The Korean Association for the Study of English Language and Linguistics

Current Issue

Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics - Vol. 22

[ Article ]
Korea Journal of English Language and Linguistics - Vol. 22, No. 0, pp. 246-264
Abbreviation: KASELL
ISSN: 1598-1398 (Print) 2586-7474 (Online)
Print publication date 31 Jan 2022
Received 25 Jan 2022 Revised 18 Mar 2022 Accepted 29 Mar 2022
DOI: https://doi.org/10.15738/kjell.22..202203.246

An Experimental Study of Lexical Encoding and Grouping in L1 and L2 Production of Sentences Describing Motion Events
Ji-Hyun Kim ; Mun-Hong Choe
(1st author) Student, Chonnam Nat’l Univ (jihyunss78@hanmail.net)
(corresponding author) Professor, Chonnam Nat’l Univ, Tel: 062-530-2435 (munhong@jnu.ac.kr)


© 2022 KASELL All rights reserved
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons License, which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

This study investigated the implicit processes that English L1 speakers and Korean learners of L2 English undergo when they produce sentences describing motion events. On the basis of Talmy’s (2000a, 2000b) crosslinguistic typology of lexicalization patterns, it was hypothesized that Korean L1 speakers would use the strategy of conflating the path morpheme into a motion verb or having it adjoined to a ground reference rather than encoding it separately. Experimental data were collected from 62 Korean learners of L2 English at different proficiency levels and 11 English L1 speakers. They were presented with motion-related words or word groups in various sequences and asked to assemble them orally into complete sentences. The results indicated that L1 lexicalization patterns did influence L2 sentence production, with L2 proficiency as a moderating variable. Korean learners of L2 English responded more quickly when a motion verb and a path satellite were presented in pairs than when they were presented as discrete units. This tendency, however, was strong only among lower-intermediate learners, while more advanced learners showed a similar pattern to that of English L1 speakers, suggesting that L1 transfer occurs at the level of morphological processing as well as at lexical selection, though its extent is limited.


Keywords: motion event, lexicalization pattern, semantic components, thinking for speaking, L1 transfer

References
1. Anat, N. 1985. The meaning of children’s first words: Evidence from the input. Journal of Pragmatics 9, 527-546.
2. Bavin, E. 1990. Locative terms and Warlpiri acquisition. Journal of Child Language 17, 43-66.
3. Bowerman, M. 1978. The Acquisition of Word Meaning: An Investigation into Some Current Conflicts. The Development of Communication. New York: Wiley.
4. Cadierno, T. 2004. Expressing motion events in a second language: A cognitive typological perspective. Cognitive Linguistics, Second Language Acquisition, and Foreign Language Teaching 18, 13-50.
5. Choi, S. J. and P. L. James. 2008. Representation and embodiment of meaning in L2 communication: Motion events in the speech and gesture of advanced L2 Korean and L2 English speakers. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 30(2), 191-224.
6. Choi, S. J. and M. Bowerman. 1991. Learning to express motion events in English and Korean: The influence of language-specific lexicalizaion patterns. Cognition 41, 83-122.
7. Choi, W. H. and H. S. Kim. 2015. A Study on motion-event expressions by Korean learners of English: On the basis of lexicalization patterns. Studies in Linguistics 36, 363-383.
8. Chung, J. 2019. A study on the lexicalization patterns of the motion event in English by Korean EFL learners: With focus on the language typology. The Journal of Linguisitic Science 89, 333-50.
9. Comrie, B. 1981. Language Universals and Linguistic Typology: Syntax and Morphology. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
10. Gopnik, A. 1980. The Development of Non-nominal Expressions in 12-24-month-old Children. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Oxford University.
11. Jackendoff, R. 1990. Semantic Structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
12. Lucy, J. 1993. Grammatical Categories and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
13. Park, Y. J. 2008. Expressing motion events in two typologically different languages: Language transfer of path and manner expressions. Language Research 44(1), 193-222.
14. Park, H. I. 2020. How do speakers of different languages differ in the encoding of complex motion events? Linguistic Research 37(1), 95-120.
15. Rosalie, S. 2016. L1 conceptual transfer in the acquisition of L2 motion events in Spanish and English: The thinking-for-speaking hypothesis. Open Linguistics 2(1), 235-252.
16. Slobin, D. 1996. Two ways of travel: Verbs of motion in English and Spanish. In M. Shibatani and S. Thompson, eds., Grammatical Constructions: Their Form and Meaning, 195-219. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
17. Slobin, D. 1996. From “thought and language” to “thinking for speaking”. In J. Gumperz and S. Levinson, eds., Rethinking Linguistic Relativity, 271-323. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
18. Talmy, L. 1985. Lexicalization patterns: Semantic structure in lexical forms. Language Typology and Syntactic Description 3, 77-149.
19. Talmy, L. 2000a. Toward a Cognitive Semantics: Concept Structuring Systems. Cambridge, MA: MIT press.
20. Talmy, L. 2000b. Toward a Cognitive Semantics: Typology and Process in Concept Structuring. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.