The role of aspect in event conceptualization

1. The role of aspect in event conceptualization Monique Flecken University of Heidelberg ESRC Centre for Research on Bilingualism in Theory and Practice University of Bangor, Oct. 09

2. The questions • - How do speakers of different languages report on events (shown in videoclips)? • What is the role of aspect for event construal? • What principles do speakers rely on when selecting an aspectual perspective on an event (i.e. use of aspectual forms)? • Structure of the talk: • Project framework • Study 1: Event conceptualization in Italian, Dutch, German, English • Study 2: Event conceptualization by early bilinguals

3. Empirical approach to language use: the basic idea Speakers of different languages see the same real world scene (depicting an event), they are introduced to the verbal task, under the same temporal perspective  What is happening? In the stimuli, event features are systematically varied, which are potentially relevant for temporal perspective taking and selection of an aspectual perspective in different languages

4. External world: the stimulus Empirical methods eye tracking chronometry selective attention Information intake Cognitive (language-driven) filter Conceptual representation information segmentation, selection, structuring perspective taking Cognitive (language-driven) filter chronometry verbal product memory Verbal representation Levels of event conceptualization

5. Stimuli • Dynamic, live-action videoclips • Different types of situation • e.g. Motion events (endpoint), ‚activities‘, change in state situations • Situation types presented in pseudo-randomized order • 6 seconds in length • Pause between videoclips: 8 seconds (baseline), 3 seconds (time constraint) • Eye movement recorded before and while verbalizing

6. Event conceptualization – language specific preferences Example: Motion events(cf. v. Stutterheim & Carroll, 2006; v. Stutterheim et al, subm.)

7. Event conceptualization – language specific preferences Findings: Interrelation use of progr./imperf. aspect (phasal segmentation) and mentioning of as well as attention to (potential) endpoints ‚Seeing for Speaking‘ Holistic (+endpoint) vs. ongoing perspective (- endpoint)

8. Event conceptualization - aspect Differences between aspectual systems with respect to the degree of grammaticalisation (expressing “ongoingness”) fully grammaticalized emerging lexical only e.g. English, (Japanese, Russian) to be V-ing Italian, Dutch stare+gerund Una donna sta faciendo una sciarpa aan het X zijn Een vrouw is een sjaal aan het breien zitten/staan/te + inf German, (Norwegian) am X sein beim X sein dabei seinX zu Inf

9. Research questions 1. Frequency of selection of aspectual perspective ‚event is ongoing‘ in explicit terms 2. What situation types (in the stimuli) attract selection of this aspectual perspective? 3. Are crosslinguistic preferences reflected in different patterns of attention during information intake?

10. Stimuli & Method • Stimulus material-Scenes showing specific situation types; remote eye tracker - 65 randomized videoclips, 6 secs long, 8 secs pauseElicitation:”You may start to speak as soon as you recognize what is happening in the clip” „Wat gebeurt er?“ „Was passiert?“

11. Participants • Native speakers • Dutch: N=20 (age range 18-27), 50% female, 50% male • Italian: N=20 (age range 20-28), 60% female, 40% male (Natale, in press) • English: N=20 (age range 21-29), 60% female, 40% male • German: N=20 (age range 20-35), 50% female, 50% male

12. Results – Aspectual perspective

13. Eye tracking analysis Event conceptualized as ‘ongoing’: dependent on presence of specific temporal features of situation in Italian and Dutch(changes in state leading to an effected object) Question: Will this affect direction of attention (eye movement) of Dutch and Italian speakers? Hypo: Speakers will not have to direct attention to these features to same extent with use of progressive aspect in English (nor in German)

14. Eye tracking analysis • 2 Areas of Interest (AoI): ‘Agent’ vs. ‘Action’, the area showing the ongoing process – 6 stimuli analyzed • Measures for attention: Duration of fixations, (time course of fixations in AoI (measured from videoclip onset) – start time of first period of fixation in AoI Agent Action

15. * ET Results – Start time of first period of fixation p<.05 AoI action: Italian, Dutch earlier than English, German

16. * ET Results – Total fixation time p<.05 AoI action: Eng > Ger, Dut/Ital trend > Ger AoI agent: Ger > Eng

17. Interim summary • Overall direction of attention to ongoing action correlates with frequency of use of this aspectual perspective (English, Italian, Dutch vs. German) • Attention to relevant aspects occurs early in speech planning process when selection of aspectual perspective is dependent on specific temporal features of stimuli (Italian/Dutch) • Selection of an aspectual perspective influences attention for and while speaking (ET!)

18. Research question – Bilinguals What do a bilingual‘s patterns of event conceptualization look like – comparing their use of the two languages?

19. The bilinguals under analysis • Early bilinguals, onset of acquisition both languages <4 years • One parent, one language • Bilingual education programme • Languages: Dutch – German • Typologically similar (V2, Syntax, Tense) • Relevant difference: Selection of an aspectual perspective

20. Research questions Bilingual subjects: 1. Frequency of selection of aspectual perspective ‚event is ongoing‘ in explicit terms, in both languages 2. What situation types attract selection of this aspectual perspective, in both languages? 3. Are differences reflected in different patterns of attention during information intake?  How do they proceed in event conceptualization and direction of attention ?

21. Participants • ‘Monolingual’ speakers • L1 Dutch, L1 German • N=28, (age range 18-35), 50% female, 50% male • Early bilinguals • N=10, (age range 16-22), 60% female, 40% male • two recordings (within-subject design)

22. p<.05 * * Results – Aspectual perspective *

23. Summary – linguistic analysis ‘Monolinguals’ L1 German - event conceptualized in aspectual terms - rare (if at all: confined to activities) e.g. Zwei Jungs sind beimWellenreiten L1 Dutch - aspectual perspective frequent in two situation types: change in state sits, activities – aan het dominant e.g. Een man is een vliegtuigje aan het vouwen

24. Summary – linguistic analysis Bilinguals - Dutch– selection of aspectual perspective more frequent in all situation types, compared to monolingual speakers; extension to motion events e.g. Een vrouw die aan het lopen is Een man is naar een auto aan het wandelen - German– infrequent selection, use in change in state situations; am-form “preferred” form (monolingual speakers: beim) e.g. Eine Frau ist am Kartoffelnschälen

25. Eye tracking analysis - Event conceptualization in aspectual terms or not: Reflected in differences in distribution of ATTENTIONlanguage-specific patterns of visual processing, perspective taking Stimuli analyzed: Change in state situations

26. * * * Total fixation time p<.05 Rep. Meas., ANOVA, p<.05 • AoI action: Mono Dutch > Mono German; Bil Dutch > Mono Dutch Bil Dutch > Bil German • AoI agent: Mono Ger > Mono Dutch; Mono Ger > Bil Dutch/Bil German

27. Summary • - Differences in perspective taking (reflected in use of forms such as aan het + zijn) are also reflected in differences in distribution of attention • driven by features of the specificlinguistic system • Expression of an event as “ongoing” correlates with attention to relevant aspects of the visual scene (Mono/Bil Dut) • ACTION – ongoing process

28. General findings – bilinguals • Language-specific patterns of event conceptualization in both languages: reflected in frequency of use of aspectual perspective as well as distribution of attention • No evident cross-linguistic influence • No evidence of patterns that may suggest a ‘merged system’ /compromise •  Event conceptualization patterns are bilingual-specific: • Bil Dutch: - extension of aspectual concept - high frequency of use of aan het at the expense of other forms • Bil German: - aspectual forms used also in other situation type (cross-ling influence?)

29. General findings – bilinguals 1) Is it possible in bilingual acquisition to acquire the implications of specific linguistic forms for organizing and selecting content for expression? YES (in this domain of analysis) 2) Is it possible for a bilingual to distinguish and keep apart two language-specific preferences in aspectual perspective taking? YES (in this domain of analysis)

30. Conclusions • The method of analysis provides insights into bilinguals’ conceptualization preferences • The method can be used to identify the status of ‘developing’ systems (Italian/Dutch) • Results support evidence that use of aspectual forms result in a specific PERSPECTIVE on events – basic conceptual categories (e.g. ‘event in progression/ongoing’)

31. Further aspects • Time course of attention (duration/number of fixations) – correlated with mention of specific parts of the event (endpoint adjunct for example) • Non-linguistic task – ET: Are the language-specific patterns found also present in a task “void” of language use? • Memory performance (v. Stutterheim et al, submitted)

32. Thank you! Danke schön! Dankjewel! flecken@idf.uni-heidelberg.de