L2 effects on L1 event conceptualization

Abstract

The finding that speakers of aspect languages encode event endpoints to a lesser extent than do speakers of non-aspect languages has led to the hypothesis that there is a relationship between grammatical aspect and event conceptualization (e.g., von Stutterheim and Nüse, 2003). The present study concerns L1 event conceptualization in 40 L1 Spanish – L2 Swedish bilinguals (all near-native speakers of Swedish). Spanish and Swedish differ as regards grammatical aspect: whereas Swedish lacks this grammatical category, Spanish conveys aspect through verbal morphology and periphrasis. The principal aim of the study was to explore the relationship between productive event conceptualization patterns and receptive decoding proficiency related to aspectual contrasts. The participants were asked to provide oral L1 Spanish descriptions of video clips projecting motion events with different degrees of endpoint orientation (see von Stutterheim, 2003). In addition, they took a grammaticality judgment test concerning verb and gender agreement, verbal clitics and aspectual contrasts. Compared with baseline data from monolingual Spanish speakers, the results on endpoint encoding show that the bilinguals mention the endpoints of motion events to a higher degree than the Spanish control group does. Moreover, it was shown that the weaker the bilinguals' discrimination of aspectual errors on the grammaticality judgment test, the more prone they were to encoding endpoints. This result consequently furthers the hypothesis about the interconnectedness between grammatical aspect and event conceptualization. The results were further interpreted as indicating that the bilinguals are influenced by the Swedish-like tendency to attend to the boundedness rather than the ongoingness of events.

Express-ability in ELF communication

“…Sociocultural and psycholinguistic research that applies Slobin's Thinking for Speaking (TFS) hypothesis to second-language contexts finds that the step from verbal thinking to externalized speech is strongly influenced by a speaker's L1 and that the organization of conceptual material for L2 expression is not only influenced, but may be hindered, by deeply entrenched L1 ways of viewing and expressing things (von Stutterheim and Nüse 2003). At the same time, there is evidence of a correlation of conceptualization patterns and proficiency with particular grammatical structures and with cognitive patterns specific to a context of communication and of a reverse L2 onto L1 transfer in early bilinguals (Bylund and Jarvis 2011).…”

Diferentes maneiras de observar eventos: o aprendizado de língua estrangeira e a aquisição de padrões de perspectivação conceitual de ações na L2

“…The effect of second language acquisition on cognitive restructuring has been carefully examined considering various influential factors, such as frequency of language use , language proficiency (Park and Ziegler, 2014), length of cultural immersion (Athanasopoulos, 2009), and age of acquisition onset (Bylund and Jarvis, 2011). For example, Bylund et al (2013) tested whether the speakers of Afrikaans (a non-aspect language) tended to encode event endpoints more than the Afrikaans L2 learners of English (an aspect language).…”

“…Bylund and Athanasopoulos, 2014) and formal tests (e.g. Jarvis, 2011(Bylund &Jarvis, 2011)). Scholars have questioned self-report surveys as valid and reliable measures of language proficiency (e.g.…”

L1 Conceptual Transfer in the Acquisition of L2 Motion Events in Spanish and English: The Thinking-for-Speaking Hypothesis

“…In addition, Slobin (1996b: 91) states that "each [language] is a subjective orientation to the world of human experience, and this orientation affects the way in which we think while we are speaking". Slobin's (1987) thinking-for-speaking hypothesis has been readily accepted and expanded upon by many contemporary L2 researchers (e.g., Cadierno 2008, Bylund & Jarvis 2011. An example of a contemporary researcher whose studies have found evidence in favour of thinking-for-speaking is Stam (2014).…”

“…An example of a contemporary researcher whose studies have found evidence in favour of thinking-for-speaking is Stam (2014). From 1997to 2011, Stam (2014 followed a Mexican Spanish speaking learner of English as she progressed in her L2 acquisition process. It was found that in the first decade of acquisition (1997)(1998)(1999)(2000)(2001)(2002)(2003)(2004)(2005)(2006), the learner continued to express manner in motion events using the Spanish thinking-for-speaking pattern (Stam 2014(Stam : 1884, i.e., as a satellite gerundive constituent instead of in the main verb, as seen in example (a) above ('entró corriendo').…”