Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T12:40:03.805Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

How do Korean–English bilinguals speak and think about motion events? Evidence from verbal and non-verbal tasks

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 May 2019

Hae In Park Open the ORCID record for Hae In Park [Opens in a new window]
Hae In Park*
Affiliation:
Department of Educational Theory and Practice, School of Education, University at Albany, State University of New York, USA.
*
Author for correspondence: Hae In Park, E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The present study compared both linguistic and non-linguistic representations of motion events in Korean–English sequential bilinguals sampled at varying proficiency levels (N = 80) against each other and against those of Korean and English monolinguals (N = 15 each). The bilinguals' L2 descriptions of motion events showed that their encoding patterns were influenced by both the first language (L1) and second language (L2) and also displayed unique behaviors that were not found in either monolingual norm. The non-verbal results on a triads-matching task demonstrated that bilinguals' categorization patterns followed L1-based patterns rather than L2-based patterns. The extent to which these bilinguals employed L2 encoding patterns in their motion event descriptions was largely modulated by L2 proficiency, whereas length of immersion experience in an L2-speaking country emerged as the only predictor of their non-verbal categorization patterns. These findings suggest that the bilinguals' verbal behavior seems more susceptible to change than their non-verbal behavior.

Keywords

motion eventspath and manner encodinglinguistic relativitycategorization preferencesbilingual cognition
Type
Research Article
Information
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition , Volume 23 , Issue 3 , May 2020 , pp. 483 - 499
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019

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.)

References

Athanasopoulos, P (2007) Interaction between grammatical categories and cognition in bilinguals: The role of proficiency, cultural immersion, and language of instruction. Language and Cognitive Processes 22(5), 689–699.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Athanasopoulos, P (2009) Cognitive representation of colour in bilinguals: The case of Greek blues. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 12(1), 83–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Athanasopoulos, P and Bylund, E (2013) Does grammatical aspect affect motion event cognition? A cross-linguistic comparison of English and Swedish speakers. Cognitive Science 37(2), 286–309.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Athanasopoulos, P, Bylund, E, Montero-Melis, G, Damjanovic, L, Schartner, A, Kibbe, A, Riches, N and Thierry, G (2015) Two languages, two minds: Flexible cognitive processing driven by language of operation. Psychological Science 26(4), 518–526.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Athanasopoulos, P, Dering, B, Wiggett, A, Kuipers, J-R and Thierry, G (2010) Perceptual shift in bilingualism: Brain potentials reveal plasticity in pre-attentive colour perception. Cognition 116(3), 437–443.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Athanasopoulos, P and Kasai, C (2008) Language and thought in bilinguals: The case of grammatical number and nonverbal classification preferences. Applied Psycholinguistics 29(1), 105–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aveledo, F and Athanasopoulos, P (2016) Second language influence on first language motion event encoding and categorization in Spanish-speaking children learning L2 English. International Journal of Bilingualism 20(4), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Becker, TP (2014) Avoidance of English phrasal verbs: Investigating the effect of proficiency, learning context, task type, and verb type. Asian Journal of English Language Teaching 24, 1–33.Google Scholar
Berman, R and Slobin, DI (1994) Relating events in narrative: A crosslinguistic developmental study. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Boroditsky, L (2001) Does language shape thought?: Mandarin and English speakers' conceptions of time. Cognitive Psychology 43(1), 1–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bowerman, M and Choi, Soonja (2001) Shaping meanings for language: Universal and language-specific in the acquisition of spatial semantic categories. In Bowerman, M and Levinson, S (eds), Language acquisition and conceptual development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 475–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, A (2015) Universal development and L1–L2 convergence in bilingual construal of manner in speech and gesture in Mandarin, Japanese, and English. The Modern Language Journal 99(S1), 66–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, A and Gullberg, M (2008) Bidirectional crosslinguistic influence in L1-L2 encoding of manner in speech and gesture. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 30(2), 225–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, A and Gullberg, M (2013) L1–L2 convergence in clausal packaging in Japanese and English. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 16(3), 477–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bylund, E and Athanasopoulos, P (2014a) Language and thought in a multilingual context: The case of isiXhosa. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 17(2), 431–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bylund, E and Athanasopoulos, P (2014b) Linguistic relativity in SLA: Toward a new research program. Language Learning 64(4), 952–985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bylund, E, Athanasopoulos, P and Oostendorp, M (2013) Motion event cognition and grammatical aspect: Evidence from Afrikaans. Linguistics 51(5), 929–955.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cadierno, T (2010) Motion in Danish as a second language: Does the learner's L1 make a difference? In Han, Z-H and Cadierno, T (eds), Linguistic relativity in SLA: Thinking for speaking. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, pp. 1–33.Google Scholar
Cadierno, T and Lund, K (2004) Cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition: Motion events in a typological framework. In Patten, BV, Williams, J, Rott, S, & Overstreet, M (eds), Form-meaning connections in second language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 139–154.Google Scholar
Cadierno, T and Ruiz, L (2006) Motion events in Spanish L2 acquisition. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 4(1), 183–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Casasanto, D (2008) Who's afraid of the big bad Whorf? Crosslinguistic differences in temporal language and thought. Language Learning 58(1), 63–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Choi, Soojung and Lantolf, JP (2008) Representation and embodiment of meaning in L2 communication: Motion events in the speech and gesture of advanced L2 Korean and L2 English speakers. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 30(2), 191–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Choi, Soonja (2009) Typological differences in syntactic expressions of Path and Causation. In Gathercole, V (Ed.), Routes to Language: Studies in honor of Melissa Bowerman. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 169–194.Google Scholar
Choi, Soonja (2011) Language-specificity of motion event expressions in young Korean children. Language, Interaction and Acquisition 2(1), 157–184.Google Scholar
Choi, Soonja and 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
Cook, V, Bassetti, B, Kasai, C, Sasaki, M and Takahashi, JA (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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dagut, M and Laufer, B (1985) Avoidance of phrasal verbs—A case for contrastive analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 7(1), 73–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daller, MH, Treffers-Daller, J and Furman, R (2011) Transfer of conceptualization patterns in bilinguals: The construal of motion events in Turkish and German. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 14(1), 95–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Férez, PC (2008) Motion in English and Spanish: A Perspective from Cognitive Linguistics, typology and psycholinguistics (Doctoral dissertation). University of Murcia, Murcia.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(4), 466–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gardner, D and Davies, M (2007) Pointing out frequent phrasal verbs: A corpus-based analysis. TESOL Quarterly 41(2), 339–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gennari, SP, Sloman, SA, Malt, BC and Fitch, W (2002) Motion events in language and cognition. Cognition 83(1), 49–79.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hohenstein, J, Eisenberg, A and 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jarvis, S (2016) Clarifying the scope of conceptual transfer. Language Learning 66(3), 608–635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jarvis, S and Pavlenko, A (2008) Crosslinguistic influence in language and cognition. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kasper, G and Rose, KR (2002) Pragmatic development in a second language. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Kersten, AW, Meissner, CA, Lechuga, J, Schwartz, BL, Albrechtsen, JS and 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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lai, VT, Rodriguez, GG and Narasimhan, B (2014) Thinking-for-speaking in early and late bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 17(1), 139–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larrañaga, P, Treffers-Daller, J, Tidball, F and Ortega, MG (2011) L1 transfer in the acquisition of manner and path in Spanish by native speakers of English. The International Journal of Bilingualism 16(1), 117–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laufer, B and Eliasson, S (1993) What causes avoidance in L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 15(1), 35–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laufer, B and Nation, P (1999) A vocabulary-size test of controlled productive ability. Language Testing 16(1), 33–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, J (1999) A cognitive approach to connective particles -e and -ko: conceptual unity and conceptual separation in Korean Motion verbs. Japanese/Korean Linguistics 9, 225–239.Google Scholar
Liao, Y and Fukuya, YJ (2004) Avoidance of phrasal verbs: The case of Chinese learners of English. Language Learning 54(2), 193–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, D (2011) The most frequently used English phrasal verbs in American and British English: A multicorpus examination. TESOL Quarterly 45, 661–688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lucy, JA (2016) Recent advances in the study of linguistic relativity in historical context: A critical assessment. Language Learning 66(3), 487–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montero-Melis, G and Bylund, E (2017) Getting the ball rolling: The cross-linguistic conceptualization of caused motion. Language and Cognition 9(3), 446–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montero-Melis, G, Eisenbeiss, S, Narasimhan, B, Ibarretxe-Antuñano, I, Kita, S, Kopecka, A, Lüpke, F, Nikitina, T, Tragel, I, Florian Jaeger, T and Bohnemeyer, J (2017) Satellite- vs. verb-framing underpredicts nonverbal motion categorization: Insights from a large language sample and simulations. Cognitive Semantics 3(1), 36–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nation, P and Beglar, D (2007) A vocabulary size test. The Language Teacher 31(7), 9–13.Google Scholar
Oh, KJ (2003) Language, cognition, and development: Motion events in English and Korean (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Ortega, L, Iwashita, N, Norris, JM and Rabie, S (2002, October). An investigation of elicited imitation tasks in crosslinguistic SLA research. Presented at the Second Language Research Forum, Toronto, Canada.Google Scholar
Papafragou, A, Hulbert, J and Trueswell, J (2008) Does Language Guide Event Perception? Evidence from Eye Movements. Cognition 108(1), 155–84.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Papafragou, A, Massey, C and Gleitman, L (2002) Shake, rattle, ‘n’ roll: The representation of motion in language and cognition. Cognition 84(2), 189–219.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Papafragou, A and Selimis, S (2010) Event categorisation and language: A cross-linguistic study of motion. Language and Cognitive Processes 25(2), 224–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Park, HI and Ziegler, N (2014) Cognitive shift in the bilingual mind: Spatial concepts in Korean–English bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 17(2), 410–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pérez-Vidal, C and Juan-Garau, M (2011) The effect of context and input conditions on oral and written development: A study abroad perspective. IRAL-International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 49(2), 157–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Römer, U, O'Donnell, M. B and Ellis, NC (2014) Second language learner knowledge of verb–argument constructions: Effects of language transfer and typology. The Modern Language Journal 98(4), 952–975.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slobin, DI (1996a) From “thought and language” to “thinking for speaking.” In Gumperz, JJ and Levinson, SC (eds), Rethinking linguistic relativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 70–96.Google Scholar
Slobin, DI (1996b) Two ways to travel: Verbs of motion in English and Spanish. In Shibatani, M and Thompson, S (eds), Grammatical constructions: Their form and meaning. Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 195–219.Google Scholar
Slobin, DI (2000) Verbalized events: A dynamic approach to linguistic relativity and determinism. In Neimeier, S and Dirven, R (eds), Evidence for linguistic relativity. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 107–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slobin, DI (2004) The many ways to search for a frog: Linguistic typology and the expression of motion events. In Strömqvist, S and Verhoeven, L (eds), Relating events in narrative. Typological and contextual perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 219–257.Google Scholar
Talmy, L (1985) Lexicalization patterns: Semantic structure in lexical forms. In Shopen, T (Ed.), Language typology and syntactic description: Vol. 3. Grammatical categories and the lexicon. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 57–149.Google Scholar
Talmy, L (2000) Toward a cognitive semantics. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Treffers-Daller, J and Calude, A (2015) The role of statistical learning in the acquisition of motion event construal in a second language. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 18(5), 602–623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trueswell, JC and Papafragou, A (2010) Perceiving and remembering events cross-linguistically: Evidence from dual-task paradigms. Journal of Memory and Language 63(1), 64–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tyler, A, Mueller, C and Ho, V (2011) Applying cognitive linguistics to learning the semantics of English prepositions to, for, and at: An experimental investigation. VIGO International Journal of Applied Linguistics 8, 181–206.Google Scholar
von Stutterheim, C and Nüse, R (2003) Processes of conceptualization in language production: language-specific perspectives and event construal. Linguistics 41(5), 851–882.Google Scholar
White, BJ (2012) A conceptual approach to the instruction of phrasal verbs. The Modern Language Journal 96(3), 419–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whorf, BL (1956) Language, thought, and reality. In Carroll, JB (Ed.), Selected Writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 134–159.Google Scholar
Wolff, P and Holmes, KJ (2011) Linguistic relativity. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science 2(3), 253–265.Google ScholarPubMed
Zhao, H and Le, F (2016) Measuring L2 explicit knowledge of English verb-particle constructions: Frequency and semantic transparency at two proficiency levels. In Ortega, L, Tyler, A, Park, HI, & Uno, M (eds), The usage-based study of language learning and multilingualism. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, pp. 171–186.Google Scholar