑0005
    https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2013-0005 [Google Scholar]
  31. Schmiedtová, B. , von Stutterheim, C. & Carroll, M.
    (2011) Language specific patterns in event construal of advanced second language learners. InThinking and Speaking in two languages. Pavlenko, A. (Ed) Bristol: Multilingual Matters. 66–107. 10.21832/9781847693389‑005
    https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847693389-005 [Google Scholar]
  32. Selinker, L.
    (1972) “Interlanguage”. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 10, 209–241. 10.1515/iral.1972.10.1‑4.209
    https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.1972.10.1-4.209 [Google Scholar]
  33. Slobin, D. I.
    (1996) From “thought and language” to “thinking for speaking”. In: Gumperz, J. J. and Levinson, S. J. (1996) (Eds) Rethinking Linguistic Relativity. Studies in the Social and Cultural Foundations of Language 17. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 70–96.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Thierry, G.
    (2016) Neurolinguistic Relativity: How Language Flexes Human Perception and Cognition. Language Learning, 66,3, 690–713. doi:  10.1111/lang.12186
    https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12186 [Google Scholar]
  35. Tullock, B. D. & Fernandez-villanueva, M.
    (2013) The role of previously learned languages in the thought processes of multilingual writers at the Deutsche Schule Barcelona. Research in the Teaching of English, 47, 4, 420–441.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Von Stutterheim, C. & Nuse, R.
    (2003) Processes of conceptualisation in language production: language – specific perspectives and event construal. Linguistics. 41(5), 851–881.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. von Stutterheim, C. , Andermann, M. , Carroll, M. , Flecken, M. & Schmiedtová, B.
    (2012) How grammaticized concepts shape event conceptualization in language production: Insights from linguistic analyses, eye tracking data, and memory performance. Linguistics, 50, 833–867. 10.1515/ling‑2012‑0026
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2012-0026 [Google Scholar]
  38. Winford, D.
    (2003) An introduction to contact linguistics. Blackwell: Oxford.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/jsls.19016.aus
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/jsls.19016.aus
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error