Luna Filipović

Speaking and remembering in one or two languages: bilingual vs. monolingual lexicalization and memory for motion events

The aim of this study is to test whether balanced English–Spanish bilingual speakers behave like monolinguals in each of their languages when describing and remembering complex motion events. The semantic domain in question is motion, because some components (namely the manner of motion) are more difficult to lexicalize in Spanish than in English because of typological constraints (see Filipović, 2007; Slobin, 1996, 1997; Talmy, 1985). As a result, performance on a recognition task involving motion verbs could be expected to vary depending on the language used in the experiment. English and Spanish monolinguals and bilinguals performed the recognition task. Results from the monolinguals indicate that there is a language effect based on this typological difference. Specifically, English monolingual speakers performed significantly better than their Spanish peers in the recognition task in both of our conditions, i.e., with verbalization and without verbalization. The bilingual results on the other hand strongly suggest that these speakers tend to adhere to a single lexicalization pattern that is acceptable in both languages, which is the Spanish one in this case. We discuss further implications of these results for language processing and for memory of motion events in general.

Multiple factors in second language acquisition: The CASP model

Abstract We propose a new model of second language acquisition consisting of multiple interacting principles and inspired by work on complex adaptive systems. The model is referred to as CASP, short for complex adaptive system principles for second language acquisition. It is informed by a broad range of linguistic and psycholinguistic research and supported empirically by recent second language research studies based on a learner corpus. The novelty of our model lies in the definitions that we propose for a number of general and specific principles of learning, in the interactions that we demonstrate between them, in the predictions that we make and illustrate empirically, and in our integration of research findings from numerous areas of the language sciences. The result is a broadly based theory of SLA, which can potentially solve some of the traditional puzzles in this field, e.g., involving when transfer from an L1 does and does not occur.

Motion Events in Eyewitness Interviews, Translation and Memory: Typological and Psycholinguistic Perspectives

This paper discusses the ways in which Cognitive Linguistics informs Forensic Linguistics and Psycholinguistics and illustrates what potential future developments in these disciplines may be. The starting point is a typology of the worlds languages, proposed by Len Talmy (1985, 1991, 2000) within the framework of Cognitive Linguistics. Talmys typology is a classification of languages based on the lexical and syntactic means speakers use in order to map language-specific categories onto universal cognitive categories, such as motion events. Motion events were chosen because of their ubiquity in human experience. Two basic contrastive patterns in motion expressions have surfaced as a result: those where the Path of motion is typically expressed in a verb and those in which it is given out of the verb. All the worlds languages can be divided into two major groups depending on which of the two patterns habitually prevails in use, and therefore could be termed ‘characteristic’ in a particular language. Spanish and English are the two languages in focus at present because they belong to two opposing types according to Talmys typology. On this occasion the central aim is to illustrate the consequences of the relevant typological contrasts that bear relevance to forensic linguistic analysis of witness interviews and their translation as well as to provide a solid basis for a study of the interplay between language and cognition, especially in the psycholinguistic domains such as linguistic memory and language acquisition. By doing so, we will provide a comparative look across different disciplines and highlight the achievements of recent interdisciplinary research as well as current debates in a number of language-focused research areas.

Speaking in a second language but thinking in the first language: Language-specific effects on memory for causation events in English and Spanish

Aims and objectives/purpose/research question: This paper’s objective is to offer new insights into the effects of language on memory for causation events in a second language (L2) context. The research was driven by the question of whether proficient L2 users acquired L2 thinking-for-speaking-and-remembering strategies along with the relevant expressions for different types of causation (intentional versus non-intentional). Design/methodology/approach: The cognitive domain of causation is an ideal platform for this investigation, since the lexicalisation of causation differs clearly in the two languages under consideration, English and Spanish. Spanish speakers always distinguish between intentional and non-intentional events through the use of different constructions. The English pattern of lexicalisation in this domain often leaves intentionality unspecified. Our methodology involves an experimental elicitation of event verbalisations and recall memory responses to video stimuli by English and Spanish monolinguals and bilinguals. Data and analysis: The analysis has shown that the Spanish monolinguals and first language (L1) Spanish/L2 English speakers always distinguished between intentional and non-intentional events, while the English monolinguals and L1 English/L2 Spanish speakers generally used expressions that were underspecified with regard to intentionality. Findings/conclusions: All populations used their habitual language patterns as an aid to memory. Spanish monolingual had better recall than their English peers. L2 speakers were mainly relying on the L1 in spite of speaking only the L2 during the experiment. Originality: Possible effects of these typological differences between an L1 and an L2 on speaker recall memory have not been investigated before. Significance/implications: The research presented in this paper informs the theoretical assumptions related to the thinking-for-speaking hypothesis by showing empirically that late bilinguals adhere to their L1 patterns as an aid to memory while speaking in their L2. This novel finding contributes to an improved understanding of language processing and language use among late bilinguals.

English article usage as a window on the meanings of same , identical and similar

We propose an explanation for a traditional puzzle in English linguistics involving the use of articles with the nominal modifiers same, identical and similar. Same can only take the definite article the, whereas identical and similar take either the or a. We argue that there is a fundamental difference in the manner in which a comparison is made with these modifiers. Identical and similar involve direct comparisons between at least two entities and an assertion of either full property matching (identical), or partial property matching (similar). The comparison with same proceeds differently: what is compared is not linguistic entities directly, but definite descriptions of these entities that can be derived through logical entailments. John and Mary live in the same house entails the house that John lives in is the (same) house that Mary lives in. There must be a pragmatic equivalence between these entailed definite descriptions, ranging from full referential equivalence to a possibly quite minimal overlap in semantic and real-world properties shared by distinct referents. These differences in meaning and article cooccurrence reveal the sensitivity of syntax to semantic and pragmatic properties, without which all and only the grammatical sentences of a language cannot be predicted.

The Complex Adaptive System Principles model for bilingualism: Language interactions within and across bilingual minds

Aims and objectives/purpose/research question: We propose a model that captures general patterns in bilingual language processing, based on empirical evidence elicited in a variety of experimental studies. We begin by considering what linguistic outputs are logically possible when bilingual speakers communicate based on the typological features of two languages in the bilingual mind. Our aim is to explain why some outputs are more frequent or more likely than others in bilingual language use. Design/methodology/approach: Our empirically derived multi-factor model combines insights from various empirical studies of different bilingual populations and it includes a variety of methodologies and approaches, such as lexical categorisation, lexical priming, syntactic priming, event verbalisation and memory, historical language change, grammaticality judgments and observational reports. Data and analysis: We critically discuss both lexical and syntactic processing data, as well as data that reflect bilingual type differences and different communicative situations (i.e. who the bilingual speakers are talking to and for what purpose). Crucially, we explain when the relevant factors collaborate and when they compete. Originality: There are three main reasons why this paper can be deemed original: 1) it offers a unified model for understanding bilingual language processing that is not focused on a single factor or a single linguistic level, as has most often been the case in the past; 2) it brings together the study of bilingualism from both psycholinguistic and sociolinguistic perspectives and in a unifying fashion, which is rare in the literature; and 3) it creates a platform for testing numerous predictions that are not dependent on any one theory. Significance/implications: This new model opens up new avenues for research into bilingual language processing for all types of bilingual speakers and in different communicative situations. It captures and explains the variety of outputs in bilingual communication and enables us to make predictions about communicative outcomes.