This thesis investigates how individuals understand so-called placement events through their native (L1) or second (L2) language. Placement events are events where an agent moves an object to a certain location, as in: He puts the book on...
moreThis thesis investigates how individuals understand so-called placement events through their native (L1) or second (L2) language. Placement events are events where an agent moves an object to a certain location, as in: He puts the book on the shelf. The key motivation to study this topic is as follows. Actions of “putting” and “taking” are an ubiquitous part of everyday human experience and “putting” and “taking” verbs are among the most frequent and earliest learned verbs in a language. However, speakers of different languages employ different kind of verbs to describe placement events (Kopecka & Narasimhan, 2012). Drawing on the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis (Whorf, 1956), this leads one to wonder whether such cross linguistic differences affect how L1 speakers of different languages understand placement events. In extension, an interesting question is whether changes in an individual ́s language system - by learning an L2 – can affect how s/he understands placement events.
Approximately 360 participants participated in the studies in this thesis: 60 L1 speakers of German, 60 L1 speakers of Spanish, 120 German learners of L2 Spanish and 120 Spanish learners of L2 German. The L2 learners were learning their L2 in a foreign language context (e.g. German learners of L2 Spanish in Germany). These adult L2 learners acquired the L2 after the age of 12 or post-puberty.
The aim of this thesis was to advance theories on language and perception. Therefore, we studied cross linguistic differences in the expression of placement events from three major theoretical perspectives on language and perception. Results are reported in three separate research papers. First, we studied placement events in light of the Sapir-Whorf (Whorf, 1956) and the Thinking-for-Speaking (Slobin, 1996) hypotheses. In particular, we investigated whether cross linguistic differences affect how individuals categorize (Paper 1) and memorize (Paper 2) aspects within placement events. We presented them with pictures depicting placement events (Paper 1) or sentences describing placement events followed by depicted placement events (Paper 2) and investigated whether language affected their perception of object orientation and gender of agents. In Paper 1, we investigated L1 German and L1 Spanish speakers. In Paper 2, we compared Spanish learners of L2 German and German learners of L2 Spanish with L1 German and Spanish control speakers.
The results of these studies show the following. In Paper 1, we found that in a context with no overt language use, cross linguistic differences did not affect how speakers categorize object orientation or gender of agents. Moreover, this study showed that although cross linguistic differences between languages exist, speakers may employ alternative linguistic strategies that result in similar descriptions of object orientation and gender of agents across languages. In Paper 2, we found that language affected perception of object orientation. We found that L1 German speakers had better recognition memory for object orientation than L1 Spanish speakers. When Spaniards learned L2 German and performed the task in German, their recognition memory for object orientation improved and was as good as that of L1 German speakers. When Germans learned L2 Spanish and performed the task in Spanish, their recognition memory of object orientation was similar to L1 Spanish speakers ́ memory. We found no effects for gender of agents.
Second, we examined placement events from a grounded cognition perspective (Paper 3). In particular, we investigated whether L1 and L2 speakers make “mental simulations” during language comprehension (Barsalou, 1999). We presented them with sentences describing placement events, which contained language-specific forms (verbs, suffixes) and investigated whether this led them to simulate object orientation and size as shown by so-called “match effects”. In Paper 3, we compared Spanish learners of L2 German and German learners of L2 Spanish with L1 German and Spanish control speakers.
The results of this study show the following. We found no support that L2 readers simulate object orientation through German placement verbs. However, we did find support that L2 readers of Spanish augmentative suffixes make simulations of object size. In addition, we found that L2 readers process meaning slower than L1 readers.
Third, we investigated whether L2 learner differences affected (our measures of) their behavior in the studies reported in Paper 2 and 3. In particular, we investigated the role of L2 proficiency and the related factors L2 exposure and motivation. In Paper 2 we found that differences in general L2 proficiency did not cause differences in L2 learners ́ memory. In Paper 3, we found that differences in specific L2 proficiency affected how fast L2 learners processed meaning. In addition, we found that the amount of L2 exposure affected how fast L2 German learners processed meaning.
In its entirety, this thesis contributes to theoretical advance in the following ways. We have expanded on three theoretical perspectives on language and perception, investigating a single domain of investigation, which is placement. First of all, our research provided evidence against the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, but in favor of TFS effects on L1 and L2 speakers ́ memory. Moreover, we found that L2 learners ́ memory may differ from that of L1 speakers, irrespective of L2 proficiency. Thus, TFS effects in L1 and L2 speakers’ memory seems an interesting topic for further investigation. Second, we found partial evidence in favor of theory on mental simulation in L1 speakers and L2 learners. On the one hand, this questions whether humans routinely make mental simulations for all types of object properties. On the other hand, there are several accounts that explain why simulation effects may be found or not. Thus, further research is needed to determine if and when simulation occurs. Third, we found that general L2 proficiency did not affect memory performance in Paper 2. Specific measures of L2 proficiency did reveal RT differences in L2 learner ́ behavior in Paper 3. Amount of L2 exposure only reliably affected L2 German learners’ speed of reaction in Paper 3, but not L2 Spanish learners’ speed of reaction. There are two ways to interpret these results. First, it may be that in relatively simple language tasks, such as reading sentences, general language background differences do not affect L2 learners’ behavior, thus no effects exist. Second, it may be that (our) measures of general L2 proficiency, L2 exposure and motivation are not fine-grained enough to convincingly reveal differences in L2 sentence comprehension.
All in all, we have shown that despite the universality of actions of placement, cross linguistic differences may indeed affect how L1 speakers understand placement events if critical language is present. Moreover, how L2 speakers understand placement events may change following their L2. General L2 learner differences do not convincingly seem to affect speed of meaning processing or memory accuracy. Only specific measures of L2 proficiency revealed differences in meaning processing. Therefore, the following lines of research seem more promising in making theoretical advance. First, more research comparing L1 and L2 speakers’ TFS and its effect on memory is needed. Second, mental simulation theory needs to be further evaluated. In this quest, different conceptual domains (gender and size) and novel experimental tasks (such as the memory task employed in Paper 2) should be considered to determine whether and how effects of language on perception structurally occur.
