The Language-Cognition Interface in Bilinguals: An evaluation of the Conceptual Transfer Hypothesis

Jolanta Latkowska

Uzyskaj dostęp

Zakup książkę

ISBN/ISSN:

978-83-8012-205-5

DOI:

Wydawnictwo:

Uniwersytet Śląski

Rok wydania:

2013

Liczba stron:

286

XML:ISBN/ISSN:

ONIX MARC21

Bibliografia:

Latkowska, Jolanta. The Language-Cognition Interface in Bilinguals: An evaluation of the Conceptual Transfer Hypothesis. Red. . Katowice: Uniwersytet Śląski, 2013, 286 s. ISBN 978-83-8012-205-5

Bibliografia refWorks:

RT Book, Whole

SR Electronic(1)

A1 Latkowska, J.

T1 The Language-Cognition Interface in Bilinguals: An evaluation of the Conceptual Transfer Hypothesis

PB Uniwersytet Śląski

PP Katowice

YR 2013

SN 978-83-8012-205-5

Bibliografia BibTex:

@Book{ 138075, author = "Latkowska, Jolanta", editor = "", title = "The Language-Cognition Interface in Bilinguals: An evaluation of the Conceptual Transfer Hypothesis", publisher = "Uniwersytet Śląski", year = "2013", address = "Katowice", isbn = "978-83-8012-205-5" }

Bibliografia endNote:

TY - BOOK

AU - Latkowska, Jolanta

ED -

TI - The Language-Cognition Interface in Bilinguals: An evaluation of the Conceptual Transfer Hypothesis

PB - Uniwersytet Śląski

CY - Katowice

PY - 2013

SN - 978-83-8012-205-5

ER -

Netografia (standard APA):

Latkowska, Jolanta. The Language-Cognition Interface in Bilinguals: An evaluation of the Conceptual Transfer Hypothesis [baza danych online] Katowice: Uniwersytet Śląski, 2013 [dostęp: 23 07 2024]. Dostęp w Ibuk Libra: https://libra.ibuk.pl/reader/the-language-cognition-interface-in-bilinguals-an-evaluation-of-the-jolanta-latkowska-138075.

słownik umysłowy, dwujęzyczność, transfer konceptualny

Książka skierowana jest do studentów i pracowników naukowych filologii obcych, których zainteresowania obejmują psycholingwistyczne zależności pomiędzy umysłowością a językiem w kontekście szeroko pojmowanej dwujęzyczności. Zawiera przegląd współc...

Więcej

ISBN/ISSN:

978-83-8012-205-5

DOI:

Wydawnictwo:

Uniwersytet Śląski

Rok wydania:

2013

Liczba stron:

286

XML:ISBN/ISSN:

ONIX MARC21

Table of сontentsAcknowledgements /9
Introduction /11
1.1. The Hierarchical Model of Bilingual Memory /15
1. The architecture of the bilingual mental lexicon /15
1.1.1. Unity of the semantic and conceptual levels /17
1.1.2. Separation of semantic and conceptual representations /19
1.2. The concept of concept /21
1.2.1. Feature listings /22
1.2.2. Prototypes /23
1.2.3. Frames /26
1.2.4. Conceptual metaphor and image schemas /27
1.2.5. Grounded cognition /30
1.3. Lexical(ized) concepts /31
1.4. Analysing lexicalized concepts: Natural Semantic Metalanguage /36
1.4.1. Semantic explications /39
1.4.2. Semantic molecules /40
1.4.3. Neo-Whorfianism, Wierzbicka style /41
1.5. Language-mediated processes in the bilingual lexicon /42
1.5.1. Lexical and semantic transfer /42
1.5.2. Conceptual transfer /45
1.5.2.1. Linguistic relativity /45
1.5.2.2. The Conceptual Transfer Hypothesis /47
1.6. Conclusion /47
2.1. The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis: Perspectives from research design /49
2. Linguistic relativity /49
2.1.1. The domain-specific approach /50
2.1.2. The structure-centred approach /55
2.1.3. The bilingual perspective /57
2.2. The Thinking for Speaking Hypothesis /62
2.2.1. Background to the Thinking for Speaking Hypothesis: Talmy’s typology of motion verbs /63
2.2.2. Critique of Talmy /65
2.2.3. Directed motion in Polish /67
2.2.4. The Whorfian dimension of Thinking for Speaking /71
2.2.5. Thinking for Speaking effects in gestural communication /74
2.2.6. Bilingual research /75
2.3. Conceptualization via event construal: The von Stutterheim paradigm /79
2.3.1. Processes of conceptualization /80
2.3.2. Evidence from Slavic languages /85
2.3.3. Conceptualization in bilinguals and second/foreign language learners /87
2.4. Linguistic relativity: General perspective /90
2.5. Conclusion /98
3. The Conceptual Transfer Hypothesis /100
3.1. Assessing the scope of the phenomenon /101
3.2. Issues in investigating the linguistic/non-linguistic interface /102
3.3. Methodological concerns /105
3.4. The linguistic dimension /110
3.5. Conclusion /114
4. Study 1: Investigating semantic and conceptual categorization in the domain of interpersonal relationships in Polish and English /115
4.1. Naming interpersonal relationships in Polish and English /117
4.2. Study 1a /121
4.2.1. Research questions /122
4.2.2. Participants /122
4.2.3. Materials /124
4.2.4. Procedure /130
4.2.5. Analysis /131
4.2.6. Results /132
4.2.6.1. Intra-group variables /154
4.2.6.2. Category core features /158
4.2.7. Discussion and summary of findings /160
4.2.7.1. Bilingual categorization patterns in the L2 /160
4.2.7.2. Bilingual categorization patterns in the L1 /162
4.2.7.3. The processes at work in the bilingual lexicon /163
4.2.7.4. The L2 and L1 in natural and formal learning contexts /165
4.2.7.5. Factors influencing naming patterns in bilinguals /167
4.2.7.6. On the application of Natural Semantic Metalanguage and linguistic analyses in research into semantic and conceptual levels /169
4.3. Study 1b /172
4.3.1. Research objectives /172
4.3.2. Participants /173
4.3.3. Materials /173
4.3.4. Procedure /174
4.3.5. Analysis /175
4.3.6. Results and discussion /175
4.3.7. Conclusion /180
5. Study 2: Conceptualization in event construal. The case of Polish‑English bilinguals /181
5.1. Study 2a /183
5.1.1. Selection /183
5.1.2. Research objectives /184
5.1.3. Participants /185
5.1.4. Materials /186
5.1.5. Procedure /187
5.1.6. Analysis /187
5.1.7. Results /189
5.1.8. Discussion /200
5.1.8.1. Selection: A cross-linguistic analysis /201
5.1.8.2. The setting of L2 learning and use /202
5.1.8.3. The influence of individual background variables /203
5.1.8.4. Implications for conceptualization processes /204
5.1.9. Conclusion /204
5.2. Study 2b /205
5.2.1. Segmentation /205
5.2.2. Structuring /206
5.2.3. Research objectives /208
5.2.4. Materials and procedure /208
5.2.5. Analysis /209
5.2.5.1. Segmentation units /209
5.2.5.2. The event/state distinction /210
5.2.5.3. Temporal structuring /211
5.2.5.4. Statistical analysis /212
5.2.6. Results /212
5.2.7. Discussion /232
5.2.7.1. Event segmentation: A cross-linguistic perspective /232
5.2.7.2. Temporal structuring in Polish and English /233
5.2.7.3. The setting of L2 learning and use /234
5.2.7.4. The influence of individual background variables /236
5.2.7.5. Implications for conceptualization processes /237
5.2.8. Conclusion /238
6.1. Theoretical issues and suggestions for future research /240
6. Concluding remarks /240
6.2. Practical implications of Studies 1 and 2 /243
6.3. Evaluation of the research /246
Appendix /248
Bibliography /259
Index /279
Streszczenie /281
Zusammenfassung /282

1.Tearchitectureofthebilingualmentallexicon

wastheuseofprepositionsinspatialandtemporalcontexts(seeOdlin2005for

details).Overall,theaccumulateddataindicatethatprototypicalmeaningsare

acquiredfasterandaremorelikelytobetransferredtotheL2,asshownbythe

nowclassicbrekenstudybyKellerman(1978,1983).Whatismore,theperception

ofL2prototypesappearstobebasedontheirL1counterparts,whichexplainswhy

translationequivalentstendtohavetheclosestprototypicalmeanings(Jarvis1998).

Otherfactorstoconsiderarethesaliencyanduseofspeciﬁcwords,aswellastheir

recency.Apparently,themostrecentlyacquireditemsarereadilyavailabletoL2

usersandarethereforelikelytoserveasprototypes(Jarvis1998).Tis,however,

isalsoafunctionofthelearner’sL2proﬁciency.TeinﬂuenceoftheL1canalso

beobservedinthecaseofperipheralmeanings,i.e.thosethatvaguelyresemble

theprototype(Pavlenko2009).Tosumup,centraltothisstrandofSLAresearch

istheassumptionthatL1-basedprototypicalconceptseitherdetermineorafect

L2learners’comprehensionanduseofL2words.Tisiswhyitshouldcomeasno

surprisethatL2learnerswhoseexperienceandknowledgeofthetargetlanguage

arelimitedofenturntotheirL1conceptsforhelp.Consequently,theirL2prototype

judgmentsareprobablyasumoftheirexperiencewithboththeL1andL2.

1.2.3.Frames

Aproposalforanalternativeformatofconceptualstructureisthatofaframe.Over

theyears,frameshavegonebyavarietyofnames,includingscript,schema,domain,

scene,scenario,cognitivemodel,idealizedcognitivemodel,culturalmodel,andthe

like(Fillmore1975;Kövecses2006;Taylor1995).Interestinglyenough,whilemost

commentatorspointouttheinconsistencyandvariabilitywithwhichtheseterms

havebeenusedintheliterature,thereseemstobeaconsensusoverthenotion

itself.Namely,framesareconsistentlydeﬁnedas“speciﬁcuniﬁedframeworks

ofknowledge,orcoherentschematizationsofexperience”(Fillmore1985:223).

AmoreprecisedeﬁnitionhasbeenoferedbyTaylor(1995:87),whoseesframesas

“globalpatternsofcommonsenseknowledgeaboutsomecentralconcept,suchthat

thelexicalitemdenotingtheconcepttypicallyevokesthewholeframe.”Ungerer

andSchmid(2006:212),ontheirpart,speakof“atypeofcognitivemodelwhich

representstheknowledgeandbeliefspertainingtospeciﬁcandfrequentlyrecurring

situations.”Inlinewiththesedeﬁnitions,framesarebelievedtocontaineveryday

folkandexpertknowledgethatmakesitpossibletounderstandcertainwords

andtheircorrespondingconcepts.Someconceptscanonlybeinvokedthrough

relatedframes.Knuckleisacaseinpointsince,accordingtoLangacker(1987),the

onlywaytograspitsmeaningisbyevokingtheﬁnger-hand-arm-bodyframes,

i.e.knowledgeoftheanatomyofthehandandarm.Itgoeswithoutsayingthat

asurgeon’sviewoftheknucklewillbeverydiferentfromthatofapersonwithout

amedicalbackground.Likewise,verbslikespendandcostcanbeunderstoodagainst

Brak wyników

The Language-Cognition Interface in Bilinguals: An evaluation of the Conceptual Transfer Hypothesis

Treść książki

Znajdź bibliotekę blisko siebie, i uzyskaj dostęp do ebooka w systemie IBUK Libra