Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T22:23:03.808Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Conceptual transfer: Crosslinguistic effects in categorization and construal*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 October 2010

SCOTT JARVIS
SCOTT JARVIS*
Affiliation:
Ohio University
*
Address for correspondence: Department of Linguistics, Ohio University, Gordy Hall 383, Athens, OH 45701, USA[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Research on the relationship between language and cognition in bilinguals has often focused on general effects that are common to bilinguals of all language backgrounds, such as the positive effects of bilingualism in various areas of cognitive development (e.g., Bialystok, 2005; Karmiloff-Smith, 1992). However, there are also language-specific effects in the relationship between language and cognition in bilinguals that emerge in the form of cross-linguistic influence and, in many cases, these cross-linguistic effects do not appear to be confined to purely linguistic (e.g., phonological, morphological, syntactic, semantic) phenomena. For example, bilinguals’ choice of words for referring to objects and actions, as well as their choice of syntactic and discursive structures for referring to events and situations, often reflect ways of conveying meaning and intentions that are specific to particular language backgrounds.

Keywords

transfercross-linguistic influenceconceptual transfer
Type
Research Article
Information
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition , Volume 14 , Issue 1: Crosslinguistic influence in bilinguals' concepts and conceptualizations , January 2011 , pp. 1 - 8
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

I am grateful to all of the contributors and reviewers of this special issue for their excellent work and commitment to the quality of this collection of articles. I also wish to thank each of the contributors for their valuable comments and suggestions for improving my Introduction to the special issue. I owe special thanks to Michael Daller and Jeanine Treffers-Daller, with whom I co-organized the 2007 International Symposium on Bilingualism (ISB6) colloquium that gave rise to this project, and also particularly to Aneta Pavlenko, who helped me develop the proposal for this project, and who has provided valuable advice at each step of the way. I am also indebted to editors David Green and Ping Li for their help and encouragement from beginning to end.

References

Athanasopoulos, P. 2009. Cognitive representation of colour in bilinguals: The case of Greek blues. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 12, 83–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Athanasopoulos, P., & Kasai, C. 2008. Language and thought in bilinguals: The case of grammatical number and nonverbal classification preferences. Applied Psycholinguistics, 29, 105–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barsalou, L. 2003. Situated simulation in the human conceptual system. Language and Cognitive Processes, 18, 513–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berman, R., & Slobin, D. I. (eds.) 1994. Relating events in narrative. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Bialystok, E. 2005. Consequences of bilingualism for cognitive development. In Kroll, J. F. & De Groot, A. M. B. (eds.), Handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches, pp. 417–432. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Brown, A., & Gullberg, M. 2008. Bidirectional crosslinguistic influence in L1–L2 encoding of manner in speech and gesture: A study of Japanese speakers of English. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30, 225–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cadierno, T. 2008. Learning to talk about Motion in a foreign language. In Robinson, P. & Ellis, N. C. (eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition, pp. 239–275. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Carroll, M., & Lambert, M. 2006. Reorganizing principles of information structure in advanced L2s: French and German learners of English. In Byrnes, H., Weger-Guntharp, H. & Sprang, K. (eds.), Educating for advanced foreign language capacities, pp. 54–73. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Croft, W. 2001. Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dragiev, K. 2004. Influence of an L1 grammaticized concept on the L2 acquisition of English by Bulgarian learners. Unpublished MA paper, Department of Linguistics, Ohio University.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. 2002. The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind's hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.
Hohenstein, J., Eisenberg, A., & Naigles, L. 2006. Is he floating across or crossing afloat? Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 9, 249–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ijaz, I. H. 1986. Linguistic and cognitive determinants of lexical acquisition in a second language. Language Learning, 36, 401–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Inagaki, S. 2001. Motion verbs with goal PPs in the L2 acquisition of English and Japanese. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23, 153–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jarvis, S. 1998. Conceptual transfer in the interlingual lexicon. Bloomington, IN: IULC Publications.Google Scholar
Jarvis, S. 2007. Theoretical and methodological issues in the investigation of conceptual transfer. Vigo International Journal of Applied Linguistics (VIAL), 4, 43–71.Google Scholar
Jarvis, S., & Odlin, T. 2000. Morphological type, spatial reference, and language transfer. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 535–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jarvis, S., & Pavlenko, A. 2008. Crosslinguistic influence in language and cognition. New York & London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karmiloff-Smith, A. 1992. Beyond modularity: A developmental perspective on cognitive science. Cambridge, MA & London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kövecses, Z. 2005. Metaphor in culture: Universality and variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kronenfeld, D., Armstrong, J., & Wilmoth, S. 1985. Exploring the internal structure of linguistic categories: An extensionist semantic view. In Dougherty, J. (ed.), Directions in cognitive anthropology, pp. 91–110. Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. 1987. Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. 2008. Cognitive Grammar: A basic introduction. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levelt, W. 1989. Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lucy, J. 1992. Language diversity and thought: A reformulation of the linguistic relativity hypothesis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malt, B. C., & Sloman, S. A. 2003. Linguistic diversity and object naming by non-native speakers of English. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 6, 47–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malt, B. C., Sloman, S. A., & Gennari, S. P. 2003. Universality and language specificity in object naming. Journal of Memory and Language, 49, 20–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murphy, G. 2002. The big book of concepts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Odlin, T. 2003. Crosslinguistic influence. In Doughty, C. & Long, M. (eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition, pp. 436–486. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Odlin, T. 2005. Cross-linguistic influence and conceptual transfer: What are the concepts? Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 25, 3–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paradis, M. 2004. A neurolinguistic theory of bilingualism. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pavlenko, A. 1997. Bilingualism and cognition. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Cornell University.Google Scholar
Pavlenko, A. 2003. Eyewitness memory in late bilinguals: Evidence for discursive relativity. The International Journal of Bilingualism, 7, 257–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pavlenko, A., & Jarvis, S. 2002. Bidirectional transfer. Applied Linguistics, 23, 190–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pederson, E. 2007. Cognitive linguistics and linguistic relativity. In Geeraerts, D. & Cuyckens, H. (eds.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics, pp. 1012–1043. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Roberson, D., Davies, I., & Davidoff, J. 2000. Colour categories are not universal: Replications and new evidence from a Stone-age culture. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 129, 369–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sera, M., Berge, C., & Del Pintado, J. 1994. Grammatical and conceptual forces in the attribution of gender by English and Spanish speakers. Cognitive Development, 9, 261–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slobin, D. I. 1993. Adult language acquisition: A view from child language study. In Perdue, C. (ed.), Adult language acquisition: Cross-linguistic perspectives, pp. 239–252. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. I. 1996. From “thought and language” to “thinking for speaking”. In Gumperz, J. & Levinson, S. (eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity, pp. 70–96. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. I. 2001. Form–function relations: How do children find out what they are? In Bowerman, M. & Levinson, S. (eds.), Language acquisition and conceptual development, pp. 406–449. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slobin, D. I. 2003. Language and thought online: Cognitive consequences of linguistic relativity. In Gentner, D. & Goldin-Meadow, S. (eds.), Language in mind: Advances in the study of language and thought, pp. 157–191. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slobin, D. I. 2004. The many ways to search for a frog: Linguistic typology and the expression of motion events. In Strömqvist, S. & Verhoeven, L. (eds.), Relating events in narrative: Typological and contextual perspectives, pp. 219–257. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. I. 2005. Linguistic representation in motion events: What is signifier and what is signified. In Maeder, C., Fisher, O. & Herlofsky, W. J. (eds.), Outside-in – inside-out (Iconicity in Language and Literature 4), pp. 307–322. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slobin, D. I. 2006. What makes manner of motion salient? Explorations in linguistic typology, discourse, and cognition. In Hickmann, M. & Robert, S. (eds.), Space in languages: Linguistic systems and cognitive categories (Typological Studies in Language 66), pp. 59–81. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Talmy, L. 2000. Toward a cognitive semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
von Stutterheim, C. 2003. Linguistic structure and information organisation: The case of very advanced learners. In Foster-Cohen, S. & Pekarek Doehler, S. (eds.), EuroSLA Yearbook, pp. 183–206. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
von Stutterheim, C., & Lambert, M. 2005. Crosslinguistic analysis of temporal perspectives in text production. In Hendriks, H. (ed.), The structure of learner varieties, pp. 203–230. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
von Stutterheim, C., & Nüse, R. 2003. Processes of conceptualization in language production: Language specific perspectives and event construal. Linguistics, 41, 851–881.Google Scholar
Whorf, B. 1956. Language, thought, and reality: Selected writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf (edited by Carroll, J. B.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar