German and Spanish differ in lexicalization of object position in placement events (e.g. They stand/lay-put the binoculars on the shelf). Do native (L1) speakers of these languages show different recognition memory for object position in placement scenes (“Thinking for Speaking” (TFS))? And if so, can learning German as a second language (L2) improve memory accuracy?
Originality:
There is very little research on the effect of language on memory in L2 speakers and no such studies have focused on placement events. By adopting a short time course (750 ms) between the prime and recognition phase this study makes a methodological advancement.
Design/Methodology/Approach:
We employed a design with L1 speakers (N = 54) of German and Spanish, and a group of Spanish L2 learners (N = 123) of German. Participants were presented with a two-phased memory task with minimum delay, with language and pictures showing placement events. Following the direction indicated by German placement verbs we changed position of objects in the picture recognition phase. L2 German speakers received a form-focused instruction on German placement verbs (stand/lay) before the memory task.
Data and Analysis:
We analysed recognition accuracy for object position changes.
Findings/Conclusions:
Results showed that L1 German speakers had more accurate recognition memory for object position changes than L1 Spanish speakers. When Spanish learners of L2 German performed the experiment in German, their accuracy exceeded L1 German speakers’ scores.
Significance/Implications:
The findings provide support for TFS effects on memory for object position in placement events for L1 speakers and show accuracy advantages for L2 speakers. Future studies should consider employing tasks with short time courses as the one used in this paper, in order to establish a base of controlled and reliable findings to unravel the linguistic relativity literature.
AbutalebiJ.CappaS.PeraniD. (2009). What can functional neuroimaging tell us about the bilingual brain? In KrollJ.de GrootA. (Eds.), Handbook of bilingualism (pp. 479–515). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
2.
BellP. (2015). Explicit and implicit learning: Exploring their simultaneity and immediate effectiveness. Applied Linguistics, 38(3), 297–317.
3.
BertheleR. (2012). On the use of PUT verbs by multilingual speakers of Romansh. In KopeckaA.NarasimhanB. (Eds.), Events of putting and taking: A crosslinguistic perspective (pp. 145–166). Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
4.
BillmanD.SwilleyA.KrychM. (2000). Path and manner priming: Verb production and event recognition. Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
5.
BosseS.PapafragouA. (2010). Spatial position in language and visual memory: A cross-linguistic comparison. Proceedings from the 32nd annual meeting of the cognitive science society. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
6.
BylundE.AthanasopoulosP. (2014). Linguistic relativity in SLA: Toward a new research program. Language Learning, 64(4), 952–985.
7.
CadiernoT. (2017). Thinking for speaking about motion in a second language: Looking back and forward. In Ibarretxe-AntuñanoI. (Ed.), Motion and space across languages and applications. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
8.
CadiernoT.Ibarratxe-AntunanoI.Hijazo-GascónA. (2016). Semantic categorization of placement verbs in L1 and L2 Danish and Spanish. Language Learning, 66(1), 191–223.
9.
CookV.BassettiB. (Eds.). (2011). Language and Bilingual Cognition. New York, NY: Psychology Press.
10.
CoventryK.ValdésB.Guijarro-FuentesP. (2010). Thinking for speaking and immediate memory for spatial relations. In HanZ. -H.CadiernoT. (Eds.), Linguistic relativity in L2 acquisition: Evidence of L1 thinking for speaking (pp. 84–101). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
11.
de BotK.JaenschC. (2013). What is special about L3 processing?Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 18(2): 130–144.
12.
de KnopS.MollicaF. (2017). Construction-based teaching of the German caused motion and intransitive constructions to Italian learners. Deutsch als Fremdsprache: Zeitschrift für Theorie und Praxis des Deutschunterrichts für Ausländer. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/2078/183390
13.
de KnopS.PerrezJ. (2014) Conceptual metaphors as a tool for the efficient teaching of Dutch and German posture verbs. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 12(1), 1–29.
14.
EllisR. (2001). Investigating form-focused instruction. Language Learning, 51(1), 1–46.
15.
FaganS. (1991). The semantics of the positional predicates liegen/legen, sitzen/setzen, and stehen/stellen. Die Unterrichtspraxis / Teaching German, 24, 136–145.
16.
FeistM.GentnerD. (2007). Spatial language influences memory for spatial scenes. Memory & Cognition, 35(2), 283–296.
17.
FilipovićL. (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.
18.
FilipovićL. (2016). Speaking in a second language but thinking in a first language: Language-specific effects on memory for causation events in English and Spanish. International Journal of Bilingualism, 20(1), 1–19.
19.
GardinerJ. (1988). Functional aspects of recollective experience. Memory and Cognition, 16, 309–313.
20.
GennariS.SlomanS.MaltB.FitchW. (2002). Motion events in language and cognition. Cognition, 83, 49–79.
21.
GrosjeanF. (2001). The bilingual’s language modes. In NicolJ. (Ed.), One mind, two languages: Bilingual language processing (pp. 1–22). Oxford: Blackwell.
22.
GrosjeanF.SoaresC. (1984). Processing mixed languages: Some preliminary findings. In VaidJ. (Ed.), Language processing in bilinguals: Psycholinguistic and neurological perspectives (pp. 145–179). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
23.
GullbergM. (2009). Reconstructing verb meaning in a second language. How English speakers of L2 Dutch talk and gesture about placement. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 7, 221–224.
24.
HawkinsE. (1984). Awareness of language: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
25.
Ibarretxe-AntunanoI. (2012). Placement and removal events in Basque and Spanish. In KopeckaA.NarasimhanB. (Eds.), Events of putting and taking: A crosslinguistic perspective (pp. 145–166). Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
26.
JackendoffR. (1990). Semantic structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
27.
KopeckaA.NarasimhanB. (Eds.). (2012). Events of Putting and Taking, a crosslinguistic perspective. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
28.
LemmensM. (2006). Caused posture: Experiental patterns emerging from corpus research. In StefanowitschA.GriesS. (Eds.), Corpora in cognitive linguistics. Vol II: The syntax-lexis interface. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.
29.
LevinsonS. (2012). Preface. In KopeckaA.NarasimhanB. (Eds.), Events of putting and taking: A crosslinguistic perspective. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
30.
LoewenS. (2012). Instructed second language acquisition. In ChapelleC. (Ed.), Encyclopaedia of applied linguistics. UK: Wiley Blackwell.
31.
MaigisteE. (1982). Automaticity and interference in bilinguals. Psychological Research, 44, 29–43.
32.
MaigisteE. (1985). Development of intra- and interlingual interference in bilinguals. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 14, 137–154.
33.
MaltB.SlomanS.GennariS. (2003). Speaking versus thinking about objects and actions. In GentnerD.Goldin-MeadowS. (Eds.), Language in mind: Advances in the study of language and thought (pp. 81–111). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Myers-ScottonC. (2003). Multiple voices: An introduction to bilingualism. Oxford: Blackwell.
36.
NarasimhanB.GullbergM. (2011). The role of input frequency and semantic transparency in the acquisition of verb meaning: Evidence from placement verbs in Tamil and Dutch. Journal of Child Language, 38, 504–532.
37.
NorrisJ.OrtegaL. (2001). Does type of instruction make a difference? Substantive findings from a meta-analytic review, Language Learning, 51(1), 157–213.
38.
PapafragouA.SelimisS. (2010). Event categorization and language: A cross-linguistic study of motion. Language and Cognitive Processes, 25(2), 224–260.
39.
PavlenkoA. (2014). The bilingual mind. And what it tells us about language and thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
40.
PienemannM. (2003). Language processing capacity. In DoughtyC. J.LongM. H. (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 679–714). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
41.
PulvermüllerF. (2005). Brain mechanisms linking language and action. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 6(7), 576–582.
42.
SanzC. (2000). Bilingual education enhances third language acquisition: Evidence from Catalonia. Applied Psycholinguistics, 21, 23–44.
43.
SchmidtR. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129–158.
44.
ShiffrinR.SchneiderW. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processsing: II perceptual learning, automatic attending, and a general theory. Psychological Review, 84(2), 127–190.
45.
SlobinD. (1996). From “thought and language” to “thinking for speaking.” In GumperzJ.LevinsonS. (Eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity. Studies in the social and cultural foundations of language (Vol. 17, pp. 70–96). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
46.
SlobinD. (2003). Language and thought online. Cognitive consequence of linguistic relativity. In GentnerD.Goldin-MeadowS. (Eds.), Language in mind: Advances in the study of language and thought (pp. 157–192). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
47.
SpadaN.LightbownP. (1993). Instruction and the development of questions in L2 classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 205–224.
48.
TalmyL. (1985). Lexicalization patterns: Semantic structure in lexical forms. In ShopenT. (Ed.), Language typology and syntactic description, Vol. 3: Grammatical categories and the lexicon, (pp. 36–149). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
49.
TalmyL. (2000). Toward a cognitive semantics: Typology and process in concept structuring (Vol. II). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
50.
TulvingE. (1985). Memory and consciousness. Canadian Psychology, 26, 1–12.
51.
van BergenG.FleckenM. (2017). Putting things in new places: Linguistic experience modulates the predictive power of placement verb semantics. Journal of Memory and Language, 92, 26–42.
52.
ViglioccoG.VinsonD.DruksJ.BarberH.CappaS. (2011). Nouns and verbs in the brain. A review of behavioural, electrophysiological, neuropsychological and imaging studies. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 35(3): 407–426.
53.
WallentinM.EllegaardT.OstergaardS.OstergaardL.RoepstorffA. (2005). Motion verb sentences activate left posterior middle temporal cortex despite static context. Cognitive Neuroscience and Neuropsychology, 16(6), 649–652.
54.
WallentinM.Hojlund NielsenA.VuustP.DohnA.RoepstorffA.Ellegaard LundT. (2011). BOLD response to motion verbs in left posterior middle temporal gyrus during story comprehension. Brain and Language, 119(3), 221–215.
55.
WolffB.HolmesK. (2010). Linguistic relativity. WIREs Cognitive Science, 2(3), 253–265.
56.
YonelinasA. (2002). The nature of recollection and familiarity: A review of 30 years of research. Journal of Memory and Language, 46(3), 441–517.
