Lexicalisation Patterns

Previously within this literature review we discussed language typology and how English can be categorised as a satellite-framed language, whereas Catalan and Spanish are known as verb-framed languages. This led us to discuss the differences between the languages with regard to motion events within the context of first language acquisition, and Slobin’s Thinking for Speaking hypothesis. Studies show that children are attuned to the structure of their L1 from a very early age, which is evident in the way they talk about motion (Allen et al., 2007; Berman & Slobin, 1994; Bowerman & Choi, 2001;

Choi & Bowerman, 1991; Slobin, 1996, 2004). However, an interesting consideration is whether a child’s conceptualisation patterns with regard to motion may be affected by learning a typologically different language. Furthermore, the study of lexicalisation patterns is comprehensive and affords insights about both the lexical and the construction level.

Learning an L2 is said to entail learning another way of thinking for speaking (Cadierno, 2004), that is, learning which particular details of a motion event must be attended to in the input and expressed in the foreign language (i.e., attention to static descriptions vs. movement trajectories, and less or more attention to manner of motion).

This has been labelled “re-thinking for speaking” by Robinson and Ellis (2008). The task of the L2 learner is thus not just to learn individual motion verbs, but to learn how

71

to structure the whole semantic domain of motion in the L2. However, it may also be the case that no re-thinking occurs; rather that the speaking is carried out in the L2 but thinking is carried out in the L1 (Filipović, 2016).

Given that the verbal encoding patterns established in an L1 are particularly resistant to restructuring under the influence of an L2 with different encoding patterns (see Malt & Sloman’s 2003 study of object naming), and that typological preferences particularly for motion event lexicalisation appear to be extremely robust, the literature points to the tendency of transfer from an L1 to an L2 in second language acquisition (e.g., Cadierno, 2004; Cadierno & Ruiz, 2006; Filipović & Vidaković, 2010; Hijazo-Gascón, 2015; Larrañaga et al., 2011; Navarro & Nicoladis, 2005; Negueruela et al., 2004; Stam, 2006; Vidaković, 2012), and therefore a general hypothesis consistent with Thinking for Speaking would be that the learners’ L1 typological patterns will, at least initially, constitute the point of departure for the form-meaning mappings established in the L2. For example, Cadierno and Lund (2004) studied the expression of manner of motion by learners with typologically different L1s and L2s (Danish, an S-language and Spanish, a V-language). They found that in general, Spanish learners of Danish would tend not to use manner verbs, and in contrast, Danish learners of Spanish tended to add manner information to their Spanish motion verbs. Similarly, in their 2004 study, Negueruela et al. discovered that L2 (English) speakers, even at advanced levels, have difficulties manifesting L2 lexicalisation patterns and rely on patterns internalised in their L1 (Spanish). Furthermore, Hijazo-Gascón (2015) encountered evidence of transfer in motion event lexicalisation in the L2 Spanish of L1 speakers of French, German and Italian. For a recent review of motion event typology in relation to the field of second language acquisition, see Cadierno (2017).

The general consensus throughout the aforementioned studies is that learners, especially in the early and intermediate stages of language acquisition, tend to make partial and non-target like form-meaning mappings that are often influenced by their L1.

However, although the literature on Thinking for Speaking indicates a tendency for transfer from the L1 to the L2, a few studies have examined L2 influence on the L1 with regard to motion event lexicalisation. Brown and Gullberg (2010) investigated lexicalisation patterns in adult native speakers of Japanese learning English, and in monolingual Japanese and English speakers. The results showed an effect of the L2 on the L1 even at intermediate stages of English proficiency in the bilinguals. Furthermore, Aveledo, Fraibet and Athanasopoulos (2015) studied Path and Manner verb preferences

72

amongst native Spanish-speaking children learning L2 English, and discovered L2 influence on L1 motion event encoding, where bilinguals used more manner verbs and fewer path verbs in their L1, under the influence of English.

Various studies have also indicated an influence from the L2 to the L1, but only under certain conditions. For example, Hohenstein et al. (2006) studied bidirectional influence of L1 and L2 in native speakers of English with L2 Spanish. Results showed that when describing in Spanish, bilinguals produced more manner verbs than Spanish monolinguals; when describing in English, bilinguals produced fewer manner verbs than English monolinguals. However, these patterns were qualified by an age of acquisition effect, in that an effect of L2 on L1 was only present in early bilinguals (their Spanish had fewer path verbs), (see also Bylund, 2009; Hohenstein, Eisenberg, & Naigles, 2006 on motion event encoding). Other conditions include language proficiency (see Bylund

& Jarvis’ 2011 study on grammatical aspect and endpoint encoding).

With regard to the conditions under which L2 influence on the L1 may be present, this study is original and innovative because it looks at how the context of instruction (L1 taught as L2) can affect the expression of motion. Therefore, the current study aims to investigate Talmy’s typological framework on motion events (Talmy, 1985, 1991, 2000) and Slobin’s theory of Thinking for Speaking in the context of bilingualism, by exploring whether learning an L1 as an L2 in childhood may result in influence from the L2 to the L1 with regard to the process of lexicalisation patterns in motion events.

2.5.5.4 Summary

This section aimed to establish some cognitive and linguistic domains of language which may show different levels of language attrition and cross-linguistic influence. With regard to the current study, by examining these language domains within the data obtained, the research will be able to assess the level of attrition with regard to the native English-speaking children learning their L1 as an L2.

Overall, this chapter provided an overview of the current state of knowledge in the areas of bilingualism, language acquisition and attrition, all of which relate to the current study. The following section will discuss the methodological approach.

73

CHAPTER III: METHODOLOGY

3.1 Introduction

The main purpose of this study is to establish whether and how the Catalan Language Policy affects the English language competence of native English-speaking children. To do this we will examine the various linguistic outcomes of language contact that are taking place, with a hypothesis that one of the key factors in this process could be the teaching of their L1 as an L2.

The previous chapter provided a review of the literature. This chapter discusses the research design and methodological approach that is most appropriate for the current investigation. The chapter defines the scope and the limitations of the research design, and situates the research amongst existing research traditions.

A qualitative and quantitative design is set out in order to seek empirically formed answers to the research question. This is followed by an overview and rationale for the research design, commencing with an outline of the key methods used. Each method used will be justified, given the importance of design and validity in the choice of research instruments. The subsequent section illustrates the data collection process and analysis of methods used and their implementation. In addition, ethical issues concerning the research process are identified. The final section details data analysis methods, before concluding with a brief summary of the preceding sections.