As it was explained in Chapter 1, in this research we are also studying second language users (L2-learners). Cadierno (2008) explains that there are not many studies that look into motion events in L2-learners compared to monolingual´s studies. In Chapter 1 we already explained the importance of L2 acquisition for the Whorf hypothesis. Thus, in this section we wish to describe the main studies that analyzed motion event in speakers that know two languages. We expose research that show cross-linguistic influence from L1 and L2, and explain the characteristics of this influence. Due to the great numbers of studies, we describe mainly works done in English and Spanish, with the occasional reference to other languages as well.
Research on motion event expressions has shown that a L2 can be affected by the characteristics of the L1 in motion events. But also that L2 might influence L1. This would mean that the conceptualization of motion event could be more permeable, dynamic and less static than previously thought. For example, Navarro & Nicoladis (2005) study the free descriptions produced by 10 high proficient adults, native English speakers, learners of Spanish. Results showed that participants described motion events following the Spanish pattern (path
83
verb tendency), but inserted in an intransitive sentence with a post-verbal phrase which is more typical in English than in Spanish.
In another investigation, Cadierno & Ruiz (2006) compare motion event expressions selected from Spanish narratives elicited by 48 participants. The authors compare 3 groups: 1. native speakers of Danish (a manner language) learners of Spanish; 2. native speakers of Italian learning Spanish (two path languages); Spanish speakers with no knowledge of Danish. Bilinguals had high proficiency in Spanish. Therefore, authors hypothesized that Danish, a
typologically different language from Spanish, would affect motion event
expression in the L2, i.e. Spanish. Generalizing, the results show a partial effect of L1 in L2 only in Danish speakers. That effect is observed by the presence of high numbers of ground specifications and in the production of ungrammatical sentences, structures not present in the Italian-speaking group. The authors conclude that the effect of L1 on L2 in advanced learners is limited, and probably more evident in learners with lower proficiency levels.
In their study, Larrañaga, Treffers-Daller, Tidball, & Gil Ortega (2011) also analyze the effect of L1 on L2 acquisition, and how positive and negative evidence (the implicit or explicit information obtained by learners about the language being acquired) could affect the acquisition of motion events.
According to the authors learning to express motion events is not an easy task. Despite the general rules about what type of verbs encode motion event
concepts there are restrictions like the types of PPs, adverbs, gerunds, etc. that must accompany each lexical item. For instance, learners must learn the
boundary crossing restrictions in Spanish. This difficulty for L2 learners is also suggested by (Slobin 2006b). Furthermore, Larrañaga et al. (2011), citing Morimoto (2001) explain that learning the constraints imposed by two different types of manner verbs in Spanish is another difficulty which speakers must confront. As far as we know, this is the only study that explains a difference between manner verbs in Spanish. The original study from Marimoto is in Spanish, and probably for that reason it hasn´t yet been described in many studies. According to Morimoto (2001), Spanish has internal manner of motion verbs (“verbos de manera de moverse interna”) in which the way of movement is autokinesthetic or reflexive (2011) (e.g. patear/to kick), bailar/ to dance).
84
These manner verbs apparently do not appear with grounds or trajectories. The second type of manner verbs is called external manner of motion verbs (“verbos de manera de moverse externa”) which includes verbs such as correr/to run,
caminar/to walk, volar/to fly. These manner verbs can be followed by trajectory
elements and paths PPs. Also, they “express an element of displacement”. According to Philips (2003) (cited by Larragaña et al. (2011)), you need
negative evidence to learn this difference between manner verbs. Larrañaga et al. explain that according to her knowledge motion verbs are not a commonly studied subject in Spanish classes. This makes the task of acquiring motion events more difficult. The aim of Larrañaga et al. is to study whether the L1 of native English-speakers from the UK affects their acquisition of Spanish, i.e. their L2. They show a bank robber story to 68 students of Spanish with 3 different levels of proficiency in Spanish. Participants narrate the story they watched in Spanish with no time limitations. The study is focused on boundary crossing verbs. Results show similarities between students with proficiency levels 1 and 2 (36.8% and 42% of path verbs, 26.3% and 26.3% of manner verbs, and 31.6% and 26.3% of deictic verbs respectively). Some participants just describe static expressions, although the percentage is below 3% and it decreases with proficiency. The authors do not find a significant difference between the 3 levels of proficiency in relation to the use of path and manner verbs. All participants use more path verbs, although participants from
proficiency level 3 used a little more. They explain that probably learning this lexicalization pattern for English speakers is easy because English already possess some similar Latin verbs in its vocabulary. Another finding is that participants from levels 1 and 2 instead of encoding manner in the satellite, as Spanish do, they place path and locative information in that sentence position, which seems a transfer from English patterns. Even some participants at level 3 still follow this pattern. Finally, many participants do not seem to know the boundary crossing restriction from Spanish, as they use some manner verbs instead of path. In some cases, they seem to literally translate from English. Larrañaga et al. (2011) explain that this contradicts Cardierno´s (2008) finding; however, they offer an explanation. Cadierno´s studies are focused on Danish as L1 which does not have Latin verbs as English. Latin verbs act against the learning process of motion events as well. Although it facilitates the acquisition of path verbs, it also makes learners to over-transfer due to the apparent
85
similarity between the two languages. The authors conclude that due to the lack of negative evidence, the acquisition of motion events even at higher levels of proficiency is not successful.
Other studies on motion events have also shown that L2 can affect L1.
Hohenstein, Eisenberg & Naigles (2006) study bidirectional influence of L1 and L2 in bilingual Spanish-English adult (native speakers of English). Bilinguals are categorized as early bilinguals (before or from 5 years of age) and as late
bilinguals (from 12 years of age). Participants describe previously watch videos. Path and manner elements in the whole sentence are studied. Results show that when performed in Spanish participants preferred path verbs over manner verbs. The opposite performance is obtained when participants perform in English. However, when both groups are compared to English- and Spanish- monolinguals23, it is observed that in Spanish, bilinguals produce more manner verbs than monolinguals; and likewise, in English, bilinguals produce less manner verbs than English monolinguals. Therefore, lexically, bidirectional effects of L1 on L2 and from L2 on L1 are observed. However, grammatically, the biggest differences are observed when bilinguals perform in English by producing sentences and elements typical from Spanish. Therefore, an effect of L1 on L2 is observed. When the effect of AoA is analysed, the authors only find a lexical effect of L2 on L1 in early bilinguals (i.e. Spanish sentences have less presence of path verbs). However, in late bilinguals, a bidirectional effect is observed, not only lexically but also grammatically.
Another study on Spanish-English bilinguals is carried out by Filipović (2011). The author studies how balanced bilinguals remember and describe complex motion events. Although by testing memory the study´s main aim is to test the LR hypothesis, the author reports results from a description task in a section.
Filipović tests 30 monolingual speakers of English, 30 monolingual speakers of Spanish, and 20 Spanish-English balanced bilinguals. A total of 66% of the bilinguals are descendant of Latin-Americans and 34% are white Caucasians.
23 Hohenstein et al. (2006b) compared their results with results from Spanish- and English- monolinguals
obtained by Naigles et al. (1998) in a similar study. Therefore, the comparisons with monolinguals described above come from this study.
86
They are all early bilinguals. Participants watch series of two videos, each showing a person performing 2 or 3 different manners. A group of participants are asked to describe the videos in English and in Spanish. The results show that when bilinguals describe videos in English they use more manner verbs (per type and tokens) than when performing in Spanish. Furthermore, bilinguals produce more manner verbs than their Spanish peers. When bilinguals describe videos in Spanish they mainly use path verbs. However, these bilingual
speakers produce more expressions of manner than Spanish monolinguals but significantly less than English monolinguals. This is suggesting cross-linguistic transfer from Spanish to English. The author proposes that the Spanish
preference could be explained by a predominance of the Spanish language in bilinguals, who speak that language at home and with family and friends.
Brown & Gullberg (2010) scrutinize all the possible expressions of path of motion in second language learners, focusing on the effect of L2 on L1. Adult native speakers of Japanese learning English (with intermediate proficiency level) are compared to monolingual speakers- of Japanese, and of English. Although the study also analyzes motion events in monolinguals´ groups, we report results from bilingual speakers. Probably the most interesting finding is the effect of L2 on L1 even at intermediate proficiency of English. Second language learners use in their L1 a mixed strategy to path lexicalization: a presence of path verbs, typical in Japanese, but also a high use of path
adverbial, more typical for English. Furthermore, they produce a high number of path expressions inside the clause, even more than any monolingual group. The authors conclude that not only L2 but also L1 seems to be restructured even at modest levels of proficiency.
The same authors publish another article (Brown & Gullberg (2011)) that looks into more detail at the cross-linguistic transferences between L1 Japanese learners of English, obtaining the same general result from 2010. They focus their study in the production of path of motion and its components: source, via, goal. The methodology is similar to that from the 2010 study: the proficiency level of second language learners is intermediate; and the data is collected from narrations elicited after looking at the Canary Row cartoon. The results show that in certain aspects Japanese learners behave differently from monolinguals
87
of their language, which makes the authors to conclude that the L1 is restructured as an effect of learning a second language at modest levels of proficiency, in the same way L2 speakers differ from the monolingual pattern of their second language.
Other research using different methodologies also seems to show the difficulty for even proficient second language learners to master the motion event system of the L2. Many of them find transfer from L1. Montrul (2001), in a study under a generativist approach, shows that Spanish and Turkish learners of English with intermediate level of proficiency find hard to produce the argument structure of the L2 when talking about motion events. Most of the studies describe in our thesis use elicited narration or sentences through videos, but Montrul’s (2001) work use grammaticality judgment task and picture judgment task. However, this study also shows the difficulty for second language learners to express motion events as native speakers.
Other interesting studies that also show effects from L1 into L2 are those focused on language expressions and gestures. Both, language and gestures are analyzed as expressing a single meaning. Choi & Lantolf (2008) study English with advanced level of Korean and Korean-native speakers with advanced level of English. Speakers of both languages do present patterns from their L1 in their L2. Similar results are obtained by Negueruela, Lantolf, Rehn Jordan, & Gelabert (2004) in a study of advanced L2 speakers of English and Spanish.