![]() The study examined lexicalization of motion in narratives elicited with the use of a picture book Frog, where are you? (Mayer, 1969) from L1 speakers of Russian (n = 31), L1 speakers of English (n = 38), and Russian-English bilinguals (n = 30). Two, we will argue that the shortcomings of the typology may account for inconclusive findings in research on language effects in motion cognition. One, we will show that Talmy's (1985, 1991, 2000) motion typology that groups Russian and English together as satellite-framed languages may be justified on linguistic grounds but is inadequate from a psycholinguistic point of view. Moreover, there are significant effects of finer-grained contrasts in path and manner that further call into question the generalizations offered in the previous studies. Speakers of S–languages do not differ significantly, as a whole, from either group. V–languages fall into a group whose speakers strongly prefer same-manner choices and one whose speakers show a weak preference for same-path choices. We found an effect of language, which, however, is not directly based We conducted a similarity-judgment task which systematically varies types of manners and paths in 17 genetically and typologically diverse languages. However, these studies raise methodological concerns: Gennari et al.’s participants found same-path variants more similar to targets than same-manner variants independently of language, while Finkbeiner et al.’s study produced the inverse pattern and Papafragou et al.’s results showed no significant preference either way. (2002) found language-specific effects in similarity-judgment tasks only under prior verbal encoding or commitment of targets to memory. satellite-framed (S) languages influence nonlinguistic cognition? Finkbeiner et al. Do language-specific patterns of motion event encoding along the lines of Talmy’s (2000) typology of verb-framed (V) vs.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |