How do cross-linguistic similarities and differences affect the mapping of spatial relationships, containment, and support in L2?
-
Hui-Ju Chuang
Hui-Ju Chuang is a lead Chinese Flagship instructor at Brigham Young University, where she provides domain-specific individualized language and cultural training. She received her Ph.D. in East Asian Languages and Literatures from University of Hawai’i at Manoa with specialization in Chinese language and linguistics. Her research interests lie in applied Chinese linguistics in Chinese language teaching and learning, cognitive linguistics, Chinese heritage language, and blended learning.
Abstract
This study investigates whether the similarities and differences between a learner’s source language (L1) and target language (L2) affect the spatial containment and support concept mapping and acquisition processes onto their L2 language. I specifically investigated how learners’ accuracy rates for both congruent and noncongruent stimuli are affected by proficiency level. A t test of the results indicated that there is a significant effect of the L1 on learners’ L2 accuracy. The results are discussed from the perspective of the degree of congruency between languages in terms of cross-linguistic similarities/differences.
摘要
本文考察二语学习者的源语言(L1)与目标语(L2)之间的异同是否影响他们对“包含”与“支撑”两个空间概念的习得。本研究进一步针对两组不同语言水平的二语学习者进行测试。测试内容主要锁定两组图片：“空间概念范畴一致”与“空间概念范畴不一致”，并检测被试的语言水平是否反映在实验结果上。研究结果显示母语迁移对二语学习者空间概念的习得具有统计学意义。本文在跨语言影响（概念迁移）的视角下，从两个语言一致性的程度来探讨本研究结果。
About the author
Hui-Ju Chuang is a lead Chinese Flagship instructor at Brigham Young University, where she provides domain-specific individualized language and cultural training. She received her Ph.D. in East Asian Languages and Literatures from University of Hawai’i at Manoa with specialization in Chinese language and linguistics. Her research interests lie in applied Chinese linguistics in Chinese language teaching and learning, cognitive linguistics, Chinese heritage language, and blended learning.
Appendix 1: Stimuli for Experiment 1
Appendix 2: Stimuli for Experiment 2
References
Boquist, Patricia. 2009. The second language acquisition of English prepositions. Doctoral dissertation, Liberty University.Suche in Google Scholar
Bowerman, Melissa. 1996a. Learning how to structure space for language: A cross-linguistic perspective. In M. P. P. Bloom, L. Nadel & M. Garrett (eds.), Language and space, 385–436. Cambridge: MA: MIT Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Bowerman, Melissa. 1996b. The origin of children’s spatial semantic categories: Cognitive versus linguistic determinants. In J. Gumperz & S. C. Levinson (eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity, 145–176. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Bowerman, Melissa & Soonia Choi. 1994. Linguistic and nonlinguistic determinants of spatial semantic development. Paper presented at the Boston University Conference on Language and Development, Boston, MA.Suche in Google Scholar
Bowerman, Melissa & Soonia Choi. 2001. Shaping meanings for language: Universal and language-specific in the acquisition of spatial semantic categories. In M. Bowerman & S. C. Levinson (eds.), Language acquisition and conceptual development, 475–511. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511620669.018Suche in Google Scholar
Bowerman, Melissa & Soonia Choi. 2003. Space under construction: Language-specific categorization in first language acquisition. In D. Gentner & S. Goldin-Meadow (eds.), Language in mind: Advance in the study of language and thought, 387–427. Cambridge: MIT Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Bowerman, Melissa & Eric Pederson. 1992. Topological relations picture series. In Stephen C. Levinson (ed.), Space stimuli kit 1.2, 51. Nijmegen, the Netherlands: Language and Cognition Group of the Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics.Suche in Google Scholar
Celce-Murcia, Marianne & Diane Larsen-Freeman. 1999. The grammar book: An ESL/EFL teacher’s course. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.Suche in Google Scholar
Cui, Xiliang. 2005. Oumei Xuesheng Hanyu Jieci Xide De Tedian Ji Pianwu Fengxi [The acquisition of Chinese prepositions by European and American learners and analysis of their error]. Shijie Hanyu Jiaoxue 3. 83–95.Suche in Google Scholar
Jarvis, Scott & Aneta Pavlenko. 2008. Crosslinguistic influence in language and cognition. New York: Routledge.10.4324/9780203935927Suche in Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen. C. 1996. Language and space. Annual Review of Anthropology 25. 353–382.10.1146/annurev.anthro.25.1.353Suche in Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen. C. 1997. From outer to inner space: Linguistic categories and non-linguistic thinking. In Nuyts & E. Pederson (eds.), Language and conceptualization, 13–45. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139086677.002Suche in Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen. C. 2003a. Space in language and cognition: Explorations in cognitive diversity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511613609Suche in Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. & Sérgio Meira. 2003. “Natural concepts” in the spatial topological domain–Adpositional meanings in crosslinguistic perspective: An exercise in semantic typology. Language 79(3). 485–516.10.1353/lan.2003.0174Suche in Google Scholar
Ma, Shu-Hong. 2008. Ying han kongjian fanchouhua duibi fenxi— —Yi in, on, he (zai) … shang and (zai) … li wei li [A comparative analysis of English and Chinese spatial categorization— —A case study of in,on (zai) … shang and (zai) … li]. Journal of Guizhou Normal University (Social Science) 1. 132–136.Suche in Google Scholar
Odlin, Terence. 1989. Language transfer: Cross-linguistic influence in language learning. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139524537Suche in Google Scholar
Pavlenko, Aneta. 2003a. Eyewitness memory in late bilinguals: Evidence for discursive relativity. The International Journal of Bilingualism 7. 257–281.10.1177/13670069030070030301Suche in Google Scholar
Tai, James H.-Y. 1993. Conceptual structures of Chinese spatial expressions. In Papers presented at the Parasession on Conceptual Representations (CLS 29[2]), 347–362. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Suche in Google Scholar
Wu, He Ping & Xing Wei. 2007. Yinghan Kongjian Fangsuo Biaoda De Renzhi Yuyi Fenxi — Yi “li” “shang” He “in” “on” Wei Li. [Semantics of spatial expressions “in” and “on” in English and “li” and “shang” in Chinese: a cognitive approach]. Jiefangjun Waiguoyu Xueyuan Xuebao. Journal of PLA University of Foreign Languages 30. 1–5 &17.Suche in Google Scholar
Zhang, Yuan, Norman Segalowitz & Elizabeth Gatbonton. 2011. Topological spatial representation across and within languages: IN and ON in Mandarin Chinese and English. The Mental Lexicon 6(3). 414–445.10.1075/ml.6.3.04zhaSuche in Google Scholar
© 2020 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
Artikel in diesem Heft
- Frontmatter
- Papers in English
- Coarticulation effects of contour tones in second language Chinese
- Topic and subject in Chinese and in the languages of Europe: Comparative remarks and implications for Chinese as a second/foreign language teaching
- How do cross-linguistic similarities and differences affect the mapping of spatial relationships, containment, and support in L2?
- Papers in Chinese
- 普通话语气词功能系统新论
- 汉语语态系统的线性模型及全景式语法教学模式构想
- 文化關聯與中文學習興趣
Artikel in diesem Heft
- Frontmatter
- Papers in English
- Coarticulation effects of contour tones in second language Chinese
- Topic and subject in Chinese and in the languages of Europe: Comparative remarks and implications for Chinese as a second/foreign language teaching
- How do cross-linguistic similarities and differences affect the mapping of spatial relationships, containment, and support in L2?
- Papers in Chinese
- 普通话语气词功能系统新论
- 汉语语态系统的线性模型及全景式语法教学模式构想
- 文化關聯與中文學習興趣
