We investigated interrelations among speech, co-speech gestures, and visual attention in first language (L1)-Turkish second language (L2)-English speakers’ descriptions of motion events. We asked whether young adults differed in their spoken, gestural expressions, and visual attention toward event components of manner (how an action is performed) and path (the trajectory of an action) after controlling for their L2 proficiency.
Methodology:
Participants were 49 native Turkish speakers (Mage = 20.98) whose second language is English. After watching each video (recording eye movements), they were asked to describe the motion event videos, and their speech and gesture were coded. English competence level was measured using a standardized assessment.
Data and Analysis:
We performed analyses of covariance (ANCOVAs) to investigate both within- and across-language differences for L1-Turkish and L2-English spoken and gestural expressions. To analyze eye-gaze behaviors with respect to language and event component differences, we performed t-tests. Last, hierarchical linear regressions were conducted to examine the relationship between visual attention and the use of path and manner in speech and gesture separately.
Findings:
For L1-Turkish speech, participants used more path than manner constructions, indicating no particular effect of L2 on L1. For L2-English, participants used similar amounts of path and manner descriptions. Path gestures dominated for both L1-Turkish and L2-English. Participants allocated more attention to figures possibly related to manners rather than grounds (paths). There was no effect of L2 proficiency on verbal and gestural explanations or visual attention to events.
Originality:
This study adopts an integrative approach through investigating speech, gesture, and eye-gaze behavior patterns in motion event conceptualization while also addressing L1 and L2 differences within this framework.
Implications:
These findings highlight the similarities in visual attention and the use of gestures across L1-Turkish and L2-English motion event descriptions, and only an expected difference in verbal expressions.
Aktan-ErciyesA.GöksunT. (2019). Early event understanding predicts later verb comprehension and motion event lexicalization. Developmental Psychology, 5, 2249–2262.
3.
Aktan-ErciyesA.GöksunT.TekcanA. I.Aksu-KoçA. (2021). Children’s thinking-for-speaking. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 11, 669–699. https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.19027.akt
4.
AldersonJ. C. (2005). Diagnosing foreign language proficiency. Continuum.
5.
AlonsoR. (2013). Motion events in L2 acquisition: The boundary-crossing constraint in English and Spanish. US-China Foreign Language, 11(10), 738–750. https://doi.org/10.17265/1539-8080/2013.10.002
6.
AzarZ.BackusA.ÖzyürekA. (2019). Language contact does not drive gesture transfer: Heritage speakers maintain language-specific gesture patterns in each language. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 23(2), 414–428. https://doi.org/10.1017/s136672891900018x
7.
AzizJ. R.NicoladisE. (2019). “My French is rusty”: Proficiency and bilingual gesture use in a majority English community. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 22(4), 826–835. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1366728918000639
8.
BermanR.SlobinD. I. (1994). Relating events in narrative: A crosslinguistic developmental study. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
9.
BrownA. (2007). Crosslinguistic influence in first and second languages: Convergence in speech and gesture [Doctoral dissertation, University of Boston]. Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics Publication Database.
10.
BrownA. (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(3), 66–82.
11.
BrownA.GullbergM. (2008). Bidirectional crosslinguistic influence in L1-L2 encoding of manner in speech and gesture: A study of Japanese speakers of English. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30(2), 225–251.
12.
BrownA.GullbergM. (2011). Bidirectional crosslinguistic influence in event conceptualization? Expressions of Path among Japanese learners of English. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 14(1), 79–94. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1366728910000064
13.
BrownA.GullbergM. (2013). L1–L2 convergence in clausal packaging in Japanese and English. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 16(3), 477–494. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1366728912000491
14.
CadiernoT. (2004). Expressing motion events in a second language: A cognitive typological perspective. In AchardM.NeimeierS. (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics, second language acquisition and foreign language pedagogy (pp. 13–49). Mouton de Gruyter.
15.
CadiernoT.RuizL. (2006). Motion events in Spanish L2 acquisition. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics Published Under the Auspices of the Spanish Cognitive Linguistics Association Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 4, 183–216. https://doi.org/10.1075/arcl.4.08cad
16.
CumminsJ. (1979). Linguistic interdependence and the educational development of bilingual children. Review of Educational Research, 49(2), 222–251.
17.
De RuiterJ. P. (2000). The production of gesture and speech. In McNeillD. (Ed.), Language and gesture (pp. 248–311). Cambridge University Press.
FilipovićL.HawkinsJ. A.
(2018). CASP model for bilingualism: Language interactions within and across bilingual minds. International Journal of Bilingualism, 22(2), 180–198. https://doi.org/10.1177/1367006916661636
20.
FilipovićL. (2021). First language versus second language effect on memory for motion events: The role of language type and proficiency. International Journal of Bilingualism, 13670069211022863.
21.
FleckenM. (2011). Event conceptualization by early Dutch–German bilinguals: Insights from linguistic and eye-tracking data. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 14(1), 61–77. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1366728910000027
22.
GleitmanL. R.JanuaryD.NappaR.TrueswellJ. C. (2007). On the give and take between event apprehension and utterance formulation. Journal of Memory and Language, 57(4), 544–569. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2007.01.007
23.
GorK.CookS. V.MalyushenkovaV.VdovinaT. (2009). Verbs of motion in highly proficient learners and heritage speakers of Russian. Slavic and East European Journal, 53, 386–408.
24.
GöksunT.LehetM.MalykhinaK.ChatterjeeA. (2015). Spontaneous gesture and spatial language: Evidence from focal brain-injury. Brain and Language, 150, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2015.07.012
GullbergM. (1998). Gesture as a communication strategy in second language discourse: A study of learners of French and Swedish. Lund University Press.
27.
JiY.HendriksH.HickmannM. (2011). The expression of caused motion events in Chinese and English: Some typological issues. Linguistics, 49, 1041–1077. https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2011.029
28.
HohensteinJ.EisenbergA.NaiglesL. (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. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1366728906002616
29.
KaradumanA. N.ÇatakE. N.BahtiyarS.GöksunT. (2015, March). The role of gestures in describing motion in English and Turkish. Poster presented at the International Conference on Psychological Science, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
30.
KitaS.ÖzyürekA.AllenS.BrownA.FurmanR.IshizukaT. (2007). Relations between syntactic encoding and co-speech gestures: Implications for a model of speech and gesture production. Language and cognitive processes, 22(8), 1212–1236. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960701461426
31.
KitaS.AlibaliM. W.ChuM. (2017). How do gestures influence thinking and speaking? The gesture-for-conceptualization hypothesis. Psychological Review, 124(3), 245–266. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000059
32.
KitaS.ÖzyürekA. (2003). What does crosslinguistic variation in semantic coordination of speech and gesture reveal? Evidence for an interface representation of spatial thinking and speaking. Journal of Memory and Language, 48(1), 16–32.
33.
LaiV. T.RodriguezG. G.NarasimhanB. (2013). Thinking-for-speaking in early and late bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 17(1), 139–152. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728913000151
34.
LewandowskiW.ÖzçalışkanŞ. (2019). How language type influences patterns of motion expression in bilingual speakers. Second Language Research, 37(1), 27–49. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658319877214
35.
LindsayS.ScheepersC.KamideY. (2013). To dash or to dawdle: Verb-associated speed of motion influences eye movements during spoken sentence comprehension. PLOS ONE, 8(6), Article e67187. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0067187
36.
McNeillD. (1992). Hand and mind: What gestures reveal about thought. University of Chicago Press.
37.
MiralpeixI.MuñozC. (2018). Receptive vocabulary size and its relationship to EFL language skills. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 56(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2017-0016
38.
MolL.KitaS. (2012). Gesture structure affects syntactic structure in speech. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 34. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/3sd7917s
39.
NaiglesL. R.Hoff-GinsbergE. (1998). Why are some verbs learned before other verbs? Effects of input frequency and structure on children’s early verb use. Journal of Child Language, 25(1), 95–120.
40.
NavarroS.NicoladisE. (2005).) Describing motion events in adult L2 Spanish narratives. In EddingtonD. (Ed.), Selected proceedings of the 6th conference on the acquisition of Spanish and Portuguese as first and second languages (pp. 102–107). Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
41.
NegueruelaE.LantolfJ. P.Rhen-JordanS.GelabertJ. (2004). The private function of gesture in second language speaking activity: A study of motion verbs and gesturing in English and Spanish. The International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 14(1), 113–147.
42.
NicoladisE.BrisardF. (2002). Encoding motion in gestures and speech: Are there differences in bilingual children’s French and English? In ClarkE. V. (Ed.), Space in Language: Location, motion, path, and manner. Proceedings of the 31st Stanford Child Language Research Forum (pp. 60–68). Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford University.
43.
NicoladisE.PikaS.YinH.MarentetteP. (2007). Gesture use in story recall by Chinese–English bilinguals. Applied Psycholinguistics, 28(4), 721–735. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0142716407070385
44.
ÖzçalışkanŞ. (2016). Do gestures follow speech in bilinguals’ description of motion?Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 19(3), 644–653. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1366728915000796
45.
ÖzçalışkanŞ.LuceroC.Goldin-MeadowS. (2016). Is seeing gesture necessary to gesture like a native speaker?Psychological Science, 27(5), 737–747. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797616629931
46.
ÖzçalışkanŞ.SlobinD. I. (1999). Learning how to search for the frog: Expression of manner of motion in English, Spanish, and Turkish. In GreenhillA.LittlefieldH.TanoC. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 23rd annual Boston University conference on language development (Vol. 2, pp. 163–174). Cascadilla Press.
47.
ÖzçalışkanŞ.SlobinD. I. (2003). Codability effects on the expression of manner of motion in Turkish and English. In ÖzsoyA. S.AkarD.Nakipoğlu-DemiralpM.Erguvanlı-TaylanE.Aksu-KoçA. (Eds.), Studies in Turkish linguistics (pp. 507–512). Boğaziçi University Press.
48.
ÖzyürekA. (2002). Speech-gesture synchrony in typologically different languages and second language acquisition. In SkarabelaB.FishS.DoA. H. J. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 26th annual Boston University conference on language development (pp. 500–509). Cascadilla Press.
49.
ÖzyürekA.KitaS.AllenS.FurmanR.BrownA. (2005). How does linguistic framing of events influence co-speech gestures: Insights from crosslinguistic variations and similarities. Gesture, 5(1–2), 219–240. https://doi.org/10.1075/gest.5.1-2.15ozy
PapafragouA.MasseyC.GleitmanL. (2002). Shake, rattle, “n” roll: The representation of motion in language and cognition. Cognition, 84(2), 189–219. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0010-0277(02)00046-x
PavlenkoA. (2005). Bilingualism and thought. In KrollJ. F.de GrootA. M. B. (Eds.), Handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches (pp. 433–453). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
54.
PavlenkoA.VolynskyM. (2015). Motion encoding in Russian and English: Moving beyond Talmy’s typology. The Modern Language Journal, 99(S1), 32–48. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12177
55.
SlobinD. (1996). From “thought and language” to “thinking for speaking.” In GumperzJ.LevinsonS. (Eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity (pp. 70–96). Cambridge University Press.
56.
SlobinD. I. (2004). The many ways to search for a frog: Linguistic typology and the expression of motion events. In StrömqvistS.VerhoevenL. (Eds.), Relating events in narrative, Vol. 2. Typological and contextual perspectives (pp. 219–257). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
57.
SlobinD. I. (2006). What makes manner of motion salient? Explorations in linguistic typology, discourse, and cognition. In HickmannM.RobertS. (Eds.), Typological studies in language. Space in languages: Linguistic systems and cognitive categories (pp. 59–81). John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.66.05slo
58.
SoroliE. (2011). Language and spatial cognition in French and in English: Crosslinguistic perspectives in aphasia [Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Université de Paris].
59.
SoroliE.HickmannM. (2011). Language and spatial representations in French and in English: Evidence from eye-movements. In MarottaG.LenciA.MeiniL.RovaiF. (Eds.), Space in language (pp. 581–597). Editrice Testi Scientifici.
60.
StamG. (2006). Thinking for speaking about motion: L1 and L2 speech and gesture. IRAL—International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 44(2), 145–171. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.2006.006
61.
StrömqvistS.VerhoevenL. (2004). Relating events in narrative, Vol. 2: Typological and contextual perspectives. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
62.
TalmyL. (1985). Lexicalization patterns: Semantic structure in lexical forms. In ShopenT. (Ed.), Language typology and syntactic description (pp. 36–149). Cambridge University Press.
63.
TalmyL. (2000). Toward a cognitive semantics. MIT Press.
64.
VermeulenR.KellermanE. (1999). Causation in narrative: The role of language background and proficiency in two episodes of “The Frog Story.” In AlbrechtsenD.HenrikeseenB.PoulsenE. (Eds.), Perspectives on foreign and second language pedagogy (pp. 161–176). Odense, Denmark: Odense University Press.
65.
von StutterheimC.AndermannM.CarrollM.FleckenM.SchmiedtováB. (2012). How grammaticized concepts shape event conceptualization in language production: Insights from linguistic analysis, eye tracking data, and memory performance. Linguistics, 50(4), 833–867. https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2012-0026
66.
von StutterheimC.CarrollM. (2006). The impact of grammatical temporal categories on ultimate attainment in L2 learning. In ByrnesH.Weger-GuntharpH.SprangK. A. (Eds.), Educating for advanced foreign language capacities: Constructs, curriculum, instruction, assessment (pp. 40–53). Georgetown University Press.
