The aim of this study is to test whether balanced English-Spanish bilingual speakers behave like monolinguals in each of their languages when describing and remembering complex motion events. The semantic domain in question is motion, because some components (namely the manner of motion) are more difficult to lexicalize in Spanish than in English because of typological constraints (see Filipovic´, 2007;Slobin, 1996Slobin, , 1997Talmy, 1985). As a result, performance on a recognition task involving motion verbs could be expected to vary depending on the language used in the experiment. English and Spanish monolinguals and bilinguals performed the recognition task. Results from the monolinguals indicate that there is a language effect based on this typological difference. Specifically, English monolingual speakers performed significantly better than their Spanish peers in the recognition task in both of our conditions, i.e., with verbalization and without verbalization. The bilingual results on the other hand strongly suggest that these speakers tend to adhere to a single lexicalization pattern that is acceptable in both languages, which is the Spanish one in this case. We discuss further implications of these results for language processing and for memory of motion events in general.

We propose a new model of second language acquisition consisting of multiple interacting principles and inspired by work on complex adaptive systems. The model is referred to as CASP, short for complex adaptive system principles for second language acquisition. It is informed by a broad range of linguistic and psycholinguistic research and supported empirically by recent second language research studies based on a learner corpus. The novelty of our model lies in the definitions that we propose for a number of general and specific principles of learning, in the interactions that we demonstrate between them, in the predictions that we make and illustrate empirically, and in our integration of research findings from numerous areas of the language sciences. The result is a broadly based theory of SLA, which can potentially solve some of the traditional puzzles in this field, e.g., involving when transfer from an L1 does and does not occur

Aims and objectives/purpose/research question: This paper’s objective is to offer new insights into the effects of language on memory for causation events in a second language (L2) context. The research was driven by the question of whether proficient L2 users acquired L2 thinking-for-speaking-and-remembering strategies along with the relevant expressions for different types of causation (intentional versus non-intentional). Design/methodology/approach: The cognitive domain of causation is an ideal platform for this investigation, since the lexicalisation of causation differs clearly in the two languages under consideration, English and Spanish. Spanish speakers always distinguish between intentional and non-intentional events through the use of different constructions. The English pattern of lexicalisation in this domain often leaves intentionality unspecified. Our methodology involves an experimental elicitation of event verbalisations and recall memory responses to video stimuli by English and Spanish monolinguals and bilinguals. Data and analysis: The analysis has shown that the Spanish monolinguals and first language (L1) Spanish/L2 English speakers always distinguished between intentional and non-intentional events, while the English monolinguals and L1 English/L2 Spanish speakers generally used expressions that were underspecified with regard to intentionality. Findings/conclusions: All populations used their habitual language patterns as an aid to memory. Spanish monolingual had better recall than their English peers. L2 speakers were mainly relying on the L1 in spite of speaking only the L2 during the experiment. Originality: Possible effects of these typological differences between an L1 and an L2 on speaker recall memory have not been investigated before. Significance/implications: The research presented in this paper informs the theoretical assumptions related to the thinking-for-speaking hypothesis by showing empirically that late bilinguals adhere to their L1 patterns as an aid to memory while speaking in their L2. This novel finding contributes to an improved understanding of language processing and language use among late bilinguals

Can witness memory be different for speakers of different languages? English and Spanish differ significantly in the expression of causal intentionality, and this study explores the possibility that the systematic ambiguity of English causation constructions (e.g. ‘She dropped the keys’) detracts from memory of intentionality in causation events, while the consistent tendency to differentiate intentional from non-intentional events in Spanish can result in an advantage for memory. Results from a recall memory experiment suggest that the language-guided habit of paying explicit linguistic attention to this distinction in Spanish positively affects witness memory, while the lack of pressure to explicitly determine intentionality in expressions of causation in English conditions diminishes recall for this component in causation events. The results of this empirical study are placed in the context of their relevance for: a) access to justice in multilingual investigative interviewing and b) more efficient obtaining of information in translation assisted communication and c) methodological advances in forensic linguistics and related academic and professional areas.

Aims and objectives/purpose/research question:We propose a model that captures general patterns in bilingual language processing, based on empirical evidence elicited in a variety of experimental studies. We begin by considering what linguistic outputs are logically possible when bilingual speakers communicate based on the typological features of two languages in the bilingual mind. Our aim is to explain why some outputs are more frequent or more likely than others in bilingual language use. Design/methodology/approach: Our empirically derived multi-factor model combines insights from various empirical studies of different bilingual populations and it includes a variety of methodologies and approaches, such as lexical categorisation, lexical priming, syntactic priming, event verbalisation and memory, historical language change, grammaticality judgments and observational reports. Data and analysis: We critically discuss both lexical and syntactic processing data, as well as data that reflect bilingual type differences and different communicative situations (i.e. who the bilingual speakers are talking to and for what purpose). Crucially, we explain when the relevant factors collaborate and when they compete. Originality: There are three main reasons why this paper can be deemed original: 1) it offers a unified model for understanding bilingual language processing that is not focused on a single factor or a single linguistic level, as has most often been the case in the past; 2) it brings together the study of bilingualism from both psycholinguistic and sociolinguistic perspectives and in a unifying fashion, which is rare in the literature; and 3) it creates a platform for testing numerous predictions that are not dependent on any one theory. Significance/implications: This new model opens up new avenues for research into bilingual language processing for all types of bilingual speakers and in different communicative situations. It captures and explains the variety of outputs in bilingual communication and enables us to make predictions about communicative outcomes.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract