Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T08:01:01.710Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

When Russians learn English: How the semantics of causation may change*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2009

PHILLIP WOLFF  and
TATYANA VENTURA
PHILLIP WOLFF*
Affiliation:
Emory University
TATYANA VENTURA
Affiliation:
University of Memphis
*
Address for correspondence: Phillip Wolff, Department of Psychology, Emory University, 532 N. Kilgo Circle, Atlanta, GA 30322, USA[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We examined how the semantics of causal expressions in Russian and English might differ and how these differences might lead to changes in the way second language learners understand causal expressions in their first language. According to the dynamics model of causation (Wolff, 2007), expressions of causation based on CAUSE verbs (make, force) differ from expressions based on ENABLE verbs (let, help, allow) primarily in terms of the causee's inherent tendency toward an endstate, that is, the causee's physical or intentional inclination for a particular state of affairs. In Russian, the tendency appears to be based on internally derived forces, whereas in English, the tendency may be based on either internally or externally derived forces. In two experiments, English and Russian monolinguals and bilinguals described animations in which the causee's tendency was systematically varied. When the causee's tendency was ambiguous, English and Russian monolinguals’ descriptions differed, suggesting that the causal expressions differ in meaning across languages. Of primary interest, Russian–English and English–Russian bilinguals’ causal descriptions differed from those of monolingual speakers of their first language, and in the direction of the second language, even though they performed the task in the first language. This L2 → L1 transfer is explained in terms of the memory phenomenon of retrieval-induced reconsolidation.

Type
Research Article
Information
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition , Volume 12 , Issue 2 , April 2009 , pp. 153 - 176
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

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

*

This research was supported in part by an award from the University Research Committee of Emory University, as well as by grants awarded to the first author by The University of Memphis Faculty Research Fund and ONR (N00014-01-1-0917). The conclusions of this research do not necessary reflect those held by these funding sources. We give special thanks to Bianca Klettke and Derek Wong for their help in the research.

References

Alberini, C. M. (2005). Mechanisms of memory stabilization: Are consolidation and reconsolidation similar or distinct processes? TRENDS in Neuroscience, 28, 51–56.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Altenberg, E. P. (1991). Assessing first language vulnerability to attrition. In Seliger, & Vago, (eds.), pp. 189–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Athanasopoulos, P. (2001). L2 acquisition and bilingual conceptual structure. M.A. thesis, University of Essex.Google Scholar
Baron, N. S. (1977). Language acquisition and historical change. New York: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Ben-Rafael, M. (2004). Language contact and attrition: The spoken French of Israeli Francophones. In Schmid, et al. (eds.), pp. 165–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boroditsky, L., Ham, W. & Ramscar, M. (2002). What is universal about event perception? Comparing English and Indonesian speakers. In Proceedings of the 25th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, pp. 168–173. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Bowerman, M. (1982). Reorganizational processes in lexical and syntactic development. In Wanner, E. & Gleitman, L. (eds.), Language acquisition: The state of the art, pp. 319–346. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bowerman, M. (1996). The origins of children's spatial semantic categories: Cognitive versus linguistic determinants. In Gumperz, J. J. & Levinson, S. C. (eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity, pp. 145–175. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cohen, L. B., Amsel, G., Redford, M. A. & Casasola, M. (1998). The development of infant causal perception. In Slater, A. (ed.), Perceptual development: Visual, auditory, and speech perception in infancy, pp. 167–209. East Sussex: Psychology Press Ltd.Google Scholar
Cole, P. (1983). The grammatical role of the causee in Universal Grammar. International Journal of American Linguistics, 49, 115–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Comrie, B. (1981). Language universals and linguistic typology. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Comrie, B. (1985). Causative verb formation and other verb-deriving morphology. In Shopen, T. (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description (vol. 3): Grammatical categories and the lexicon, pp. 309–348. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cook, V. J. (2003). Introduction: The changing L1 in the L2 user's mind. In Cook, (ed.), pp. 1–18.Google Scholar
Cook, V. J. (ed.) (2003)a. Effects of the second language on the first. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croft, W. A. (1991). Syntactic categories and grammatical relations, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Cruse, D. A. (1972). A note on English causatives. Linguistic Inquiry, 3, 522–528.Google Scholar
Debiec, J., Doyère, V., Nader, K. & LeDoux, J. E. (2006). PNAS, 103, 3428–3433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dowty, D. R. (1979). Word meaning and Montague grammar. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fodor, J. A. (1970). Three reasons for not deriving “kill” from “cause to die”. Linguistic Inquiry, 1, 429–438.Google Scholar
Forcato, C., Burgos, V. L., Argibay, P. F., Molina, V. A., Pedreira, M. E. & Maldonado, H. (2007). Reconsolidation of declarative memory in humans. Learning and Memory, 14, 295–303.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Francis, W. S. (2005). Bilingual semantic and conceptual representation. In Kroll, & De Groot, (eds.), pp. 251–267.Google Scholar
Gentner, D. (1975). Evidence for the psychological reality of semantic components: The verbs of possession. In Norman, et al. (eds.), pp. 211–246.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. (2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Grosjean, F. (2001). The bilingual's language modes. In Nicol, J. L. (ed.), One mind, two languages: Bilingual language processing, pp. 1–22. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Guilfoyle, E. (2000). Tense and N-features in Modern Irish. In Carnie, A. & Guilfoyle, E. (eds.), The syntax of verb initial languages, pp. 61–74. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gűrel, A. (2004). Attrition in L1 competence: The case of Turkish. In Schmid, et al. (eds.), pp. 207–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, J. A. (1985). A comparative typology of English and German: Unifying the contrast. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Helms-Park, R. (2001). Evidence of lexical transfer in learning syntax. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23, 71–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hohenstain, 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
Hutz, M. (2004). Is there a natural process of decay? A longitudinal study of language attrition. In Schmid, et al. (eds.), pp. 189–206.Google Scholar
Isurin, L. (2000). “Deserted island” or a child's first language loss. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 3, 151–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (1990). Semantic structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (2002). Foundations of language: Brain, meaning, grammar, evolution. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katzner, K. (1994). English–Russian, Russian–English dictionary. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Köpke, B. (2004). Attrition is not a unitary phenomenon: On different possible outcomes of language contact situations. In Suarez, A. M. L., Ramallo, F. & Rodiguez-Yanez, X-P. (eds.), Bilingual socialization and bilingual language acquisition: Proceedings from the Second International Symposium on Bilingualism, pp. 1331–1347. Vigo: Servizo de Publicacions da Universitdade de Vigo.Google Scholar
Köpke, B. (2007). Language attrition at the crossroads of brain, mind, and society. In Köpke, et al. (eds.), pp. 9–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Köpke, B. & Schmid, M. S. (2004). Language attrition: The next phase. In Schmid, M. S., Köpke, B., Keijzer, M. & Weilemar, L. (eds.), First language attrition: Interdisciplinary perspective on methodological issues. pp. 1–43. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Köpke, B., Schmid, M. S., Keijzer, M. & Dostert, S. (eds.) (2007). Language attrition: Theoretical perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kozinsky, I. & Polinsky, M. (1993). Causee and patient in the causative of transitive: Coding conflict or doubling of grammatical relations? In Comrie, B. & Polinsky, M. (eds.), Causatives and transitivity, pp. 177–240. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kroll, J. F. & Groot, A. M. B. De (eds.) (2005). Handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kroll, J. F. & Stewart, E. (1994). Category interference in translation and picture naming: Evidence for asymmetric connections between bilingual memory representations. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 149–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kroll, J. F. & Tokowicz, N. (2005). Models of representation and processing. In Kroll, & De Groot, (eds.), pp. 531–553.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to Western thought. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Laufer, B. (2003). The influence of L2 on L1 collocational knowledge and on L1 lexical diversity in free written expression. In Cook, (ed.), pp. 19–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levin, B. & Rapoport, T. R. (1988). Lexical subordination. Proceedings of the 24th Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society, pp. 275–289. Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Levin, B. & Rappaport Hovav, M. (1994). A preliminary analysis of causative verbs in English. Lingua, 92, 35–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levin, B. & Rappaport Hovav, M. (1995). Unaccusativity: At the syntax–lexical semantics interface. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Levin, B. & Rappaport Hovav, M. (2005) Argument realization (Research Surveys in Linguistics). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (1997). From outer to inner space: Linguistic categories and non-linguistic thinking. In Pederson, E. & Nuyts, J. (eds.), With language in mind: The relationship between linguistic and conceptual representation, pp. 13–45. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Marian, V. & Kaushanskaya, M. (2007). Cross-linguistic transfer and borrowing in bilinguals. Applied Psycholinguistics, 28, 369–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, G. A. & Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1976). Language and perception. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montrul, S. (2004). Subject and object expression in Spanish heritage speakers: A case of morpho-syntactic convergence. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 7, 125–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nader, K., Schafe, G. E. & LeDoux, J. E. (2000). The labile nature of consolidation theory. Nature Reviews, 1, 216–219.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Norman, D. A., Rumelhart, D. E. & the LNR Research Group (eds.) (1975). Explorations in cognition. San Francisco, CA: W. H. Freeman.Google Scholar
Otheguy, R. & Garcia, O. (1988). Diffusion of lexical innovations in the Spanish of Cuban Americans. In Ornstein-Galicia, J. L., Green, G. K. & Bixler-Marquez, D. (eds.), Research issues and problems in U.S. Spanish: Latin American and Southwestern varieties, pp. 203–243. Brownsville, TX: University of Texas.Google Scholar
Pavlenko, A. (1999). New approaches to concepts in bilingual memory. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 2, 209–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pavlenko, A. (2002). Bilingualism and emotions. Multilingua, 21, 45–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pavlenko, A. (2003). “I feel clumsy speaking Russian”: L2 influence on L1 in narratives of Russian L2 users of English. In Cook, (ed.), pp. 32–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pavlenko, A. (2004). L2 influence and L1 attrition in adult bilingualism. In Schmid, et al. (eds.), pp. 47–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinker, S. (1989). Learnability and cognition: The acquisition of argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pinker, S. (1994). The language instinct. New York: William Morrow & Co.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pustejovsky, J. (1991). The syntax of event structure. Cognition, 41, 47–81.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Radford, A. (1988). Transformational grammar: A first course. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schank, R. C. (1972). Conceptual dependency: A theory of natural language understanding. Cognitive Psychology, 3, 532–631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmid, M. S. (2007). The role of L1 use for L1 attrition. In Köpke, et al. (eds.), pp. 135–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmid, M. S. & Köpke, B. (2007). Bilingualism and attrition. In Köpke, et al. (eds.), pp. 1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmid, M. S., Köpke, B., Keijzer, M. & Weilemar, L. (eds.) (2004). First language attrition: Interdisciplinary perspectives on methodological issues. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seliger, H. W. & Vago, R. M. (eds.) (1991). First language attrition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shibatani, M. (1976). The grammar of causative constructions: A conspectus. In Shibatani, M. (ed.), The grammar of causative constructions (Syntax and Semantics 6), pp. 1–40. New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, R. E. & Hunt, R. R. (2000). The influence of distinctive processing on retrieval-induced forgetting. Memory & Cognition, 28, 503–508.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Song, G. & Wolff, P. (2005). Linking perceptual properties to the linguistic expression of causation. In Achard, M. & Kemmer, S. (eds.), Language, culture, and mind, pp. 237–250. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Sorace, A. (2005). Selective optionality in language development. In Cornips, L. & Corrigan, K. P. (eds.), Syntax and variation: Reconciling the biological and the social, pp. 55–80. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Talmy, L. (1988). Force dynamics in language and cognition. Cognitive Science, 12, 49–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, I. (1977). Russian word order: A comparative study. The Slavic and East European Journal, 21, 88–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsimpli, I., Sorace, A., Heycock, C. & Filiaci, F. (2004). First language attrition and syntactic subjects: A study of Greek and Italian near-native speakers of English. International Journal of Bilingualism, 3, 257–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Valin, R. ((1990)). Semantic parameters on split intransitivity. Language, 66, 221–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, M. P., Brakefield, T., Hobson, J. A. & Stickgold, R. (2003). Dissociable stages of human memory consolidation and reconsolidation. Nature, 425, 616–620.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wheeler, M., Falla, P. S. & Unbegaun, B. (eds.). (1995). Oxford Russian dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Whorf, B. (1991/1950/1941). An American Indian model of the universe. In Carroll, J. (ed.), Language, thought and reality: Selected writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf, pp. 57–64. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, A. (1988). The semantics of grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolff, P. (2003). Direct causation in the linguistic coding and individuation of causal events. Cognition, 88, 1–48.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wolff, P. (2007). Representing causation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136, 82–111.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wolff, P. & Song, G. (2003). Models of causation and the semantics of causal verbs. Cognitive Psychology, 47, 376–332.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wolff, P., Song, G. & Driscoll, D. (2002). Models of causation and causal verbs. In Papers from the 37 the Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society, Main Session (vol. 1), pp. 607–622. Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Wolff, P., Klettke, B., Ventura, T. & Song, G. (2005). Categories of causation across cultures. In Ahn, W., Goldstone, R. L., Love, B. C., Markman, A. B. & Wolff, P. (eds.), Categorization inside and outside of the lab: Festschrift in honor of Douglas L. Medin, pp. 29–48. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
Wolff, P. & Zettergren, M. (2002). A vector model of causal meaning. In Proceedings of the Twenty-fourth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, pp. 976–981. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar