monique flecken university of heidelberg esrc centre for research on bilingualism in theory and...

Monique FleckenUniversity of Heidelberg

ESRC Centre for Research on Bilingualism in Theory and PracticeUniversity of Bangor, Oct. 09

The role of aspect in event conceptualization

Monique Flecken 2 ESRC, Bangor 2009

The questions

- How do speakers of different languages report on events (shown in videoclips)?-What is the role of aspect for event construal?-What principles do speakers rely on when selecting an aspectual perspective on an event (i.e. use of aspectual forms)?

Structure of the talk:-Project framework-Study 1: Event conceptualization in Italian, Dutch, German, English-Study 2: Event conceptualization by early bilinguals


Empirical approach to language use: the basic idea

Speakers of different languages see the same real world scene (depicting an event), they are introduced to the verbal task, under the same temporal perspective What is happening?

In the stimuli, event features are systematically varied, which are potentially relevant for temporal perspective taking and selection of an aspectual perspective in different languages


Levels of event conceptualization

External world: the stimulus

Information intakeCognitive (language-driven)filter

selective attention

Conceptual representation

Cognitive (language-driven)filter

information segmentation, selection, structuringperspective taking

Verbal representation

Empirical methods

eye trackingchronometry

chronometryverbal productmemory


Stimuli-Dynamic, live-action videoclips

-Different types of situation

e.g. Motion events (endpoint), ‚activities‘, change in state situations

-Situation types presented in pseudo-randomized order

-6 seconds in length

-Pause between videoclips: 8 seconds (baseline), 3 seconds (time constraint)

-Eye movement recorded before and while verbalizing


Event conceptualization – language specific preferences

Example: Motion events (cf. v. Stutterheim & Carroll, 2006; v. Stutterheim et al, subm.)


Event conceptualization – language specific preferences

Findings: Interrelation use of progr./imperf. aspect (phasal segmentation) and mentioning of as well as attention to (potential) endpoints

‚Seeing for Speaking‘

Holistic (+endpoint) vs. ongoing perspective

(- endpoint)


Event conceptualization - aspect

Differences between aspectual systems with respect to the degree of grammaticalisation (expressing “ongoingness”)

emerging lexical onlyfully grammaticalized

e.g. English, (Japanese, Russian)

to be V-ing

Italian, Dutch

stare+gerundUna donna sta faciendo una sciarpa

aan het X zijnEen vrouw is een sjaal aan het breien

zitten/staan/te + inf

German, (Norwegian)

am X seinbeim X sein

dabei sein X zu Inf


Research questions

1. Frequency of selection of aspectual perspective ‚event is ongoing‘ in explicit terms

2. What situation types (in the stimuli) attract selection of this aspectual perspective?

3. Are crosslinguistic preferences reflected in different patterns of attention during information intake?


Stimuli & Method Stimulus material

- Scenes showing specific situation types; remote eye tracker -

65 randomized videoclips, 6 secs long, 8 secs pause

Elicitation: ”You may start to speak as soon as you recognize what is happening in the clip”Situation Type: „Activities“ (Endpoint

open; no resultant state) (N = 8)Two men are surfing A woman is playing the piano

Situation Type: Change in state progression to a resultant state (effected object)

(N=10)

A woman is knitting a scarf A man is folding a paper airplane STIM

Situation Type: Motion events(-end) (N=10)

Two girls are walking along a road (towards a house)

Fillers (N= 20)

A man is tidying his office, etc.

„Wat gebeurt er?“ „Was passiert?“


Participants

Native speakers

Dutch: N=20 (age range 18-27), 50% female, 50% male

Italian: N=20 (age range 20-28), 60% female, 40% male (Natale, in press)

English: N=20 (age range 21-29), 60% female, 40% male

German: N=20 (age range 20-35), 50% female, 50% male


Results – Aspectual perspective

% of all utterances

41,95%

30,74%

99%

5,93%

100%

56,20%

43,68%

4,20%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Italian Dutch English German

Overall average

Motion events(-EP)

Activities

Change in state

% of all utterances

41,95%

30,74%

99%

5,93%

100%

56,20%

43,68%

4,20%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Overall average

Motion events(-EP)

Activities

Change in state


Eye tracking analysis

Event conceptualized as ‘ongoing’: dependent on presence of specific temporal features of situation in Italian and Dutch (changes in state leading to an effected object)

Question: Will this affect direction of attention (eye movement) of Dutch and Italian speakers?

Hypo: Speakers will not have to direct attention to these features to same extent with use of progressive aspect in English (nor in German)


Eye tracking analysis 2 Areas of Interest (AoI): ‘Agent’ vs. ‘Action’, the area showing the ongoing process – 6 stimuli analyzed

Agent

Action

Measures for attention: Duration of fixations, (time course of fixations in AoI (measured from videoclip onset) – start time of first period of fixation in AoI


0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800


ms Agent

Action

*

ET Results – Start time of first period of fixation

AoI action: Italian, Dutch earlier than English, German

p<.05


ET Results – Total fixation time

p<.05

AoI action: Eng > Ger, Dut/Ital trend > Ger AoI agent: Ger > Eng

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

ms Agent

Action

Agent 841 826 712 912

Action 4697 4580 4475 4237

English Dutch Italian German

*


Interim summary

Overall direction of attention to ongoing action correlates with frequency of use of this aspectual perspective (English, Italian, Dutch vs. German)

Attention to relevant aspects occurs early in speech planning process when selection of aspectual perspective is dependent on specific temporal features of stimuli (Italian/Dutch)

Selection of an aspectual perspective influences attention for and while speaking (ET!)


Research question – Bilinguals

What do a bilingual‘s patterns of event conceptualization look like – comparing

their use of the two languages?


The bilinguals under analysis

Early bilinguals, onset of acquisition both languages <4 years

One parent, one language

Bilingual education programme

Languages: Dutch – German

- Typologically similar (V2, Syntax, Tense)

- Relevant difference: Selection of an aspectual perspective


Research questions

Bilingual subjects:1. Frequency of selection of aspectual perspective ‚event is ongoing‘ in explicit terms, in both languages

2. What situation types attract selection of this aspectual perspective, in both languages?

3. Are differences reflected in different patterns of attention during information intake?

How do they proceed in event conceptualization and direction of attention ?


Participants

‘Monolingual’ speakers

L1 Dutch, L1 German

N=28, (age range 18-35), 50% female, 50% male

Early bilinguals

N=10, (age range 16-22), 60% female, 40% male

two recordings (within-subject design)


Results – Aspectual perspective

*

% of all utterances

5,83 7,14

47,9

13,16

4,55

64,77

4,27,27

69,83

0,53 0 0

30,74

43,71 43,68

13,33

Monolingual German Bilingual German Monolingual Dutch Bilingual Dutch

All stimuli Activities Change in state situations Motion events

*

*

p<.05


Summary – linguistic analysis

‘Monolinguals’L1 German - event conceptualized in aspectual terms - rare (if at all: confined to activities)

e.g. Zwei Jungs sind beim Wellenreiten

L1 Dutch - aspectual perspective frequent in two situation types: change in state sits, activities – aan het dominante.g. Een man is een vliegtuigje aan het vouwen


Summary – linguistic analysis

Bilinguals- Dutch – selection of aspectual perspective more frequent in all situation types, compared to monolingual speakers; extension to motion eventse.g. Een vrouw die aan het lopen is Een man is naar een auto aan het wandelen

- German – infrequent selection, use in change in state situations; am-form “preferred” form(monolingual speakers: beim)e.g. Eine Frau ist am Kartoffelnschälen


Eye tracking analysis

- Event conceptualization in aspectual terms or not: Reflected in differences in distribution of ATTENTION language-specific patterns of visual processing, perspective taking

Stimuli analyzed: Change in state situations


Total fixation time

- AoI action: Mono Dutch > Mono German; Bil Dutch > Mono Dutch Bil Dutch > Bil German

- AoI agent: Mono Ger > Mono Dutch; Mono Ger > Bil Dutch/Bil German

Rep. Meas.,

ANOVA, p<.05

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

action

agent

action 4153,08 4165 4505,46 4782,86

agent 1065,21 630 863,2 613,05

Monolingual German Bilingual German Monolingual Dutch Bilingual Dutch

p<.05**

*


Summary

- Differences in perspective taking (reflected in use of forms such as aan het + zijn) are also reflected in differences in distribution of attention

driven by features of the specific linguistic system

- Expression of an event as “ongoing” correlates with attention to relevant aspects of the visual scene (Mono/Bil Dut)

ACTION – ongoing process


General findings – bilinguals

-Language-specific patterns of event conceptualization in both languages: reflected in frequency of use of aspectual perspective as well as distribution of attention-No evident cross-linguistic influence-No evidence of patterns that may suggest a ‘merged system’ /compromise

Event conceptualization patterns are bilingual-specific:Bil Dutch: - extension of aspectual concept

- high frequency of use of aan het at the expense of other forms

Bil German: - aspectual forms used also in other situation type (cross-ling influence?)


General findings – bilinguals

1) Is it possible in bilingual acquisition to acquire the implications of specific linguistic forms for organizing and selecting content for expression?

YES (in this domain of analysis)

2) Is it possible for a bilingual to distinguish and keep apart two language-specific preferences in aspectual perspective taking?

YES (in this domain of analysis)


Conclusions

The method of analysis provides insights into bilinguals’ conceptualization preferences

The method can be used to identify the status of ‘developing’ systems (Italian/Dutch)

Results support evidence that use of aspectual forms result in a specific PERSPECTIVE on events – basic conceptual categories (e.g. ‘event in progression/ongoing’)


Further aspects

Time course of attention (duration/number of fixations) – correlated with mention of specific parts of the event (endpoint adjunct for example)

Non-linguistic task – ET: Are the language-specific patterns found also present in a task “void” of language use?

Memory performance (v. Stutterheim et al, submitted)


Thank you!

Danke schön!

[email protected]

monique flecken university of heidelberg esrc centre for research on bilingualism in theory and...

Documents

aspectual perspective

event construal

event features

practiceuniversity of

verbalizingmonique flecken

temporal perspective

aspectual systems

aspectual forms