Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T07:36:55.566Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Transfer of conceptualization patterns in bilinguals: The construal of motion events in Turkish and German*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 October 2010

MICHAEL H. DALLER ,
JEANINE TREFFERS-DALLER  and
REYHAN FURMAN
MICHAEL H. DALLER*
Affiliation:
University of the West of England, Bristol
JEANINE TREFFERS-DALLER
Affiliation:
University of the West of England, Bristol
REYHAN FURMAN
Affiliation:
Radboud University, Nijmegen
*
Address for correspondence: Dr Michael Daller, University of the West of England, Faculty of Humanities, Languages and Social Sciences, Frenchay Campus, Coldharbour Lane, Bristol BS16 1QY, UKMichael.Daller@uwe.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In the present article we provide evidence for the occurrence of transfer of conceptualization patterns in narratives of two German–Turkish bilingual groups. All bilingual participants grew up in Germany, but only one group is still resident in Germany (n = 49). The other, the returnees, moved back to Turkey after having lived in Germany for thirteen years (n = 35). The study is based on the theoretical framework for conceptual transfer outlined in Jarvis and Pavlenko (2008) and on the typology of satellite-framed and verb-framed languages developed by Talmy (1985, 1991, 2000a, b) and Slobin (1987, 1996, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006). In the present study we provide evidence for the hypothesis that language structure affects the organization of information structure at the level of the Conceptualizer, and show that bilingual speakers’ conceptualization of motion events is influenced by the dominant linguistic environment in both languages (German for the group in Germany and Turkish for the returnees). The returnees follow the Turkish blueprints for the conceptualization of motion, in both Turkish and German event construals, whereas the German-resident bilinguals follow the German blueprints, when speaking German as well as Turkish. We argue that most of the patterns found are the result of transfer of conceptualization patterns from the dominant language of the environment.

Keywords

thinking for speakingtransfersecond language acquisitionmotion event construalTurkish–German bilinguals
Type
Research Article
Information
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition , Volume 14 , Issue 1: Crosslinguistic influence in bilinguals' concepts and conceptualizations , January 2011 , pp. 95 - 119
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

We would like to thank Scott Jarvis for his continuous support and two anonymous reviewers for their comments on earlier versions of this article.

References

Aksu-Koç, A. (1994). Development of linguistic forms: Turkish. In Berman, R. & Slobin, D. (eds.), Relating events in narrative: A crosslinguistic developmental study, pp. 329–385. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Allen, S., Özyürek, A., Kita, S., Brown, A., Furman, R., Ishizuka, T., & Fuji, M. (2007). Language-specific and universal influences in children's syntactic packaging of Manner and Path: A comparison of English, Japanese and Turkish. Cognition, 102, 16–48.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baker, C., & Jones, S. P. (1998). Encyclopedia of bilingualism and bilingual education. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Bamberg, M. (1994) Development of linguistic forms: German. In Berman, R. & Slobin, D. (eds.), Relating events in narrative: A crosslinguistic developmental study, pp. 189–238. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Berman, R. A., & Slobin, D. I. (1994). Relating events in narrative: A crosslinguistic developmental study. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Cadierno, T. (2008). Learning to talk about Motion in a foreign language. In Robinson, P. & Ellis, N. C. (eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition, pp. 239–275. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Cadierno, T., & Ruiz, L. (2006) Motion events in Spanish L2 acquisition. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 4, 183–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carroll, M., & von Stutterheim, C. (2003). Typology and information organization: Perspective taking and language-specific effects in the construction of events. In Ramat, A. (ed.), Typology and second language acquisition, pp. 365–402. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Choi, S., & Bowerman, M. (1991). Learning to express motion events in English and Korean: The influence of language-specific lexicalization patterns. Cognition, 41, 83–121.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Daller, H. (1999). Migration und Mehrsprachigkeit. Der Sprachstand türkischer Rückkehrer aus Deutschland. Spracherwerb und Sprachverlust [Multilingualism and migration. The language proficiency of Turkish returnees from Germany]. Frankfurt: Peter Lang Verlag.Google Scholar
Daller, H. (2005). Migration und bilinguale Sprachentwicklung. Türkische Rückkehrer aus Deutschland [Migration and bilingual language development. Turkish returnees from Germany]. In Hinnenkamp, V. & Meng, M. (eds.), Sprachgrenzen überspringen. Sprachliche Hybridität und polykulturelles Selbstverständnis [Crossing language boundaries. Linguistic hybrids and poly-cultural identities, Vol. 32 Schriften zur deutschen Sprache/Institut fuer deutsche Sprache], pp. 325–345. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Daller, H., & Grotjahn, R. (1999). The language proficiency of Turkish returnees from Germany: An empirical investigation of academic and everyday language proficiency. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 12 (2), 156–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daller, H., van Hout, R., & Treffers-Daller, J. (2003). Lexical richness in spontaneous speech of bilinguals. Applied Linguistics, 24 (2), 197–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daller, M. H., Yıldız, C., De Jong, N., Kan, S., & Başbağı, R. (in press). Language dominance in Turkish–German bilinguals: Methodological aspects of measurements in structurally different languages. In Daller, M. H. (ed.), The measurement of bilingual proficiency (International Journal of Bilingualism, special issue 2011).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Danziger, E. (2001) Relatively speaking: Language, thought and kinship in Mopan Maya (Oxford Studies in Anthropological Linguistics). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doğruöz, A. S., & Backus, A. (2007). Postverbal elements in immigrant Turkish: Evidence of change? International Journal of Bilingualism, 11 (2), 185–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doğruöz, A. S., & Backus, A. (2009). Innovative constructions in Dutch Turkish: An assessment of ongoing contact-induced change. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 12 (1), 41–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drosdowski, G. (1989). Duden. Das Herkunfstwörterbuch der deutschen Sprache. Mannheim: Dudenverlag.Google Scholar
Gass, S. (1996). Second language acquisition and linguistic theory: The role of language transfer. In Ritchie, C. & Bhatia, T. K. (eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition, pp. 317–340. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Göksel, A., & Kerslake, C. (2005). Turkish: A comprehensive grammar. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Grosjean, F. (1997). The bilingual individual. Interpreting, 2 (1/2), 163–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grosjean, F. (1998). Studying bilinguals: Methodological and conceptual issues. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1, 131–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grosjean, F. (2008). Studying bilinguals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamers, J. F., & Blanc, M. H. (2000). Bilinguality and bilingualism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haugen, E. (1950). The analysis of linguistic borrowing. Language, 26 (2), 210–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heine, B., & Kuteva, T. (2008). Constraints on contact-induced linguistic change. Journal of Language Contact, Thema 2, 57–90. www.jlc-journal.org.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Helms-Park, R. (2001). Evidence of lexical transfer in learner syntax: The acquisition of English causatives by speakers of Hindi–Urdu and Vietnamese. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23 (1), 71–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Helms-Park, R. (2003). Transfer in SLA and creoles: The implications of causative serial verb constructions in the interlanguage of Vietnamese ESL learners. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25 (2), 211–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hickmann, M., & Hendriks, H. (2006). Static and dynamic location in French and English. First Language, 26 (1), 103–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hohenstein, J., Eisenberg, A., & Naigles, L. (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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Inagaki, S. (2001). Motion verbs with goal PPs in the L2 acquisition of English and Japanese. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23 (2), 153–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jarvis, S. (2000). Methodological rigor in the study of transfer: Identifying L1 influence in the interlanguage lexicon. Language Learning, 50 (20), 245–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jarvis, S. (2007). Theoretical and methodological issues in the investigation of conceptual transfer. Vigo International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 4, 43–71.Google Scholar
Jarvis, S., & Pavlenko, A. (2008). Crosslinguistic influence in language and cognition. New York and London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johanson, L. (2002) Structural factors in Turkic language contacts. Richmond: Curzon.Google Scholar
Kopecka, A. (2006). The semantic structure of motion verbs in French. Typological perspectives. In Hickmann, M. & Robert, S. (eds.), Space in languages: Linguistic systems and cognitive categories, pp. 83–101. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kornfilt, J. (1997). Turkish. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kramer, J. 1981. Die Übernahme der deutschen und der niederländischen Konstruktion Verb + Verbzusatz durch die Nachbarsprachen. In Meid, W. & Heller, K. (eds.), Sprachkontakt als Ursache von Veränderungen der Sprach- und Bewusstseinsstruktur: Eine Sammlung von Studien zur sprachlichen Interferenz, pp. 129–140. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Innsbruck.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (2000) Grammar and conceptualisation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Levelt, W. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (1997) From outer to inner space: Linguistic categories and non-linguistic thinking. In Juytes, J. & Pederson, E. (eds.), Language and conceptualization, pp.13–45. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lucy, J. A. (1992a). Language diversity and thought. A reformulation of the linguistic relativity hypotheses. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lucy, J. A. (1992b). Grammatical categories and cognition. A case study of the linguistic relativity hypothesis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (2000a). The CHILDES project: Tools for analyzing talk (3rd edn., vol. 1): Transcription format and programs. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (2000b). The CHILDES project: Tools for analyzing talk (3rd edn., vol. 2): The database. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
McLaughlin, B. (1978). Second language acquisition in childhood. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Meisel, J. (2000). Early differentiation of languages in bilingual children. In Wei, Li (ed.), The bilingualism reader, pp. 344–369. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Mougeon, R., Nadasdi, T., & Rehner, K. (2005) Contact-induced linguistic innovations on the continuum of language use: The case of French in Ontario. Bilingualism, Language and Cognition, 8 (2), 99–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muthman, G. (1991). Rückläufiges deutsches Wörterbuch. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Naigles, R. L, Eisenberg, A. R, Kako, E. T, Highter, M., & McGraw, N. (1998). Speaking of motion: Verb use in English and Spanish. Language and Cognitive Processes, 13 (5), 521–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Odlin, T. (2005). Cross-linguistic influence. In Doughty, C. J. & Long, M. H. (eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition, pp. 436–486. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Odlin, T. (2008). Conceptual transfer and meaning extension. In Robinson, P. & Ellis, N. (eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition, pp. 306–350. Oxon and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Özçalışkan, Ş., & Slobin, D. I. (2000). Climb up vs. ascend climbing: Lexicalization choices in expressing motion events with manner and path components. In Catherine-Howell, S., Fish, S. A. & Lucas, T. K. (eds.), Proceedings of the 24th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (vol. 2), pp. 558–570. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Pawley, A., & Syder, F. (2000). The one-clause-at-a-time hypothesis. In Riggenbach, H., (ed.), Perspectives on fluency, pp. 163–199. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Plauen, E. O. (1996 [1952]) Vater und Sohn (vol. 2). Ravensburger Taschenbuchverlag.Google Scholar
Ringbom, H. (1987). The role of the first language on foreign language learning. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Ringbom, H. (2001). Lexical transfer in L3 production. In Cenoz, J., Hufeisen, B. & Jessner, U. (eds.), Cross-linguistic influence in third language acquisition: Psycholinguistic perspectives, pp. 59–68. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schoenthal, G. (1993). Feldgliederung. In Glück, H. (ed.), Metzler Lexikon Sprache, pp. 183–184. Metzler Verlag.Google Scholar
Sebastián, E., & Slobin, D. I. (1994) The development of linguistic forms: Spanish. In Berman, R. & Slobin, D. I. (eds.), Relating events in narratives: A developmental cross-linguistic study, pp. 239–284. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. I. (1987). Thinking for speaking. Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, pp. 435–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slobin, D. I. (1996). From “thought and language” to “thinking to speaking”. In Gumperz, J. J. & Levinson, S. C. (eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity, pp. 70–96. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. I. (2003). Language and thought online: Cognitive consequence of linguistic relativity. In Gentner, D. & Goldin-Meadow, S. (eds.), Language in mind: Advances in the study of language and thought, pp. 157–192. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slobin, D. I. (2004). The many ways to search for a frog: Linguistic typology and the expression of motion events. In Strömqvist, S. & Verhoeven, L. (eds.), Relating events in narrative (vol. 2): Typological and contextual perspectives, pp. 219–257. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. I. (2005). Linguistic representation in motion events: What is signifier and what is signified. In Maeder, C., Fisher, O. & Herlofsky, W. (eds), Iconicity inside out: Iconicity in language and literature 4, pp. 307–322. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. I. (2006). What makes manner of motion salient? Explorations in linguistic typology, discourse, and cognition. In Hickmann, M., & Robert, S. (eds.), Space in languages: Linguistic systems and cognitive categories, pp. 59–81. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slobin, D. I., & Hoiting, N. (1994). Reference to movement in spoken and signed languages: Typological considerations. Proceedings of the Twentieth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 487–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Talmy, L. (1985). Lexicalization patterns: Semantic structure in lexical forms. In Shopen, T. (ed.), Grammatical categories and the lexicon. Volume III of Language typology and syntactic description, pp. 57–149. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Talmy, L. (1991). Path realization: A typology of event conflation. Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, pp. 480–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Talmy, L. (2000a). Toward a cognitive semantics (vol. I): Toward a cognitive semantics: Concepts structuring systems. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Talmy, L. (2000b). Toward a cognitive semantics (vol. II): Toward a cognitive semantics: Typology and process in concept structuring. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Tezcan, N. (1988). Elementarwortschatz Türkisch–Deutsch. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Treffers-Daller, J. (2009). Code-switching and transfer: An exploration of similarities and differences. In Bullock, B. E. & Toribio, A. J. (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of linguistic code-switching, pp. 58–74. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Treffers-Daller, J. (in press a). Operationalising and measuring language dominance. In Daller, M. H. (ed.), The measurement of bilingual proficiency (International Journal of Bilingualism, special issue 2011).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Treffers-Daller, J. (in press b). Grammatical collocations and verb-particle constructions in Brussels French: A corpus-linguistic approach to transfer. To appear in International Journal of Bilingualism.Google Scholar
Treffers-Daller, J., & Özsoy, A. S. (1995). Mündliche Sprachfaehigkeiten von türkisch–deutschen Bilingualen in Deutschland und in der Türkei: eine syntaktische Analyse von türkischen Bildbeschreibungen. In Treffers-Daller, J. & Daller, H. (eds.), Zwischen den Sprachen: Sprachgebrauch, Sprachmischung und Sprachfaehigkeiten türkischer Rückkehrer aus Deutschland (vol. 2): pp. 95–122. Istanbul: The Language Center, Boğaziçi University.Google Scholar
Treffers-Daller, J., Özsoy, S., & van Hout, R. (2007). (In)complete acquisition of Turkish among Turkish–German bilinguals in Germany and Turkey: An analysis of complex embeddings in narratives. International Journal of Bilingualism and Bilingual Education, 10 (3), 248–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Treffers-Daller, J., & Tidball, F. (in prep). Learnability and event construal among French learners of English and British learners of French.Google Scholar
Von Stutterheim, C., & Nüse, R. (2003). Processes of conceptualisation in language production. Linguistics (Special Issue: Perspectives in language production), 41 (5), 851–881.Google Scholar
Von Stutterheim, C., Nüse, R., & Murcia-Serra, (2002). Cross-linguistic differences in the conceptualisation of events. In Behrens, B., Fabricius-Hansen, C. & Johansson, S. (eds.), Information structure in a cross-lingustic perspective, pp. 179–198. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar