Spatial Encoding in English and Persian: Typological Influences on Second Language Acquisition

Subject Areas :

Zohreh  Khorvash ¹ (Department of English, Isfahan (Khorasgan) Branch, Islamic Azad University, Isfahan, Iran)
Ahmadreza  Lotfi ² (Department of English, Isfahan (Khorasgan) Branch, Islamic Azad University, Isfahan, Iran)

Received: 2022-01-07 Accepted : 2022-04-18 Published : 2022-04-01

Keywords: Restructuring, language transfer, Second Language Acquisition, Lexicalization, Linguistic Typology, Spatial Language     ,

Abstract :

Cross-linguistic influence is a documented cause of errors committed by second language learners. Since Talmy (2000) proposed two categories to classify languages of the world regarding their preferred lexicalization patterns of a literal motion event, known as verb-framed and satellite-framed languages, the effect of typological properties of the first language on second language acquisition specifically in the domain of motion expressions has been subject to extensive scrutiny. The present research examines whether the typological properties of Persian (L1) and English (L2) affect adult second language acquisition, particularly in the spatial domain comparing controls (English and Persian native speakers). To this end, three groups (every 25 members) of participants were asked to watch 12 short animated cartoons representing voluntary motion carried out in vertical and trajectory directions. The participants’ descriptions were recorded and analyzed regarding information density, semantic focus, and semantic locus of utterances. The findings of the research revealed that in spite of different lexicalization patterns to encode manner in English and Persian, Persian learners of English across two levels of proficiency, do not face challenges to lexicalize motion components in English, but they produce utterances with low density which is the typical way of focusing on spatial components in their native language, suggesting that the challenge learners face encoding motion events was not a linguistic issue, but rather a cognitive one. Persian learners’ use of English motion expressions regarding information density was more aligned with that of English motion expressions as they advanced to a higher proficiency level.

References:

Akhavan, N., Nozari, N., & Göksun, T. (2017). Expression of motion events in Farsi. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 84(22), 25-31.

Allan, D. (1992). Oxford Placement Test. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Alonso Alonso, R. (2013). Motion events in L2 acquisition: The boundary-crossing constraint in English and Spanish, US-China Foreign Language, 11(10), 738-750.

Berman, R. & Slobin, D. (1994). Relating events in narrative: a crosslinguistic development study. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Brown, A., & Gullberg, M. (2008). Bidirectional cross-linguistic influence in L1–L2        encoding of the manner in speech and gesture: A study of Japanese speakers of English. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30, 225–251.

Cadierno, T., & Ruiz, L. (2006) Motion events in Spanish L2 acquisition. Annual Review of cognitive linguistics, 4, 183-216.

Ellis, N. C. & T. Cadierno (2009) Constructing a second language: Introduction to the special section. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 7, 111-139.

Feiz, P. (2011). Traveling through space in Persian and English: A comparative analysis of motion events in elicited narratives. Language Sciences, 33(3), 401–416.

Flecken, M. (2011). Event conceptualization in language production of early bilinguals. Thesis dissertation, LOT series, 256, University of Heidelberg.

Flowerdew, J. (2013). Discourse in English language education. Abingdon: Routledge.

Folli, R., Harley, H., & Karimi, S. (2005). Determinants of event type in Persian complex predicates. Lingua, 115(10), 1365–1401. doi: 10.1016/j.lingua.2004.06.002.

Freedman, A. (1980) writing in the college years: some indices of growth. College composition and communication, 31(3), 311-324.

Gumperz, J.J. (1982). Discourse strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Han, Z. (2004). Fossilization in adult second language acquisition. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Hijazo-Gascón, A. (2017). Motion event contrasts in Romance languages: Deixis in Spanish as a Second language. In I. Ibarretxe-Antuñano (ed.), Motion and Space across Languages. Theory and Applications (PP.279-300). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Hickmann, M., Taranne, P. & Bonnet, Ph. (2009). Motion in first language acquisition: manner and path in French and in English. Journal of Child Language, 36 (4), 705-741.

Hunt, K. (1965). Grammatical Structures Written at Three Grade Levels. Research Report № 3. Champaign, Illinois: National Council of Teachers of English.

Hyland, K. (2009). Academic discourse. London: Continuum.

Ikovleva, T. (2012). Typological constraints in foreign language acquisition: The expression of voluntary motion by upper-intermediate and advanced Russian learners of English. Language, Interaction, and Acquisition, 3, 231–260.

Jarvis, S. & Pavlenko, A. (2008). Crosslinguistic influence in language and cognition. NY: Routledge.

Levinson, S. C. (2003). Language and Mind: Let's get the Issue straight! In D. Gentner & S. Goldin-Meadow (Eds.), Language in Mind. Advances in the study of language and thought (pp. 25–46). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

MacWhinney, B. (1995). The CHILDES project: Tools for analyzing talk. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Montero-Melis, G. (2017). Thoughts in Motion: The Role of Long- Term L1 and Short-Term L2 Experience When Talking and Thinking of Caused Motion; Ph.D. thesis: Introductory chapter. http://su.divaportal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2:1092276

Odlin, T. (2008). Conceptual transfer and meaning extension. In P. Robinson &N.C. Ellis (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition (PP. 306- 341). New York/ London: Routledge.

Park, H., Ziegler, N. (2014). The cognitive shift in the bilingual mind: Spatial concepts in Korean–English bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 17(2), 410–430.

Poshtvan, H., Haghbin, F. (2015). Representation of motion events In Persian speaking children's narratives; a cognitive approach. Language Related Research, 6(3), 19-40.

Robinson, P., & Ellis, N. C. (2008). Conclusion: Cognitive linguistics, second language acquisition and L2 instruction – issues for research. In P. Robinson & N. C. Ellis (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition (pp. 489–545). New York/London: Routledge.

Slobin, D.I. (1991). Learning to think for speaking: Native language, cognition, and rhetorical style. Pragmatics, 1, 7-25.

Slobin, D. I. (1996). From "thought and language" to "thinking to speak". In J. J. Gumperz & S. C. Levinson (Eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity (pp. 70-96.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Slobin, D.I. (2000). Verbalized events: A dynamic approach to linguistic relativity and determinism. In S. Niemeier & R. Dirven (Eds.), Evidence for Linguistic Relativity (Vol. 198, pp. 107-138). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Slobin, D. I. (2004). The many ways to search for a frog. In S. Ströqvist & L. Verhoeven (Eds.), Relating events in narrative: Typological and contextual perspectives (Vol. 2, pp. 219–257). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

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.

Slobin, D.I. (2006). What makes the manner of motion salient? Explorations in linguistic typology, discourse, and cognition. In M. Hickmann & S. Robert (Eds.), Space in Languages: Linguistic Systems and Cognitive Categories (PP. 59-81). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Soroli, E., Sahraoui, H. & Sacchett, C. (2012). Linguistic Encoding of Motion Events in English and French: Typological Constraints on Second Language Acquisition and   Agrammatic Aphasia, Language, Interaction and Acquisition, 3(2), 261-287 Doi: 10.1075/Lia.3.2.05sor

 Soroli, E. (2011). Typology and spatial cognition in English, French, and Greek: evidence from eye-tracking. In Antonis Botinis (ed.), Proceedings of the ISCA Tutorial and Research Workshop on Experimental Linguistics (PP. 127-130). Paris: International Speech Communication Association & the University of Athens.

Stam, G. (2006). Thinking for speaking about motion: L1 and L2 speech and gesture. IRAL, 44, 145-171.

Stam, G. (2010). Can an L2 speaker's patterns of thinking for speaking change? In Z. Han & T. Cadierno (Eds.), Linguistic relatively in SLA: Thinking for Speaking (pp. 59-83). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

Talmy, L. (1985). Lexicalization patterns: Semantic structure in lexical forms. In Schopen, T. (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description: Grammatical categories and the lexicon (Vol.3, pp. 57–149). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Talmy, L. (2000). Toward cognitive semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Verkerk, A. (2014). Diachronic change in Indo-European motion event encoding. Journal of Historical Linguistics, 4(1), 40–83.