Volume 17, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1387-6759
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9897
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes


In this paper we introduce and outline a new research area, Applied Language Typology (ALT). ALT builds on fundamental typological findings in morphology, syntax and semantics. ALT examines the attested and potential practical consequences of these contrasts for different professional contexts of communication, such as translation, the law and second language learning and teaching. We propose three general organising principles that underlie ALT, illustrating how these principles enable us to identify exact points of language contrasts that result in significant practical difficulty, and we suggest future directions in ALT research for the benefit of academics and language practitioners.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Aikhenvald, A. Y.
    2004Evidentiality. New York: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Aikhenvald, A. Y. and R. M. W. Dixon
    (eds.) 2003Studies in Evidentiality [Typological studies in language, vol.54]. Amsterdam: Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tsl.54
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.54 [Google Scholar]
  3. Aikhenvald, A. Y.
    2003 Evidentiality in typological perspective. In A. Y. Aikhenvald and R. M. W. Dixon (eds.), Studies in Evidentiality [Typological studies in language, vol.54]. 33–62. Amsterdam: Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tsl.54.04aik
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.54.04aik [Google Scholar]
  4. Athanasopoulos, P. and Bylund, E.
    2013 Does grammatical aspect affect motion event cognition? A cross-linguistic comparison of English and Swedish speakers. Cognitive Science37: 286–309. doi: 10.1111/cogs.12006
    https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12006 [Google Scholar]
  5. Cadierno, T.
    2008 Motion events in Danish and Spanish: A focus on form pedagogical approach. InCognitive Approaches to Pedagogical Grammar, S. De Knop and T. de Rycker (eds.), 259–294. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Cadierno, T. and Robinson, P.
    2009 Language typology, task complexity and the development of L2 lexicalisation patterns for describing motion events. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics7: 246–277. doi: 10.1075/arcl.7.10cad
    https://doi.org/10.1075/arcl.7.10cad [Google Scholar]
  7. Comrie, B.
    1989Language Universals and Linguistic Typology (2nd edition). Chicago: Chicago University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Croft, W.
    2003Typology and Universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Crosthwaite, P. R.
    2014 Definite discourse-new reference in L1 and L2: A study of bridging in Mandarin, Korean, and English. Language Learning64 (3): 456–492. doi: 10.1111/lang.12062
    https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12062 [Google Scholar]
  10. Csató, É. Á.
    2009Rendering Evidential Meanings in Turkish and Swedish. In Turcological Letters to Bernt Brendemoen [The Institute for Comparative Research in Human Culture Oslo Serie B: Skrifter 132], É. Á. Csató , G. Ims , J. Parslow , F. Thiesen and E. Türker (eds.), 77–86. Oslo: Novus.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Dryer, M.
    1992 The Greenbergian word order correlations. Language68: 81–138. doi: 10.1353/lan.1992.0028
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1992.0028 [Google Scholar]
  12. Fausey, C. M. and Boroditsky, L.
    2010 Subtle linguistic cues influence perceived blame and financial liability. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review17(5): 644–650. doi: 10.3758/PBR.17.5.644
    https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.17.5.644 [Google Scholar]
  13. 2011 Who dunnit? Cross-linguistic differences in eye-witness memory. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review18 (1): 150–157. doi: 10.3758/s13423‑010‑0021‑5
    https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-010-0021-5 [Google Scholar]
  14. Filipović, L.
    1999 Language-specific Expression of Motion and its Use in Narrative Texts. Master’s dissertation, University of Cambridge.
  15. 2002 Verbs of Motion: Structural Perspectives. PhD Thesis, University of Cambridge.
  16. 2006 Weaving the web of meaning. Languages in Contrast6 (1): 151–175. doi: 10.1075/lic.6.1.06fil
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.6.1.06fil [Google Scholar]
  17. 2007a Talking about Motion: A Crosslinguistic Investigation of Lexicalization Patterns. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/slcs.91
  18. 2007b Language as a witness: Insights from cognitive linguistics. Speech, Language and the Law14 (2): 245–267.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. 2008 Typology in action: Applying insights from typological contrasts. International Journal of Applied Linguistics18 (1): 42–61. doi: 10.1111/j.1473‑4192.2008.00189.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-4192.2008.00189.x [Google Scholar]
  20. 2009 Motion events in semantic typology and eyewitness interviews. Language and Linguistics Compass3(1): 300–313. doi: 10.1111/j.1749‑818X.2008.00115.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2008.00115.x [Google Scholar]
  21. 2010a Typology meets witness narratives and memory: Theory and practice entwined in cognitive linguistics. InCognitive Linguistics in Action: Theory to Application and Back, E. Tabakowska , M. Choinski and L. Wiraszka (eds.), 269–291. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. 2010b The importance of being a prefix. InSlavic Verbs of Motion, V. D. Hasko and R. Perelmutter (eds.), 247–266. Amsterdam: Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/slcs.115.15fil
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.115.15fil [Google Scholar]
  23. 2011 Speaking and remembering in one or two languages: Bilingual vs. monolingual lexicalization and memory for motion events. International Journal of Bilingualism15 (4): 466–485. doi: 10.1177/1367006911403062
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1367006911403062 [Google Scholar]
  24. 2013b Typology as a continuum: Intratypological evidence from English and Serbo-Croatian. InVariation and Change in the Encoding of Motion Events [Human Cognitive Processing Series 41], J. Goschler and A. Stefanowitsch (eds.), 17–38. Amsterdam: Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/hcp.41.01fil
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.41.01fil [Google Scholar]
  25. 2013a Constructing causation in language and memory: Implications for access to justice in multilingual interactions. International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law20 (1): 1–19. doi: 10.1558/ijsll.v20i1.1
    https://doi.org/10.1558/ijsll.v20i1.1 [Google Scholar]
  26. 2013c The role of language in legal contexts: A forensic cross-linguistic viewpoint. InLaw and Language [Current Legal Issues 15], M. Freeman and F. Smith (eds.), 328–343. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199673667.003.0167
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199673667.003.0167 [Google Scholar]
  27. 2017 Applying language typology: Practical applications of research on typological contrasts between languages. InMotion and Space across Languages and Applications [Human Cognitive Processing Series], I. Ibarretxe-Antuñano (ed.), 399–418. Amsterdam: Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/hcp.59.16fil
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.59.16fil [Google Scholar]
  28. 2016 Speaking in L2 but thinking in L1: Language-specific effects on memory for causation events in English and Spanish. International Journal of Bilingualism. doi: 10.1177/1367006916661636
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1367006916661636 [Google Scholar]
  29. Filipović, L. and Hawkins, J. A.
    2013 Multiple factors in second language acquisition: The CASP model. Linguistics51 (1): 145–176. doi: 10.1515/ling‑2013‑0005
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2013-0005 [Google Scholar]
  30. Filipović, L. and Ibarretxe-Antuñano, I.
    2015 Motion. InHandbook of Cognitive Linguistics [Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Science 39], E. Dabrowska and D. Divjak (eds.), 526–545. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110292022‑026
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110292022-026 [Google Scholar]
  31. Filipović, L. and Vidaković, I.
    2010 Typology in the L2 classroom: Second language acquisition from a typological perspective. InInside the Learner’s Mind: Cognitive Processing in Second Language Acquisition, M. Pütz and L. Sicola (eds.), 269–291. Amsterdam: Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/celcr.13.19fil
    https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.13.19fil [Google Scholar]
  32. Gilquin, G.
    2008 Combining contrastive and interlanguage analysis to apprehend transfer: detection, explanation, evaluation. InLinking up Contrastive and Learner Corpus Research, G. Gilquin , S. Papp and M. B. Díez-Bedmar (eds), 3–34. Amsterdam/New York: Rodopi. doi: 10.1163/9789401206204_002
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789401206204_002 [Google Scholar]
  33. Givón, T.
    2009Mind, Code and Context: Essays in Pragmatics. New York: Psychology Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Greenberg, J. H.
    1963 Some universals of grammar with particular reference to order of meaningful elements. InUniversals of Language, J. H. Greenberg (ed.), 73–113. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. 1966 Language Universals with Special Reference to Feature Hierarchies. The Hague: Mouton.
  36. Hasko, V. D.
    2010 The role of thinking for speaking in adult L2 speech: The case of (non)unidirectionality encoding by American learners of Russian. InLinguistic Relativity in SLA: Thinking for Speaking, T. Cadierno and Z. -H. Han (eds.), 34–58. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Hawkins, E.
    1984 Awareness of Language: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  38. Hawkins, J. A.
    1983Word Order Universals. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Hawkins, J.
    1986 The Comparative Typology of English and German: Unifying the Contrasts. London and Sydney: Croom Helm.
  40. Hawkins, J. A.
    1994A Performance Theory of Order and Constituency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. 2004Efficiency and Complexity in Grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199252695.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199252695.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  42. 2014Cross-linguistic Variation and Efficiency. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199664993.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199664993.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  43. 2015 Patterns in competing motivations and the interaction of principles. InCompeting Motivations in Grammar and Usage, B. MacWhinney , A. Malchukov and E. Moravcsik (eds.), 54–69. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Hawkins, J. A. and Filipović, L.
    2012 Criterial Features in L2 English: Specifying the Reference Levels of the Common European Framework. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  45. Hijazo-Gascón, A.
    2015 Acquisition of motion events in L2 Spanish by German, French and Italian speakers. Language Learning Journal. Published on line 29thJuly 2015 doi: 10.1080/09571736.2015.1046085.
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2015.1046085 [Google Scholar]
  46. Hulstijn, J.
    2015 Discussion: How different can perspectives on L2 development be?Language Learning65: 210–232. doi: 10.1111/lang.12096
    https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12096 [Google Scholar]
  47. Ibarretxe-Antuñano, I.
    2009 Path salience in motion events. InCrosslinguistic Approaches to the Psychology of Language: Research in the Tradition of Dan Isaac Slobin, J. Guo , E. Lieven , N. Budwig , S. Ervin-Tripp , K. Nakamura and S. Őzçalışkan (eds.), 403–414. NewYork: Psychology Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Ibarretxe-Antuñano, I. and Filipović, L.
    2013 Lexicalization patterns and translation. InCognitive Linguistics and Translation, A. Rojo and I. Ibarretxe-Antuñano (eds.), 253–284. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110302943.251
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110302943.251 [Google Scholar]
  49. Ibarretxe-Antuñano, I. and Hijazo-Gascón, A.
    2012 Variation in Motion Events: Theory and applications. InSpace and Time across Languages and Cultures – Volume 1: Linguistic Diversity, L. Filipović and K. M. Jaszczolt (eds), 349–371. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/hcp.36.19iba
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.36.19iba [Google Scholar]
  50. James, C.
    1990 [1980] Contrastive Analysis. Harlow: Longman.
  51. Jarvis, S. and Pavlenko, A.
    2008Crosslinguistic Influence in Language and Cognition. New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Kellerman, E.
    1983 Now you see it, now you don’t. InLanguage Transfer in Language Learning, S. Gass and L. Selinker (eds.), 112–134. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. König, E. and Gast, V.
    2007Understanding English-German Contrasts. Berlin: Erich Schmidt Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Kousta, S. T. , Vinson, D. and Vigliocco, G.
    2008 Investigating linguistic relativity through bilingualism: The case of grammatical gender. Journal of Experimental Psychology34 (4): 843–858.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Kupferberg, I. and Olshtain, E.
    1996 Explicit contrastive instruction facilitates the acquisition of difficult L2 forms. InCrosslinguistic Approaches to Language Awareness, Special Issue of Language Awareness5 (3–4): 149–165.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Lado, R.
    1957 Linguistics across Cultures: Applied Linguistics for Language Teachers. University of Michigan Press: Ann Arbor.
  57. Lai, V. T. , Garrido Rodriguez, G. and Narasimhan, B.
    2014 Thinking-for-speaking in early and late bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition17: 139–152. doi: 10.1017/S1366728913000151
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728913000151 [Google Scholar]
  58. Matthews, P. H.
    1995 Syntax, semantics, pragmatic. InGrammar and Meaning, F. Palmer (ed.), 48–60. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511620638.004
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620638.004 [Google Scholar]
  59. Mendoza-Denton, R.
    2010 Are we born racist? Inside the science of stigma, prejudice and intergroup relations. www.psychologytoday.com/blog/are-we-born-racist/201012/linguisticforensics.
  60. Moravcsik, E.
    2013Introducing Language Typology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  61. O’Grady, W.
    2015 Processing determinism. Language Learning65: 6–32 doi: 10.1111/lang.12091
    https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12091 [Google Scholar]
  62. Odlin, T.
    1989Language Transfer. New York: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139524537
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524537 [Google Scholar]
  63. Pavlenko, A.
    2014 The Bilingual Mind and What it Tells us about Language and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  64. Rhoades-Ko, Y. -H.
    2013 Second Language Acquisition of Korean Evidentiality in Expressions of Psychological State of Mind. PhD Thesis, University of Hawai’i at Manoa.
  65. Roehr, K. and Ganem-Gutierrez, G. A.
    (eds.) 2013The Metalinguistic Dimension in Instructed Second Language Learning. London: Bloomsbury
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Sapir, E.
    1921 Language: An Introduction to the Study of Speech. New York: Harcourt Brace.
  67. Slobin, D. I.
    1996 Two ways to travel: verbs of motion in English and Spanish. InGrammatical Constructions: Their Form and Meaning, M. Shibatani and S. A. Thompson (eds.), 195–220. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  68. 1997 Mind, code, and text. InEssays on Language Function and Language Type, J. Bybee , J. Haiman and S. Thompson (eds.), 437–467. Amsterdam: Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/z.82.24slo
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.82.24slo [Google Scholar]
  69. 2003 Language and thought online: Cognitive consequences of linguistic relativity. InLanguage in Mind, D. Gentner and S. Goldin-Meadow (eds.), 157–191. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  70. 2004 The many ways to search for a frog: Linguistic typology and the expression of motion events. InRelating Events in Narrative: Typological and Contextual Perspectives, S. Strömqvist and L. Verhoeven (eds.), 219–257. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  71. 2006 What makes manner of motion salient? Explorations in linguistic typology, discourse, and cognition. InSpace in Languages: Linguistic Systems and Cognitive Categories, M. Hickmann and S. Robert (eds.), 59–81. Amsterdam: Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tsl.66.05slo
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.66.05slo [Google Scholar]
  72. Soroli, E. , Sahraoui, H. and Sacchett, C.
    2012 Linguistic encoding of motion events in English and French: Typological constraints on second language acquisition and agrammatic aphasia. Language, Interaction and Acquisition3 (2): 261–287. doi: 10.1075/lia.3.2.05sor
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lia.3.2.05sor [Google Scholar]
  73. Talmy, L.
    1985 Lexicalization patterns: Semantic structure in lexical form. InLanguage Typology and Syntactic Description, Vol. 3: Grammatical Categories and the Lexicon, T. Shopen (ed.), 36–149. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  74. 2000Toward a Cognitive Semantics, Vol. 2. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  75. Tosun, S. , Vaid, J. , and Geraci, L.
    2013 Does obligatory linguistic marking of source of evidence affect source memory? A Turkish/English investigation. Journal of Memory and Language69, 121–134. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2013.03.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2013.03.004 [Google Scholar]
  76. Trudgill, P.
    2011 Sociolinguistic Typology: Social Determinants of Linguistic Complexity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  77. Trujillo, J.
    2003 The difference in resulting judgments when descriptions use high-manner versus neutral-manner verbs. Senior dissertation. University of California Berkeley
  78. Vidaković, I.
    2006 Second language acquisition of dynamic spatial relations. PhD Thesis, University of Cambridge.
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