Publications

Displaying 1 - 5 of 5
  • Flecken, M., von Stutterheim, C., & Carroll, M. (2014). Grammatical aspect influences motion event perception: Evidence from a cross-linguistic non-verbal recognition task. Language and Cognition, 6(1), 45-78. doi:10.1017/langcog.2013.2.

    Abstract

    Using eye-tracking as a window on cognitive processing, this study investigates language effects on attention to motion events in a non-verbal task. We compare gaze allocation patterns by native speakers of German and Modern Standard Arabic (MSA), two languages that differ with regard to the grammaticalization of temporal concepts. Findings of the non-verbal task, in which speakers watch dynamic event scenes while performing an auditory distracter task, are compared to gaze allocation patterns which were obtained in an event description task, using the same stimuli. We investigate whether differences in the grammatical aspectual systems of German and MSA affect the extent to which endpoints of motion events are linguistically encoded and visually processed in the two tasks. In the linguistic task, we find clear language differences in endpoint encoding and in the eye-tracking data (attention to event endpoints) as well: German speakers attend to and linguistically encode endpoints more frequently than speakers of MSA. The fixation data in the non-verbal task show similar language effects, providing relevant insights with regard to the language-and-thought debate. The present study is one of the few studies that focus explicitly on language effects related to grammatical concepts, as opposed to lexical concepts.
  • Behrens, B., Flecken, M., & Carroll, M. (2013). Progressive Attraction: On the Use and Grammaticalization of Progressive Aspect in Dutch, Norwegian, and German. Journal of Germanic linguistics, 25(2), 95-136. doi:10.1017/S1470542713000020.

    Abstract

    This paper investigates the use of aspectual constructions in Dutch, Norwegian, and German, languages in which aspect marking that presents events explicitly as ongoing, is optional. Data were elicited under similar conditions with native speakers in the three countries. We show that while German speakers make insignificant use of aspectual constructions, usage patterns in Norwegian and Dutch present an interesting case of overlap, as well as differences, with respect to a set of factors that attract or constrain the use of different constructions. The results indicate that aspect marking is grammaticalizing in Dutch, but there are no clear signs of a similar process in Norwegian.*
  • Flecken, M., von Stutterheim, C., & Carroll, M. (2013). Principles of information organization in L2 use: Complex patterns of conceptual transfer. International review of applied linguistics, 51(2), 229-242. doi:10.1515/iral-2013-0010.
  • Van Beek, G., Flecken, M., & Starren, M. (2013). Aspectual perspective taking in event construal in L1 and L2 Dutch. International review of applied linguistics, 51(2), 199-227. doi:10.1515/iral-2013-0009.

    Abstract

    The present study focuses on the role of grammatical aspect in event construal and its function in encoding the specificity of an event. We investigate whether advanced L2 learners (L1 German) acquire target-like patterns of use of progressive aspect in Dutch, a language in which use of aspect depends on specific situation types. We analyze use of progressive markers and patterns in information selection, relating to specific features of agents or actions in dynamic event scenes. L2 event descriptions are compared with L1 Dutch and L1 German data. The L2 users display the complex situation-dependent patterns of use of aspect in Dutch, but they do not select the aspectual viewpoint (aan he construction) to the same extent as native speakers. Moreover, the encoding of specificity of the events (mentioning of specific agent and action features) reflects L1 transfer, as well as target-like performance in specific domains.
  • von Stutterheim, C., Flecken, M., & Carroll, M. (2013). Introduction: Conceptualizing in a second language. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 51(2), 77-85. doi:10.1515/iral-2013-0004.

Share this page