Article published in:
Dutch Journal of Applied Linguistics
Vol. 8:2 (2019) ► pp. 163–171

More refined typology and design in linguistic relativity

The case of motion event encoding

| Radboud University | Tilburg University | Lancaster University
| University of Cincinnati
Linguistic relativity is the influence of language on other realms of cognition. For instance, the way movement is expressed in a person’s native language may influence how they perceive movement. Motion event encoding (MEE) is usually framed as a typological dichotomy. Path-in-verb languages tend to encode path information within the verb (e.g., ‘leave’), whereas manner-in-verb languages encode manner (e.g., ‘jump’). The results of MEE-based linguistic relativity experiments range from no effect to effects on verbal and nonverbal cognition. Seeking a more definitive conclusion, we propose linguistic and experimental enhancements. First, we examine state-of-the-art typology, suggesting how a recent MEE classification across twenty languages (Verkerk, 2014) may enable more powerful analyses. Second, we review procedural challenges such as the influence of verbal thought and second-guessing in experiments. To tackle these challenges, we propose distinguishing verbal and nonverbal subgroups, and having enough filler items. Finally we exemplify this in an experimental design.
Keywords: linguistic relativity, Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, lexicalization patterns, motion event encoding, motion language, cognitive semantics, language typology, linguistics, psycholinguistics, methods
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Motion event encoding
  • 3.Linguistic relativity
  • 4.A novel experimental approach
    • 4.1Methods
      • 4.1.1Participants
      • 4.1.2Materials
      • 4.1.3Procedure
      • 4.1.4Analysis and hypotheses
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • References
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at rights@benjamins.nl.

Published online: 11 April 2019
https://doi.org/10.1075/dujal.15019.ber
References
Bohnemeyer, J., Eisenbeiss, S., Narasimhan, B.
(2006) Ways to go: Methodological considerations in Whorfian studies in motion events. Colchester: Dept. of Language and Linguistics, University of Essex.Google Scholar
Boroditsky, L.
(2001) Does language shape thought? English and Mandarin speakers’ conceptions of time. Cognitive Psychology, 43(1), 1–22. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gumperz, J. J., & Levinson, S. C.
(Eds.) (1996) Rethinking linguistic relativity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lucy, J. A.
(1992) Language diversity and thought: A reformulation of the linguistic relativity hypothesis. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Montero-Melis, G., Eisenbeiss, S., Narasimhan, B., Ibarretxe-Antuñano, I., Kita, S., Kopecka, A., Lüpke, F., Nikitina, T., Tragel, I., Jaeger, T. F., & Bohnemeyer, J.
(2017) Satellite- vs. verb-framing underpredicts nonverbal motion categorization: Insights from a large language sample and simulations. Cognitive Semantics, 3(1), 36–61. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Naigles, L., Eisenberg, A., Kako, E., Highter, M., & McGraw, N.
(1998) Speaking of motion: Verb use in English and Spanish. Language and Cognitive Processes, 13(5), 521–549. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Papafragou, A., Massey, C., & Gleitman, L.
(2002) Shake, rattle, ‘n’ roll: The representation of motion in thought and language. Cognition, 84(2), 189–219. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sapir, E.
(1921) Language: An introduction to the study of speech. New York: Harcourt, Brace, and World.Google Scholar
Skordos, D., & Papafragou, A.
(2014) Lexical, syntactic, and semantic-geometric factors in the acquisition of motion predicates. Developmental Psychology, 50(7), 1985–1998. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Slobin, D. I.
(1987) Thinking for speaking. Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (pp. 435–445). Berkeley University of California.Google Scholar
(1996) Two ways to travel: Verbs of motion in English and Spanish. In M. Shibatani, & S. A. Thomspon (Eds.), Grammatical constructions: Their form and meaning (pp. 195–219). Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
(2006) What makes manner of motion salient? Explorations in linguistic typology, discourse, and cognition. In M. Hickmann, & S. Robert (Eds.), Space in languages: Linguistic systems and cognitive categories (pp. 59–81). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Talmy, L.
(1991) Path to realization: A typology of event conflation. Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (pp. 480–519). Berkeley University of California.Google Scholar
Trueswell, J., & Papafragou, A.
(2010) Perceiving and remembering events cross-linguistically: Evidence from dual-task paradigms. Journal of Memory and Language, 63(1), 64–82. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Verkerk, A.
(2014) The evolutionary dynamics of motion event encoding. Enschede: Ipskamp Drukkers. https://​core​.ac​.uk​/download​/pdf​/20488979​.pdf

Full-text

More refined typology and design in linguistic relativity
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Zaychenko, Katharina
2022. Grammatical and cognitive factors shaping the conceptualization of motion events. Languages in Contrast 22:1 ► pp. 136 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 08 april 2022. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.