AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |
Back to Blog
Share acc elsa speak1/4/2024 ![]() 237) and, most importantly, manner verbs may not be used with telic paths, that is, in boundary-crossing contexts (e.g., to run into a house so-called boundary-crossing constraint, Aske, 1989 Özçalişcan, 2015). V-languages also tend to have a smaller lexicon of manner-of-motion verbs than S-languages ( Slobin, 2004, p. Even if speakers of V-languages may thus encode manner of motion outside of the finite verb, they encode manner less frequently than users of S-languages (e.g., Treffers-Daller and Tidball, 2016). Manner is usually only expressed if this semantic component is surprising and/or salient (e.g., if someone, instead of walking, dances across the street) in this case, manner may be expressed in a gerund (e.g., running) or an adverb (e.g., quickly). In V-languages, the main component of motion events, that is, path, is expressed in the main verb (e.g., to cross, to enter, to exit, to descend, to ascend). 153)?Ī major distinction is typically made between so-called verb-framed (V) and satellite-framed (S) languages ( Talmy, 1985, 2000). 152)? Second, information locus, that is, which linguistic means are typically used to express different components of the event and, in particular, if manner of motion is expressed, is this aspect expressed in the verb root (e.g., to run, to dance, to crawl) or outside, for example, in gerunds (e.g. Typically, these distinctions focus on two main aspects of information packaging: First, information focus, that is, which aspects of events are typically selected for verbalization and, in particular, is manner of motion typically/necessarily expressed ( Cadierno, 2008, p. 146) and the corresponding degrees of manner (and/or path) salience ( Slobin, 2004). Language-specific encoding preferences have been described in terms of so-called lexicalization patterns ( Talmy, 1985, 2000) or conceptualization patterns ( Treffers-Daller and Tidball, 2016, p. Gullberg, 2009 Heyvaert, 2018 Ji and Hohenstein, 2018). Bryant, 2012 Harr and Hickmann, 2016) and caused motion (cf. Language-specific event construal, linguistic categories, and verbalization preferences have primarily been investigated, from the point of view of first, bilingual, and second language acquisition and usage, for spontaneous motion events (e.g., Inagaki, 2001 Slobin, 2004 Ochsenbauer and Hickmann, 2010 Daller et al., 2011 Bauer, 2012 Eskildsen et al., 2015 Pavlenko and Volynsky, 2015 Hijazo-Gascón, 2018 Woerfel, 2018 Filipović and Ibarretxe-Antuñano, 2019), but, in general, the main distinctions also apply to localization (cf. We sketch potential implications for L2 teaching.Ĭross-linguistic variation is well documented in the spatial language domain (e.g., Slobin, 2003). We therefore discuss characteristics of the target language input that might explain why L2 users struggle with identifying and differentiating these path encoding devices, their usage, and combinatorial patterns. These aspects seem to be challenging for advanced L2 users of German with either verb-framed L1s (French, Spanish) or satellite-framed L1s (Danish, English). Advanced L2 users actually particularly struggle with “smaller” path encoding devices such as particles, locative and directional adverbs, their formal and functional differentiation, their usage patterns and combinatorial potential. These challenges clearly go beyond event construal and the acquisition of the basic satellite-framed lexicalization pattern (e.g., verb semantics) as well as beyond expected challenges related to the use of prepositional phrases (e.g., prepositional semantics, case marking). Based on L2 usage and error patterns, we discuss six major challenges with respect to motion event encoding and, more specifically, path encoding. This paper analyzes oral and written motion event descriptions produced by advanced L2 users of German, an information-dense satellite-framed language. ![]() The encoding of motion events is known to be challenging for second language (L2) users, particularly if the lexicalization patterns of their first language (L1) diverge from those of the L2. Institute of Language Competence, School of Applied Linguistics, Zurich University of Applied Sciences, Winterthur, Switzerland.Karin Madlener-Charpentier * and Elsa Liste Lamas
0 Comments
Read More
Leave a Reply. |