Chapter published in:
Motion and Space across Languages: Theory and applications
Edited by Iraide Ibarretxe-Antuñano
[Human Cognitive Processing 59] 2017
► pp. 399–418

Applying language typology

Practical applications of research on typological contrasts between languages

| University of East Anglia
This chapter illustrates the benefits of applying insights from language typologies in order to afford better understanding of both theoretical and practical implications of language contrasts. It examines the practical consequences of certain typological contrasts for different professional contexts of communication, such as translation, second language acquisition and teaching, and the law. For the purpose of the present volume we focus on the cognitive domain of motion. Our analysis of the relevant motion event lexicalization phenomena is based on the three central criteria that underlie the research within Applied Language Typology (ALT): (i) presence versus absence of lexical and grammatical categories, (ii) more versus less restrictive lexical and grammatical categories, and (iii) complementarity in the distribution of categories. In this chapter, we discuss a select number of examples of lexicalization of motion and dynamic spatial relations (e.g. speaker and Figure positioning) across typologically different languages and we show how the ALT criteria enable us to identify exact points where language constrasts cause practical difficulty. Finally, we suggest future directions for ALT research that benefits both academic researchers and language practitioners alike.
Keywords: applied language typology, deixis, forensic linguistics, Serbian, Spanish
Published online: 14 August 2017
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.59.16fil
References

References

Bastiaanse, R., Bamyaci, E., Hsu, Ch.-J., Lee, J., Yarbay Duman, T., & Thompson, C. K.
2011 Time reference in agrammatical aphasia: A cross-linguistic study. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 24, 652–673. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cadierno, T.
2008 Motion events in Danish and Spanish: A focus on form pedagogical approach. In S. De Knop, & T. De Rycker (Eds.), Cognitive approaches to pedagogical grammar (259–294). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Cadierno, T., & P. Robinson
2009 Language typology, task complexity and the development of L2 lexicalisation patterns for describing motion events. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 7, 246–277. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Comrie, B.
[1981] 1989 Language universals and linguistic typology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Elllis, N. C.
2008 The psycholinguistic of the interaction hypothesis. In A. Mackey, & C. Polio (Eds.), Multiple perspectives on interaction in SLA: Second language research in honor of Susan M. Gass (11–40). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Fausey, C. M., & Boroditsky, L.
2011 Who dunnit? Cross-linguistic differences in eye-witness memory. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18(1), 150–157. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Filipović, L.
1999 Language-specific expression of motion and its use in narrative texts. MPhil Dissertation, University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
2007a Talking about motion: A crosslinguistic investigation of lexicalization patterns. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2007b Language as a witness: Insights from cognitive linguistics. Speech, Language and the Law, 14(2), 245–267.Google Scholar
2008 Typology in action: Applying insights from typological contrasts. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 18(1), 42–61. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2009 Motion events in semantic typology and eyewitness interviews. Language and Linguistics Compass, 3(1), 300–313. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2010a Typology meets witness narratives and memory: Theory and practice entwined in cognitive linguistics. In E. Tabakowska, M. Choinski, & L. Wiraszka (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics in action: Theory to application and back (269–291). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2010b The importance of being a prefix. In V. Driagina-Hasko, & R. Perelmutter, R. (Eds.), Slavic verbs of motion (247–266). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2011 Speaking and remembering in one or two languages: Bilingual vs. monolingual lexicalization and memory for motion events. International Journal of Bilingualism, 15(4), 466–485. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2013a Typology as a continuum: Intratypological evidence from English and Serbo-Croatian. In J. Goschler, & A. Stefanowitsch (Eds.), Variation and change in the encoding of motion events (17–38). Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2013b Constructing causation in language and memory: Implications for access to justice in multilingual interactions. International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law, 20(1), 1–19. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2013c The role of language in legal contexts: A forensic cross-linguistic viewpoint. In M. Freeman, & F. Smith (Eds.), Law and language: Current legal issues (15) (328–343). Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Filipović, L., & Hawkins, J. A.
2013 Multiple factors in second language acquisition: The CASP model. Linguistics, 51(1), 145–176. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Filipović, L., & Ibarretxe-Antuñano, I.
2015 Motion. In E. Dąbrowska, & D. Divjak (Eds.), Mouton handbook of cognitive linguistics (526–545). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Filipović, L., & Vidaković, I.
2010 Typology in the L2 classroom: Second language acquisition from a typological perspective. In M. Pütz, & L. Sicola (Eds.), Inside the learner’s mind: Cognitive processing in second language acquisition (269–291). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Greenberg, J. H.
1963 Some universals of grammar with particular reference to order of meaningful elements. In J. H. Greenberg (Ed.), Universals of language (73–113). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
1966 Language universals, with special reference to feature hierarchies. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Gullberg, M.
2009 Reconstructing verb meaning in a second language: How English speakers of L2 Dutch talk and gesture about placement. International Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 7, 222–245.Google Scholar
Hasko, V.
2010 The role of thinking for speaking in adult L2 speech: The case of (non)unidirectionality encoding by American learners of Russian. In Z.-H. Han, & T. Cadierno (Eds.), Linguistic relativity in SLA: Thinking for speaking (34–58), Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Hawkins, J. A.
1983 Word order universals. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
1994 A performance theory of order and constituency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
2004 Efficiency and complexity in grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2014 Cross-linguistic variation and efficiency. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, J. A., & Filipović, L.
2012 Criterial features in L2 English: Specifying the reference levels of the Common European Framework. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hijazo-Gascón, A.
2015 Acquisition of motion events in L2 Spanish by German, French and Italian speakers. Language Learning Journal. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ibarretxe-Antuñano, I.
2009 Path salience in motion events. In J. Guo, E. Lieven, N. Budwig, S. Ervin-Tripp, K. Nakamura, & Ş. Özçalışkan (Eds.), Crosslinguistic approaches to the psychology of language: Research in the tradition of Dan Isaac Slobin (403–414). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
2012 Placement and removal events in Basque and Spanish. In A. Kopecka, & B. Narasimhan (Eds.), The events of putting and taking. A crosslinguistic perspective (123–143). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ibarretxe-Antuñano, I., & Filipović, L.
2013 Lexicalization patterns and translation. In A. Rojo, & I. Ibarretxe-Antuñano (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics and translation. Advances in some theoretical models and applications (253–284). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ibarretxe-Antuñano, I., Cadierno, T., & Hijazo-Gascón, A.
2016 The role of force dynamics and intentionality in the reconstruction of L2 meanings: A Danish-Spanish bidirectional study. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 14(1), 136–160. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kellerman, E.
1983 Now you see it, now you don’t. In S. Gass, & L, Selinker (Eds.), Language transfer in language learning (112–134). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Kopecka, A., & Narasimhan, B.
(Eds.) 2012 The events of putting and taking. A crosslinguistic perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Majid, A., & Bowerman, M.
(Eds.) 2007 Cutting and breaking events: A crosslinguistic perspective [Special Issue]. Cognitive Linguistics, 18(2). CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Matthews, P. H.
1995 Syntax, semantics, pragmatics. In G. Palmer (Ed.), Grammar and meaning (48–60). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Moravcsik, E.
2013 Introducing language typology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Odlin, T.
1989 Language transfer. New York: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sapir, E.
1921 Language: An introduction to the study of speech. New York: Harcourt Brace.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R.
1993 Awareness and second language acquisition. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 13, 206–226. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Slobin, D. I.
1996 Two ways to travel: Verbs of motion in English and Spanish. In M. Shibatani, & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Grammatical constructions: Their form and meaning (195–220). Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
2004 The many ways to search for a frog: Linguistic typology and the expression of motion events. In S. Strömqvist, & L. Verhoeven (Eds.), Relating events in narrative: Typological and contextual perspectives (219–257). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.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 (59–81). Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Soroli, E., Sahraoui, H., & Sacchett, C.
2012 Linguistic encoding of motion events in English and French: Typological constraints on second language acquisition and agrammatic aphasia. Language, Interaction and Acquisition, 3(2), 261–287. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Talmy, L.
1985 Lexicalization patterns: semantic structure in lexical form. In T. Shopen (Ed.), Language typology and syntactic description. Vol. 3: Grammatical categories and the lexicon (36–149). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
2000 Toward a cognitive semantics. Vol. II: Typology and process in concept structuring. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Trudgill, P.
2011 Sociolinguistic typology: Social determinants of linguistic complexity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Trujillo, J.
2003 The difference in resulting judgments when descriptions use high-manner versus neutral-manner verbs. Senior Dissertation, University of California Berkeley.Google Scholar
Vidaković, I.
2006 Second language acquisition of dynamic spatial relations. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by other publications

Filipović, Luna
2017. Applied Language Typology. Languages in Contrast 17:2 ► pp. 255 ff. Crossref logo
Filipović, Luna
2019.  In Bilingualism in Action, Crossref logo
Filipović, Luna
2019. Police interviews. Pragmatics and Society 10:1 ► pp. 1 ff. Crossref logo
Hijazo-Gascón, Alberto
2019. Translating accurately or sounding natural?. Pragmatics and Society 10:1 ► pp. 72 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 30 december 2020. 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.