1887
Volume 22, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1387-6759
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9897
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Motion event construal gives insight into the nature of the linguistic and conceptual representations underlying the encoding of events. Studies show that event descriptions differ cross-linguistically due to, amongst other factors, the absence or presence of grammatical aspect. While speakers of aspect languages generally focus on the process, speakers of non-aspect languages tend to perceive the event holistically and focus on endpoints. This investigation examines visual as a further factor that shapes event encoding. Thus, in this model, grammatical aspect is seen as a part of a more complex system of factors that determine event construal. The analyses, which cover German speakers, English speakers, and German-speaking learners of English, involve linguistic production data and results from memory performance tests. The findings show that the focus on endpoints increases for salient stimuli. While German speakers and learners of English show a tendency to focus on endpoints, a clear preference for focusing on the process can be observed in English speakers. Verbalizing endpoints correlates with the ability to remember them in a memorization task. The implications of these outcomes are discussed in the context of two factors which shape event encoding: grammatical aspect and endpoint salience.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/lic.21005.zay
2021-12-07
2022-05-20
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Athanasopoulos, P. and Bylund, E.
    2012 Does Grammatical Aspect Affect Motion Event Cognition? A Cross-Linguistic Comparison of English and Swedish Speakers. Cognitive Science37(2): 286–309. 10.1111/cogs.12006
    https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12006 [Google Scholar]
  2. Attardo, S.
    2000 Irony as Relevant Inappropriateness. Journal of Pragmatics32(6): 793–826. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(99)00070‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00070-3 [Google Scholar]
  3. Bepperling, S. and Härtl, H.
    2013 Ereigniskonzeptualisierung im Zweitspracherwerb ― Thinking for Speaking im Vergleich von Muttersprachlern und Lernern. Zeitschrift für Semiotik35(1–2): 159–191.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Bernabeu, P. and Tillman, R.
    2019 More Refined Typology and Design in Linguistic Relativity: The Case of Motion Event Encoding. Dutch Journal of Applied Linguistics8(2): 163–171. 10.1075/dujal.15019.ber
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dujal.15019.ber [Google Scholar]
  5. Bylund, E., Athanasopoulos, P. and Oostendorp, M.
    2013 Motion Event Cognition and Grammatical Aspect: Evidence from Afrikaans. Linguistics51(5): 929–955. 10.1515/ling‑2013‑0033
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2013-0033 [Google Scholar]
  6. Cardini, F.
    2010 Evidence against Whorfian Effects in Motion Conceptualisation. Journal of Pragmatics42: 1442–1459. 10.1016/j.pragma.2009.09.017
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.09.017 [Google Scholar]
  7. Chen, T., Xu, M., Tu, J., Wang, H. and Niu, X.
    2018 Relationship between Omnibus and Post-hoc Tests: An Investigation of Performance of the F Test in ANOVA. Shanghai Arch Psychiatry30(1): 60–64.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Do, M. L., Papafragou, A. and Trueswell, J.
    2020 Cognitive and Pragmatic Factors in Language Production: Evidence from Source-Goal Motion Events. Cognition205: 1–62. 10.1016/j.cognition.2020.104447
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2020.104447 [Google Scholar]
  9. Engemann, H., Hendriks, H., Hickmann, M., Soroli, E. and Vincent, C.
    2015 How Language Impacts Memory of Motion Events in English and French. Cognitive Processing16(1): 209–213. 10.1007/s10339‑015‑0696‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-015-0696-7 [Google Scholar]
  10. Feinmann, D.
    2019 Language and Thought in the Motion Domain: Methodological Considerations and New Empirical Evidence. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research49(1): 1–29. 10.1007/s10936‑019‑09668‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-019-09668-5 [Google Scholar]
  11. Filipović, L.
    2009 Motion Events in Eyewitness Interviews, Translation and Memory: Typological and Psycholinguistic Perspectives. Language and Linguistics Compass3(1): 300–313. 10.1111/j.1749‑818X.2008.00115.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2008.00115.x [Google Scholar]
  12. 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. 10.1177/1367006911403062
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1367006911403062 [Google Scholar]
  13. Filipović, L. and Geva, S.
    2012 Language-Specific Effects on Lexicalization and Memory of Motion Events. InSpace and Time in Languages and Cultures: Language, Culture, and Cognition, L. Filipović and K. M. Jaszczolt (eds), 269–282. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.37.18fil
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.37.18fil [Google Scholar]
  14. Flecken, M.
    (ed.) 2010Event Conceptualization in Language Production of Early Bilinguals. Nijmegen: Netherlands Graduate School of Linguistics.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Flecken, M., Carroll, M., Weimar, K. and von Stutterheim, C.
    2015 Driving along the Road or Heading for the Village? Conceptual Differences Underlying Motion Event Encoding in French, German, and French–German L2 Users. The Modern Language Journal99(S1): 100–122. 10.1111/j.1540‑4781.2015.12181.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2015.12181.x [Google Scholar]
  16. Flecken, M., von Stutterheim, C. and Carroll, M.
    2014 Grammatical Aspect Influences Motion Event Perception: Evidence from a Cross-Linguistic Non-Verbal Recognition Task. Language and Cognition6(1): 45–78.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Georgakopoulos, T. and Härtl, H.
    2020 Goal Prevalence and Situation Types: An Empirical Analysis of Differences in Greek and German Motion Event Descriptions. InTheoretical Approaches to Contrastive Linguistics. Morphological and Syntactic Perspectives, M. Georgiafentis, G. Giannoulopoulou, M. Koliopoulou and A. Tsokoglou (eds), 262–280. London: Bloomsbury Academic. 10.5040/9781350079212.0024
    https://doi.org/10.5040/9781350079212.0024 [Google Scholar]
  18. Georgakopoulos, T., Härtl, H. and Sioupi, A.
    2019 Goal Realization: An Empirically Based Comparison between English, German and Greek. Languages in Contrast19(2): 280–309. 10.1075/lic.17010.geo
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.17010.geo [Google Scholar]
  19. Griffin, Z. and Bock, K.
    2000 What the Eyes Say about Speaking. Psychological Science11: 274–279. 10.1111/1467‑9280.00255
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00255 [Google Scholar]
  20. Hsu, J. C.
    (ed.) 1996Multiple Comparisons: Theory and Methods. Boca Raton: Chapman & Hall.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Johanson, M. and Papafragou, A.
    2010 Universality and Language Specificity in the Acquisition of Path Vocabulary. Paper presented at the 34th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (BUCLD 34). Boston University, USA, 6–8November 2009.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Lakusta, L. and DiFabrizio, S.
    2017 And, the Winner is… A Visual Preference for Endpoints over Starting Points in Infants’ Motion Event Representations. Infancy22(3): 323–343. 10.1111/infa.12153
    https://doi.org/10.1111/infa.12153 [Google Scholar]
  23. Lakusta, L. and Landau, B.
    2012 Language and Memory for Motion Events: Origins of the Asymmetry between Source and Goal Paths. Cognitive Science36(3): 517–544. 10.1111/j.1551‑6709.2011.01220.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2011.01220.x [Google Scholar]
  24. 2005 Starting at the End: The Importance of Goals in Spatial Language. Cognition96(1): 1–33. 10.1016/j.cognition.2004.03.009
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2004.03.009 [Google Scholar]
  25. Lakusta, L., Wagner, L., O’Hearn, K. and Landau, B.
    2007 Conceptual Foundations of Spatial Language: Evidence for a Goal Bias in Infants. Language Learning and Development3(3): 179–197. 10.1080/15475440701360168
    https://doi.org/10.1080/15475440701360168 [Google Scholar]
  26. Langacker, R.
    (ed.) 2008Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  27. Liao, Y., Flecken, M., Dijkstra, K. and Zwaan, R. A.
    2019 Going Places in Dutch and Mandarin Chinese: Conceptualising the Path of Motion Cross-Linguistically. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience35(4): 498–520. 10.1080/23273798.2019.1676455
    https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2019.1676455 [Google Scholar]
  28. Mertins, B.
    (ed.) 2018Sprache und Kognition: Ereigniskonzeptualisierung im Deutschen und Tschechischen. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110615746
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110615746 [Google Scholar]
  29. Meyer, A. S. and Van der Meulen, F. F.
    2000 Phonological Priming Effects on Speech Onset Latencies and Viewing Times in Object Naming. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review7(2): 314–319. 10.3758/BF03212987
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03212987 [Google Scholar]
  30. Papafragou, A., Massey, C. and Gleitman, L.
    2002 Shake, Rattle, ‘n’ Roll: The Representation of Motion in Language and Cognition. Cognition84(2): 189–219. 10.1016/S0010‑0277(02)00046‑X
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(02)00046-X [Google Scholar]
  31. Purschke, C.
    2014 “I Remember it like it was Interesting”: Zur Theorie von Salienz und Pertinenz. Linguistik Online66(4/14): 31–50. 10.13092/lo.66.1571
    https://doi.org/10.13092/lo.66.1571 [Google Scholar]
  32. Rácz, P.
    2012 Operationalising Salience: Definite Article Reduction in the North of England. English Language and Linguistics16(1): 57–79. 10.1017/S1360674311000281
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674311000281 [Google Scholar]
  33. Regier, T. and Zheng, M.
    2007 Attention to Endpoints: A Cross-Linguistic Constraint on Spatial Meaning. Cognitive Science31(4): 705–719. 10.1080/15326900701399954
    https://doi.org/10.1080/15326900701399954 [Google Scholar]
  34. Schmiedtová, B., von Stutterheim, C. and Carroll, M.
    2011 Language-Specific Patterns in Event Construal of Advanced Second Language Speakers. InThinking and Speaking in Two Languages, A. Pavlenko (ed.), 66–107. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. 10.21832/9781847693389‑005
    https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847693389-005 [Google Scholar]
  35. Skordos, D., Bunger, A., Richards, C., Selimis, S., Trueswell, J. and Papafragou, A.
    2019 Motion Verbs and Memory for Motion Events. Cognitive Neuropsychology37(5–6): 254–270. 10.1080/02643294.2019.1685480
    https://doi.org/10.1080/02643294.2019.1685480 [Google Scholar]
  36. Slobin, D. I.
    2003 Language and Thought Online: Cognitive Consequences of Linguistic Relativity. InLanguage in Mind: Advances in the Study of Language and Thought, D. Gentner and S. Goldin-Meadow (eds), 157–192. Cambridge: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Stefanowitsch, A. and Rohde, A.
    2004 The Goal Bias in the Encoding of Motion Events. InStudies in Linguistic Motivation, G. Radden and K.-U. Panther (eds), 249–268. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Talmy, L.
    (ed.) 2000Toward a Cognitive Semantics, Vol. II: Typology and Process in Concept Structuring. Cambridge: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Von Stutterheim, C.
    2003 Linguistic Structure and Information Organisation: The Case of very Advanced Learners. EuroSLA Yearbook3(1): 183–206. 10.1075/eurosla.3.11stu
    https://doi.org/10.1075/eurosla.3.11stu [Google Scholar]
  40. Von Stutterheim, C., Andermann, M., Carroll, M., Flecken, M. and Schmiedtová, B.
    2012 How Grammaticized Concepts Shape Event Conceptualization in Language Production: Insights from Linguistic Analysis, Eye Tracking Data, and Memory Performance. Linguistics50(4): 833–867. 10.1515/ling‑2012‑0026
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2012-0026 [Google Scholar]
  41. Von Stutterheim, C., Carroll, M. and Klein, W.
    2009 New Perspectives in Analyzing Aspectual Distinctions across Languages. InThe Expression of Time, W. Klein and P. Li (eds), 195–216. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Von Stutterheim, C. and Lambert, M.
    2005 Cross-Linguistic Analysis of Temporal Perspectives in Text Production. InThe Structure of Learner Varieties, H. Hendriks (ed.), 203–230. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110909593.203
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110909593.203 [Google Scholar]
  43. Von Stutterheim, C. and Nüse, R.
    2003 Processes of Conceptualization in Language Production: Language-Specific Perspectives and Event Construal. Linguistics41(5): 851–881. 10.1515/ling.2003.028
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2003.028 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/lic.21005.zay
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/lic.21005.zay
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): English/German; grammatical aspect; motion events; visual endpoint salience
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