Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T23:14:23.543Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Thinking-for-speaking in early and late bilinguals*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 May 2013

VICKY TZUYIN LAI ,
GABRIELA GARRIDO RODRIGUEZ  and
BHUVANA NARASIMHAN
VICKY TZUYIN LAI*
Affiliation:
Neurobiology of Language Department, Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen
GABRIELA GARRIDO RODRIGUEZ
Affiliation:
Language and Cognition Department, Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen
BHUVANA NARASIMHAN
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics, Institute of Cognitive Science, University of Colorado, Boulder
*
Address for correspondence: Vicky Tzuyin Lai, P.O. Box 310, 6500 AH, Nijmegen, The Netherlands[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

When speakers describe motion events using different languages, they subsequently classify those events in language-specific ways (Gennari, Sloman, Malt & Fitch, 2002). Here we ask if bilingual speakers flexibly shift their event classification preferences based on the language in which they verbally encode those events. English–Spanish bilinguals and monolingual controls described motion events in either Spanish or English. Subsequently they judged the similarity of the motion events in a triad task. Bilinguals tested in Spanish and Spanish monolinguals were more likely to make similarity judgments based on the path of motion versus bilinguals tested in English and English monolinguals. The effect is modulated in bilinguals by the age of acquisition of the second language. Late bilinguals based their judgments on path more often when Spanish was used to describe the motion events versus English. Early bilinguals had a path preference independent of the language in use. These findings support “thinking-for-speaking” (Slobin, 1996) in late bilinguals.

Keywords

language and thoughtmotion verbsmental representationSpanish–English bilingualsage of acquisition
Type
Research Article
Information
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition , Volume 17 , Issue 1 , January 2014 , pp. 139 - 152
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

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

*

We would like to thank Lila Saade, Anwen Fredriksen, Cecily Jill Duffield, Charles Lowe, and Meghan Damour for help with data collection and three anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments.

References

Allen, S., Ozyurek, A., Kita, S., Brown, A., Furman, R., Ishizuka, T., & Fujii, M. (2007). Language-specific and universal influences in children's syntactic packaging of Manner and Path: A comparison of English, Japanese, and Turkish. Cognition, 102, 16–48.Google Scholar
Aske, J. (1989). Path predicates in English and Spanish: A closer look. Proceedings of the Fifteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, pp. 1–14. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baayen, H. (2008). Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics using R. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. (1974). Working memory. In Bower, G. H. (ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (vol. 8): Advances in research and theory, pp. 47–89. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Berman, R. A., & Slobin, D. I. (1994). Relating events in narrative: A crosslinguistic developmental study. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Billman, D., & Krych, M. (1998). Path and manner verbs in action: Effects of “Skipping” or “Exiting” on event memory. Proceedings of the 20th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence ErlbaumGoogle Scholar
Billman, D., Swilley, A., & Krych, M. (2000). Path and manner priming: Verb production and event recognition. Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence ErlbaumGoogle Scholar
Bohnemeyer, J., Eisenbeiss, S., & Narasimhan, B. (2001). Event triads. In Levinson, S. C. & Enfield, N. (eds.), Manual for field season 2001, pp. 100–114. Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics.Google Scholar
Bohnemeyer, J., Eisenbeiss, S., & Narasimhan, B. (2006). Ways to go: Methodological considerations in Whorfian studies on motion events. Colchester: University of Essex.Google Scholar
Boroditsky, L. (2001). Does language shape thought? Mandarin and English speakers’ conceptions of time. Cognitive Psychology, 43, 1–22.Google Scholar
Brown, A., & Gullberg, M. (2010). Changes in encoding of path and motion in a firts language during acquisition of a second language. Cognitive Linguistics, 21, 263–286.Google Scholar
Brown, A., & Gullberg, M. (2011). Bidirectional cross-linguistic influence in event conceptualization? Expressions of path among Japanese learners of English. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 14, 79–94.Google Scholar
Bylund, E. (2009). Effects of age of L2 acquisition on L1 event conceptualization. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 12, 305–322.Google Scholar
Cadierno, T., & Ruiz, L. (2006). Motion events in Spanish L2 acquisition. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 4, 183–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Choi, S., & Bowerman, M. (1991). Learning to express motion events in English and Korean: The influence of language-specific lexicalization patterns. Cognition, 41, 83–121.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Davidoff, J., Davies, I., & Roberson, D. (1999). Colour categories in a stone-age tribe. Nature, 398, 203–204.Google Scholar
Dessalegn, B., & Landau, B. (2008). More than meets the eye: The role of language in binding and maintaining feature conjunctions. Psychological Science, 19, 189–195.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Filipović, L. (2010). Thinking and speaking about motion: Universal vs. language specific effects. In Marotta, G., Lenci, A., Meini, L. & Rovai, F. (eds.), Space in language, pp. 235–248. Pisa: University of Pisa Press.Google Scholar
Filipović, L. (2011). Speaking and remembering in one or two languages: Bilingual vs. monolingual lexicalization and memory for motion events. International Journal of Bilingualism, 15, 466–485.Google Scholar
Finkbeiner, M., Nicol, J., Greth, D., & Nakamura, K. (2002). The role of language in memory for actions. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 31, 447–457.Google Scholar
Gennari, S. P., Sloman, S. A., Malt, B. C., & Fitch, W. T. (2002). Motion events in language and cognition. Cognition, 83, 49–79.Google Scholar
Grosjean, F. (2001). The bilingual's language mode. In Nicol, J. (ed.), One mind, two languages: Bilingual language processing, pp. 1–22. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Gullberg, M., & Indefrey, P. (2003). Language background questionnaire. Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics.Google Scholar
Gumperz, J. J., & Levinson, S. C. (eds.) (1996). Rethinking linguistic relativity. 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, 249–261.CrossRefGoogle 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, 638–653.Google Scholar
Lai, V. T., & Boroditsky, L. (2013). Spatiotemporal metaphors exert both immediate and chronic influence on people's representations of time: Examples from English and Mandarin. Frontiers in Cultural Psychology, 4, 142.Google Scholar
Lai, V. T., & Narasimhan, B. (2008). Verb representation and thinking-for-speaking effects in Spanish–English bilinguals. Ms., Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen. [Revised version to appear in a volume on verb concepts, Oxford University Press.]Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (1996). Relativity in spatial conception and description. In Gumperz, & Levinson, (eds.), pp. 177–202.Google Scholar
Li, P., & Gleitman, L. (2002). Turning the tables: Language and spatial reasoning. Cognition, 83, 265–294.Google Scholar
Loftus, E. F., & Palmer, J. C. (1974). Reconstruction of automobile destruction: Example of interaction between language and memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 13, 585–589.Google Scholar
Malt, B., Sloman, S. A., & Gennari, S. P. (2003). Speaking versus thinking about objects and actions. In Gentner, D. & Goldin-Meadow, S. (eds.), Language in mind: Advances in the study of language and thought, pp. 81–111. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Montrul, S. (2008) Incomplete acquisition in bilingualism: Re-examining the age factor. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.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, 521–549.Google Scholar
Naigles, L. R., & Terrazas, P. (1998). Motion-verb generalizations in English and Spanish: Influences of language and syntax. Psychological Science, 9, 363–369.Google Scholar
Navarro, S., & Nicoladis, E. (2005). Describing motionevents in adult L2 Spanish narratives. In Eddington, E. (ed.), Selected proceedings of the 6th Conference on the Acquisition of Spanish and Portuguese as First and Second Languages, pp.102–107. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Papafragou, A. (2005). Relations between language and thought: Individuation and the count/mass distinction. In Lefebvre, C. & Cohen, H. (eds.), Handbook of categorization in cognitive science. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Papafragou, A., Hulbert, J., & Trueswell, J. (2008). Does language guide event perception? Evidence from eye movements. Cognition, 108, 155–184.Google Scholar
Papafragou, A., Massey, C., & Gleitman, L. (2002). Shake, rattle, ‘n’ roll: The representation of motion in language and cognition. Cognition, 84, 189–219.Google Scholar
Roseberry, S., Göksun, T., Hirsh-Pasek, K., Shallcross, W., & Golinkoff, R. M. (2008). Where you're going trumps what you're doing: Infants prefer paths over manners in dynamic displays. Poster presented at the 16th International Conference on Infant Studies, Vancouver, Canada.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. I. (1996). From “thought and language” to “thinking for speaking”. In Gumperz, & Levinson, (eds.), pp. 70–96.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. I. (2005). Relating narrative events in translation. In Ravid, D. & Shyldkrot, H. B. (eds.), Perspectives on language and language development: Essays in honor of Ruth A. Berman, pp. 115–129. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. I. (2006). What makes manner of motion salient? Explorations in linguistic typology, discourse, and cognition. In Hickman, M. & Robert, S. (eds.), Space in languages: Linguistic systems and cognitive categories, pp. 59–81. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. I., & Hoiting, N. (1994). Reference to movement in spoken and signed languages: Typological considerations. Proceedings of the Twentieth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society: General Session Dedicated to the Contributions of Charles J. Fillmore, pp. 487–505. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Smith, L. B., & Samuelson, L. (2006). An attentional learning account of the shape bias: Reply to Cimpian and Markman (2005) and Booth, Waxman, and Huang (2005). Developmental Psychology, 42, 1339–1343.Google Scholar
Talmy, L. (1985). Lexicalization patterns: Semantic structure in lexical forms. In Schopen, T. (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description (vol. 3): Grammatical categories and the lexicon, pp. 57–149. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Talmy, L. (1991). Path to realization: A typology of event conflation. Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: General Session and Parasession on the Grammar of Event Structure, pp. 480–519. Berkeley, CA: Berkley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a cognitive semantics (vol. II): Typology and process in concept structuring. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar