Gesture Placement by Germans in Descriptions of Motion Events

2009 ◽  
Vol 81 ◽  
pp. 99-108
Author(s):  
Lian van Berkel-van Hoof
Keyword(s):  
Consistent Pattern ◽  
Motion Events ◽  
Thinking For Speaking ◽  
Way Of Thinking

Based on how different languages verbalise motion events they can be divided into two main categories: satellite-framed (e.g., English) and verb-framed languages (e.g., Spanish) (Talmy, 1985; Slobin, 2004). This typology reflects the speakers' way of thinking-for-speaking (Slobin, 1996; 2004). According to, for example, McNeill & Duncan (2000), gestures are also part of thinking-for-speaking. This is reflected by the constituents with which gestures coincide. However, previous research (Van Hoof, 2000; Vrinzen, 2003; Boot 2003) suggests that even two satellite-framed languages can differ in their gesture placement. The English participants tended to place their gestures on the verb (expected of verb-framed languages). The Dutch displayed no consistent pattern across the three studies. This study investigates German. Results suggest that Germans tend to place their gestures on the satellite (expected of satellite-framed languages). Together, these four studies indicate that a categorisation based on speech cannot necessarily be applied to gestures.

scholarly journals Thinking-for-Speaking to Describe Motion Events

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Noriko Iwasaki ◽  
Keiko Yoshioka
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Native Speakers ◽  
Motion Events ◽  
Bilingual Speakers ◽  
Event Description ◽  
Motion Event ◽  
Intermediate Learners ◽  
English Speaking ◽  
Thinking For Speaking ◽  
Way Of Thinking

Speaking a second language (L2) involves another way of “thinking for speaking” (Slobin 1996). Adopting Talmy’s typological framework of motion event description, this study examined how learning Japanese as L2 restructures English-Japanese bilingual speakers’ thinking-for-speaking. Thirteen English-speaking intermediate learners of L2 Japanese described motion events in English and Japanese. The analysis focused on speech and gesture describing ‘rolling down’ and ‘swinging’ events, for which English and Japanese native speakers’ descriptions differ (Kita, Özyürek 2003). The results suggest some restructuring in their thinking-for-speaking.

Language typology, task complexity and the development of L2 lexicalization patterns for describing motion events

2009 ◽  
Vol 7 ◽  
pp. 245-276 ◽  
Author(s):  
Teresa Cadierno ◽  
Peter Robinson
Keyword(s):  
Cognitive Complexity ◽  
Task Complexity ◽  
Motion Events ◽  
L2 Proficiency ◽  
Language Typology ◽  
Linguistic Study ◽  
L2 Learners ◽  
Thinking For Speaking ◽  
Ways Of Thinking ◽  
Motion Constructions

The present paper focuses on the acquisition of L2 constructions for the expression of motion from a typological (Cadierno, 2008; Talmy, 1985, 1991, 2000) and a psycholinguistic perspective with implications for pedagogy (Robinson, 2003a, 2007; Robinson & Gilabert, 2007a, 2007b). Specifically, we report the results of a cross-linguistic study which examined the extent to which the manipulation of pedagogic tasks in terms of cognitive complexity can facilitate the development of target-like lexicalization patterns and appropriate L2 ways of thinking-for-speaking for the expression of motion by adult L2 learners with typologically similar and typologically different L1s and L2s, i.e., Danish vs. Japanese L1 learners of English. The results of the study show that level of L2 proficiency, assessed using a cloze test, predicts more target-like reference to L2 motion across both L1 groups. Typological similarity between the L1 (Danish) and L2 (English) results in greater use of motion constructions incorporating mention of ground of motion compared to their use by Japanese L1 speakers. More cognitively complex tasks lead to production of more target-like lexicalization patterns, but also only for speakers of the typologically similar L1, Danish.

Motion events in Spanish L2 acquisition

2006 ◽  
Vol 4 ◽  
pp. 183-216 ◽  
Author(s):  
Teresa Cadierno ◽  
Lucas Ruiz
Keyword(s):  
Second Language Acquisition ◽  
Language Learners ◽  
Native Speakers ◽  
The Other ◽  
Motion Events ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Adult Language Learners ◽  
Thinking For Speaking ◽  
L1 Acquisition ◽  
L1 And L2

The overall aim of this paper is to discuss how Talmy’s (1985, 2000) typological framework and Slobin’s (1996) thinking for speaking hypothesis can be fruitful for the investigation of how adult language learners come to express motion events in an L2. We report an empirical study which compares the expression of the semantic components of Path and Manner of motion by three groups of informants: (a) learners whose L1 and L2 belong to different typological patterns (Danish learners of Spanish; (b) learners whose L1 and L2 share the same typological pattern (Italian learners of Spanish); and (c) Spanish native speakers. Based on previous research on L1 acquisition, it was hypothesized that the Danish learner group would exhibit a higher degree of elaboration of the two semantic components than the other informant groups. The results of the study, however, show a limited role for the L1 thinking for speaking patterns in advanced second language acquisition.

scholarly journals L1 Conceptual Transfer in the Acquisition of L2 Motion Events in Spanish and English: The Thinking-for-Speaking Hypothesis

2016 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Rosalie Sharpen
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Native Language ◽  
Research Paper ◽  
Motion Events ◽  
Spanish Speaking ◽  
English Speaking ◽  
Thinking For Speaking ◽  
Native English Speaking ◽  
Conceptual Transfer ◽  
Inverse Translation

AbstractThis research paper takes and builds upon Slobin’s (1987) thinking-for-speaking hypothesis as a basis for exploring the notion of conceptual transfer from the L1 in the acquisition and production of motion events in an L2. This is achieved by investigating the extent to which L2 transfer presents itself in the expression of motion in inverse translation tasks carried out by 27 native English speaking learners of Spanish and 32 native Spanish speaking learners of English. The nature of this transfer is then investigated to establish whether or not it appears to be conceptual. The tasks presented to participants contained items based on Talmy’s (1985) research on cross-linguistic lexicalisation patterns in the expression of motion events, which, as Slobin (1987, 1996) later proposes, appear to dictate the conceptualisation of motion events in a language. Results reveal that cognitive parameters in the participants’ native language affected their performance in the production of motion events in their second language, in accord with Slobin’s (1987) thinking-for-speaking hypothesis. Finally, the study concludes with a summary of these results.

Children’s thinking-for-speaking

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aslı Aktan-Erciyes ◽  
Tilbe Goksun ◽  
Ali İzzet Tekcan ◽  
Ayhan Aksu-Koç
Keyword(s):  
Early Exposure ◽  
Motion Events ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Second Languages ◽  
Video Clips ◽  
Motion Event ◽  
Dominant Society ◽  
Main Verb ◽  
Thinking For Speaking ◽  
Children’S Thinking

Abstract This study investigates how children lexicalize motion events in their first and second languages, L1-Turkish and L2-English. English is a satellite-framed language that conflates motion with manner expressed in the main verb and path in a non-verbal element, whereas Turkish is a verb-framed language that conflates motion with path in the main verb and expresses manner in a subordinated verb. We asked three questions: (1) Does early L2 acquisition in an L1 dominant society affect motion event lexicalization in L1? (2) Is the effect of L2 on L1 subject to change due to decline in L2 exposure? (3) Do L1 vs. L2 lexicalizations differ within the bilingual mind? One hundred and twelve 5- and 7-year-old monolingual and bilingual children watched and described video-clips depicting motion events. For L1 descriptions, 5-year-old bilinguals used more manner structures than monolinguals. No difference was found for 7-year-olds. For L2 descriptions, 7-year-old bilinguals used more manner-only constructions compared to their L1 descriptions. For 5-year-old bilinguals no difference was found. Findings suggest that early exposure to a second language had an impact on how motion events are packaged, while decline in L2 exposure dampened the effects of L2.

scholarly journals Codificación del movimiento por aprendices checos de españo: influencia de los patrones de pensar para hablar de la L1 en la L2

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (3) ◽  
pp. 239-252
Author(s):  
Rosalía Calle Bocanegra
Keyword(s):  
Native Speakers ◽  
Boundary Crossing ◽  
Motion Events ◽  
Typical Structure ◽  
Advanced Learners ◽  
Written Narratives ◽  
Motion Verb ◽  
Thinking For Speaking

Motion encoding by Czech learners of Spanish: Influence of L1 Thinking-for-Speaking patterns in L2 This paper studies verbal encoding of motion events by Czech advanced learners of Spanish and Spanish native speakers. Since these languages differ in terms of Talmy’s (2000) typology of motion encoding, the study aims to assess to what extent the learners acquired the Thinking-for-Speaking patterns (Slobin 1996) of the L2. To this end, written narratives by natives and learners are examined and compared. The results show that the construction “path verb + manner complement”, a typical structure for verb-framed languages such as Spanish, is used significantly less often by the learners compared with the natives. The results also indicate that L1 interference happens when expressing boundary crossing situations in Spanish by the learners, since they tend to use a Manner of motion verb.

scholarly journals Thinking-for-speaking in early and late bilinguals

2013 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 139-152 ◽  
Author(s):  
VICKY TZUYIN LAI ◽  
GABRIELA GARRIDO RODRIGUEZ ◽  
BHUVANA NARASIMHAN
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Age Of Acquisition ◽  
Motion Events ◽  
Event Classification ◽  
Bilingual Speakers ◽  
Similarity Judgments ◽  
Thinking For Speaking ◽  
Motion Versus ◽  
Late Bilinguals ◽  
Spanish Bilinguals

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.

Communicative Performance of Adolescents with Severe Speech Impairment

1989 ◽  
Vol 54 (3) ◽  
pp. 403-421 ◽  
Author(s):  
Beth M. Dalton ◽  
Jan L. Bedrosian
Keyword(s):  
Data Analysis ◽  
Peer Interactions ◽  
Consistent Pattern ◽  
Clinical Implications ◽  
Speech Impairment ◽  
Communication Mode ◽  
Mode Function ◽  
Communicative Performance ◽  
Therapy Room ◽  
Communication Board

The communicative performance of 4 preoperational-level adolescents, using limited speech, gestures, and communication board techniques, was examined in a two-part investigation. In Part 1, each subject participated in an academic interaction with a teacher in a therapy room. Data were transcribed and coded for communication mode, function, and role. Two subjects were found to predominantly use the speech mode, while the remaining 2 predominantly used board and one other mode. The majority of productions consisted of responses to requests, and the initiator role was infrequently occupied. These findings were similar to those reported in previous investigations conducted in classroom settings. In Part 2, another examination of the communicative performance of these subjects was conducted in spontaneous interactions involving speaking and nonspeaking peers in a therapy room. Using the same data analysis procedures, gesture and speech modes predominated for 3 of the subjects in the nonspeaking peer interactions. The remaining subject exhibited minimal interaction. No consistent pattern of mode usage was exhibited across the speaking peer interactions. In the nonspeaking peer interactions, requests predominated. In contrast, a variety of communication functions was exhibited in the speaking peer interactions. Both the initiator and the maintainer roles were occupied in the majority of interactions. Pertinent variables and clinical implications are discussed.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document