Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T21:20:52.811Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of language mode on motion event descriptions in German–French bilinguals*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 November 2016

RAPHAEL BERTHELE  and
LADINA STOCKER
RAPHAEL BERTHELE*
Affiliation:
Department of Multilingualism, University of Fribourg
LADINA STOCKER
Affiliation:
Department of Multilingualism, University of Fribourg
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

When describing motion in space, speakers of French and German are known to show different preferences. In French, the verb typically encodes the path, whereas in German the manner in which the figure moves is mapped onto the verb. In this paper, this difference between the two languages is investigated, drawing on the data produced by forty participants. All participants are multilinguals, with German and French as their two strongest languages. They described fifty video clips in two sessions, once in monolingual and once in bilingual mode. The critical stimuli were always described in German in both language modes, the fillers in German in monolingual mode but in French in bilingual mode. The analyses of the manner and path verb uses show that, in a bilingual mode, speakers significantly converge towards the French model, that is, they reduce the preference for manner verbs and increase the proportion of path verbs.

Keywords

bilingual and monolingual language modesmotion even descriptionsbilingual dominance
Type
Research Article
Information
Language and Cognition , Volume 9 , Issue 4 , December 2017 , pp. 648 - 676
Copyright
Copyright © UK Cognitive Linguistics Association 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Many thanks to Letty Naigles for allowing us to use her stimulus materials. Thanks to Beatrice Zanoni, Claudia Horisberger, Elisabeth Paliot, and Lavinia Olariu for their great help with the data collection. Thanks to Elisabeth Dutton and Jan Vanhove and two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on earlier versions of this paper.

References

references

Aske, J. (1989). Path predicates in English and Spanish: a closer look. In Hall, K., Meacham, M., & Shapiro, R. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fifteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (pp. 1–14). Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Athanasopoulos, P. (2011). Color and bilingual cognition. In Cook, V. & Bassetti, B. (Eds.), Language and bilingual cognition (pp. 241–261). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Athanasopoulos, P., Bylund, E., Montero-Melis, G., Damjanovic, L., Schartner, A., Kibbe, A., Riches, N., & Thierry, G. (2015). Two languages, two minds: flexible cognitive processing driven by language of operation. Psychological Science, OnlineFirst, 1–9.Google Scholar
Auer, P. (1999). From codeswitching via language mixing to fused lects: toward a dynamic typology of bilingual speech. International Journal of Bilingualism, 3/4, 309–331.Google Scholar
Barr, D. J., Levy, R., Scheepers, C., & Tily, H. J. (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68(3), 255–278.Google Scholar
Bassetti, B. (2007). Bilingualism and thought: grammatical gender concepts of objects in Italian–German bilingual children. International Journal of Bilingualism, 11(3), 251–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bedore, L. M., Pena, E. D., Summers, C. L., Boerger, K. M., Resendiz, M. D., Greene, K., Bohman, T. M., & Gillam, R. B. (2012). The measure matters: language dominance profiles across measures in Spanish–English bilingual children. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 15(3), 616–629.Google Scholar
Berthele, R. (2004). The typology of motion and posture verbs: a variationist account. In Kortmann, B. (Ed.), Dialectology meets typology: dialect grammar from a cross-linguistic perspective (pp. 93–126). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Berthele, R. (2006). Ort und Weg. Eine vergleichende Untersuchung der sprachlichen Raumreferenz in Varietäten des Deutschen, Rätoromanischen und Französischen. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Berthele, R. (2007a). Contact de langues et conceptualisations spatiales. Aspects de la sémantique et de la grammaire de la référence spatiale en sursilvan, vallader et surmiran. Vox Romanica, 66, 60–71.Google Scholar
Berthele, R. (2007b). Sein+Direktionalergänzung: Bewegung ohne Bewegungsverb. In Geist, L. & Rothstein, B. (Eds.), Kopulaverben und Kopulasätze. Intersprachliche und intrasprachliche Aspekte (pp. 229–252). Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Berthele, R. (2013). Disentangling manner and path: evidence from varieties of German and Romance. In Goschler, J. & Stefanowitsch, A. (Eds.), Variation and change in the coding of motion events (pp. 55–75). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blomberg, J. (2014). Motion in language and experience: actual and non-actual motion in Swedish, French and Thai. Lund: University of Lund.Google Scholar
Brown, A. (2007). Crosslinguistic influence in first and second languages: convergence in speech and gesture. Boston: Boston University, Graduate School of Arts and Sciences.Google Scholar
Cadierno, T. (2010). Motion in Danish as a second language: Does the learner’s L1 make a difference? In Han, Z. & Cadierno, T. (Eds.), Linguistic relativity in second language acquisition: thinking for speaking (pp. 1–33). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Cadierno, T., & Ruiz, L. (2006). Motion events in Spanish L2 acquisition. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 4, 183–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cenoz, J., Hufeisen, B., & Jessner, U. (2001). Cross-linguistic influence in third language acquisition. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Cook, V., & Bassetti, B. (2011). Language and bilingual cognition. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Cook, V., Bassetti, B., Kasai, C., Sasaki, M., & Takahashi, J. (2006). Do bilinguals have different concepts? The case of shape and material in Japanese L2 users of English. International Journal of Bilingualism, 10(2), 137–152.Google Scholar
Dijkstra, T., & van Hell, J. G. (2003). Testing the language mode hypothesis using multilinguals. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 6(1), 2–16.Google Scholar
Dobson, A. J., & Barnett, A. G. (2008). An introduction to generalized linear models. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.Google Scholar
Dunn, A. L., & Fox Tree, J. E. (2009). A quick, gradient Bilingual Dominance Scale. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 12(3), 273–289.Google Scholar
Dunn, A. L., & Fox Tree, J. E. (2012). More on language mode. International Journal of Bilingualism, 18(6), 605–613.Google Scholar
Filipovic, L. (2011). Speaking and remembering in one or two languages: bilingual vs. monolingual lexicalization and memory for motion events. International Journal of Bilingualism, 15(4), 466–485.Google Scholar
Fishman, J. (2005 [1967]). Bilingualism with and without diglossia; diglossia with and without bilingualism. In Wei, L. (Ed.), The bilingualism reader (pp. 81–88). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Gertken, L. M., Amengual, M., & Birdsong, D. (2014). Assessing language dominance with the Bilingual Language Profile. In Leclercq, P., Edmonds, A., & Hilton, H. (Eds.), Measuring L2 proficiency: perspectives from SLA (pp. 208–225). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Goschler, J. (2013). Motion events in Turkish–German contact varieties. In Goschler, J. & Stefanowitsch, A. (Eds.), Variation and change in the coding of motion events (pp. 115–132). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goschler, J., & Stefanowitsch, A. (Eds.) (2013). Variation and change in the encoding of motion events. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Green, D. W. (1986). Control, activation and resource: a framework and a model for the control of speech in bilinguals. Brain and Language, 27, 210–223.Google Scholar
Green, D. W. (1998). Mental control of the bilingual lexico-semantic system. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1(2), 67–81.Google Scholar
Grosjean, F. (1998). Studying bilinguals: methodological and conceptual issues. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1(2), 131–149.Google Scholar
Grosjean, F. (2008). Studying bilinguals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Haugen, E. (1950). The analysis of linguistic borrowing. Language, 14, 112–120.Google Scholar
Hickmann, M. (1998). Person, space, and information status in children’s narratives: a crosslinguistic analysis. Studi Italiani di Linguistica Teorica ed Applicata, 27(1), 47–65.Google Scholar
Hickmann, M. (2003). Space. In Hickmann, M. (Ed.), Children’s discourse: person, space and time across languages (pp. 240–281). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hohenstein, J., Eisenberg, A., & Naigles, L. (2006). Is he floating across or crossing afloat? Cross-influence of L1 and L2 in Spanish–English bilingual adults. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 9(3), 249–261.Google Scholar
Jarvis, S. (2000). Methodological rigor in the study of transfer: identifying L1 influence in the interlanguage lexicon. Language Learning, 50(2), 245–309.Google Scholar
Kellerman, E., & Sharwood Smith, M. (1986). Crosslinguistic influence in second language acquisition. New York: Pergamon Institute of English.Google Scholar
Kersten, A. W., Meissner, C. A., Lechuga, J., Schwartz, B. L., Albrechtsen, J. S., & Iglesias, A. (2010). English speakers attend more strongly than Spanish speakers to manner of motion when classifying novel objects and events. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 139(4), 638–653.Google Scholar
Kopecka, A. (2013). Describing motion events in Old and Modern French: discourse effects of a typological change. In Goschler, J. & Stefanowitsch, A. (Eds.), Variation and change in the coding of motion events (pp. 163–184). Berlin, New York: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kopecka, A., & Narasimhan, B. (2012). Events of ‘putting’ and ‘taking’: a crosslinguistic perspective. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Lai, V. T., Rodriguez, G. G., & Narasimhan, B. (2014). Thinking-for-speaking in early and late bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 17(1), 139–152.Google Scholar
Larrañaga, P., Treffers-Daller, J., Tidball, F., & Gil Ortega, M. (2012). L1-transfer in the acquisition of manner and path in Spanish by native speakers of English. International Journal of Bilingualism, 16(1), 117–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackey, W. F. (2004). The description of bilingualism. In Wei, L. (Ed.), The bilingualism reader (pp. 26–54). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Malblanc, A. (1968). Stylistique comparée du Français et de l’Allemand. Paris: Librairie Marcel Didier.Google Scholar
Marian, V., Spivey, M., & Hirsch, J. (2003). Shared and separate systems in bilingual language processing: converging evidence from eyetracking and brain imaging. Brain and Language, 86(1), 70–82.Google Scholar
Matras, Y. (2009). Language contact. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Matsumoto, Y., Akita, K., & Takahashi, K. (n.d.). The interactional nature of deictic verbs in English, Japanese, and Thai: Why deixis must be treated separately from Path. Unpublished ms, Kobe University. Online: <http://www.lit.kobe-u.ac.jp/∼yomatsum/papers/DeixisEngJapTha.pdf>..>Google Scholar
Naigles, L. R., Eisenberg, A. R., Kako, E. T., Highter, M., & McGraw, N. (1998). Speaking of motion: verb use in English and Spanish. Language and Cognitive Processes, 13(5), 521–549.Google Scholar
Nicoladis, E., Alyssa, R., & Cassandra, F.-S. (2010). Thinking for speaking and cross-linguistic transfer in preschool bilingual children. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 13(3), 345–370.Google Scholar
Odlin, T. (2003). Cross-linguistic influence. In Doughty, C. J. & Long, M. H. (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 436–486). Malden: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
Pavlenko, A. (Ed.) (2011). Thinking and speaking in two languages. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Pavlenko, A., & Jarvis, S. (2002). Bidirectional transfer. Applied Linguistics, 23, 190–214.Google Scholar
Ricca, D. (1991). Andare e venire nelle lingue romanze e germaniche: dall’Aktionsart alla deissi. Archivio Glottologico Italiano, 76(2), 159–192.Google Scholar
Ringbom, H. (1992). On L1 transfer in L2 comprehension and L2 production. Language Learning, 42, 85–112.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. I. (1996). From ‘thought and language’ to ‘thinking for speaking’. In Gumperz, J. J. & Levinson, S. C. (Eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity (pp. 70–96). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. I. (2004). The many ways to search for a frog: linguistic typology and the expression of motion events. In Strömqvist, S. & Verhoeven, L. (Eds.), Relating events in narrative: typological and contextual perspectives (pp. 219–257). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. I. (2006a). Coding of motion events in texts: Berkeley coding manual. Berkeley, CA: University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. I. (2006b). What makes manner of motion salient? Explorations in linguistic typology, discourse, and cognition. In Hickmann, M. & Robert, S. (Eds.), Space in languages: linguistic systems and cognitive categories (pp. 59–81). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. I., & Hoiting, N. (1994). Reference to movement in spoken and signed languages: typological considerations. Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 20, 487–505.Google Scholar
Soares, C., & Grosjean, F. (1984). Bilinguals in a monolingual and a bilingual speech mode: the effect on lexical access. Memory & Cognition, 12(4), 380–386.Google Scholar
Strömqvist, S., & Verhoeven, L. (2004). Relating events in narrative: typological and contextual perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Talmy, L. (1985). Lexicalization patterns: semantic structure in lexical forms. In Shopen, T. (Ed.), Language typology and syntactic description. Volume III: grammatical categories and the lexicon (pp. 57–149). Cambridge/London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a cognitive semantics. Volume II: typology and process in concept structuring. Cambridge, MA/London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Tesnière, L. (1969). Éléments de syntaxe structurale. Deuxième édition revue et corrigée. Nouveau Tirage. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Toribio, A. J. (2004). Convergence as an optimization strategy in bilingual speech: evidence from code-switching. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 7(2), 165–173.Google Scholar
Treffers-Daller, J., & Tidball, F. (2015). Can L2 learners learn new ways to conceptualize events? Evidence from motion event construal among English-speaking learners of French. In Guijarro-Fuentes, P., Schmitz, K., & Müller, N. (Eds.), The acquisition of French in its different constellations (pp. 145–184). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Vanhove, J. (2015). Thinking about graphs. In Vanhove, J. (Ed.), Blog posts Jan Vanhove, Fribourg. Online: <https://janhove.github.io/reporting/2015/02/21/thinking-about-graphs>..>Google Scholar
Wälchli, B. (2001). A typology of displacement (with special reference to Latvian). Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung, 54(3), 298–323.Google Scholar
Wälchli, B. (2009). Motion events in parallel texts: a study in primary-data typology. Unpublished ms, Bern.Google Scholar
Weinreich, U. (1953). Languages in contact: findings and problems. The Hague/Paris: Mouton.Google Scholar
Weinreich, U. (2011). Languages in contact: French, German and Romansch in twentieth-century Switzerland. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar