booklet final-18juin2014-soroli page web - umr...

Langacross 2 2011-‐2014

UTTERANCE STRUCTURE IN CONTEXT: LANGUAGE AND COGNITION DURING ACQUISITION IN A CROSS-‐LINGUISTIC PERSPECTIVE Final Conference: University of Lille 3, 20-‐21 June 2014 LINGUISTIC DIVERSITY AND COGNITION: IMPLICATIONS FOR FIRST AND SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

Project financed by the Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR) & Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG)

2

Page layout by Efstathia SOROLI

3

Table of Contents LANGACROSS: THE PROJECT 4

COORDINATORS 5 MEMBERS 6

THE CONFERENCE 8

PROGRAM 11 SPEAKERS 12 ABSTRACTS 13

APPENDIX 24

CONFERENCES AND PUBLICATIONS 25 THESES 46

NOTES 53

4

Langacross: The Project

The overarching aim of LANGACROSS2 is to study cognitive and linguistic determinants of language acquisition in a cross-‐linguistic perspective that takes into account discourse factors in language use. The project is framed within a large comparative approach that combines many languages (and language families) and different types of speakers (children and adults) focusing on effects of diversity. LANGACROSS2 extends the preceding LANGACROSS1 project in two ways: it pursues some of the research already begun since 2007, as well as investigate new questions that have emerged from it particularly around the question of the relation between language and cognition. The project investigates two research domains: I-‐Space/Time, II-‐ Contrastive and additive relations in discourse. It considers two main research themes: 1) typological constraints across languages and uncovering their cognitive implications for native speakers: 2) processes of conceptualization and reconceptualization during L1/L2 acquisition and in bilingualism. In addition, it simultaneously addresses two specific research questions in each domain: 1) the study of cross-‐linguistic differences in speakers’ output, as measured in production tasks aiming at studying the impact of language-‐specific properties on how speakers organize information in discourse; 2) the study of the cognitive underpinnings underlying these different outputs, as measured by a variety of psycholinguistic tools aiming at providing access to speakers’ internal representations (e.g. eye movements, categorization, memory), mainly in relation to productions elicited in controlled situations. Finally, it examines these questions in two types of databases for which some corpora are already available or in progress and others will be collected in new experimental situations and in new languages: 1) native speakers of different languages and 2) different types of learners, including children acquiring their first language, bilingual children acquiring two languages simultaneously, adults acquiring a second language, and balanced bilingual adults (see Appendix).

5

Coordinators

French Team 1

Coordinator for France and Team coordinator

Maya Hickmann Laboratoire « Structures Formelles du Langage »

UMR 7023, CNRS & University of Paris 8

French Team 2

Team coordinator: Sandra Benazzo

Laboratoire « Savoirs, textes, langages »

UMR 8163, CNRS & University of Lille 3

German Team 1

Coordinator for Germany and Team coordinator:

Christine Dimroth

Westfälische Wilhelms-‐Universität Münster

German Team 2

Coordinator for Germany and Team coordinator:

Christiane von Stutterheim Ruprecht-‐Karls-‐Universität Heidelberg

6

Members

French Team 1

e-‐mail Affiliation Function

Bassano, Dominique [email protected]

SFL 7023 (CNRS & University of Paris 8) Chercheur CNRS

Colonna, Saveria saveria.colonna@univ-‐paris8.fr

SFL 7023 (CNRS & University of Paris 8)

Enseignant-‐chercheur

Hickmann, Maya [email protected]

SFL 7023 (CNRS & University of Paris 8) Chercheur CNRS

Lambert, Monique [email protected]



Leclercq, Pascale [email protected] University of Montpellier Enseignant-‐chercheur

Maillochon, Isabelle [email protected]

SFL 7023 & Université du Havre


Engemann, Helen [email protected]


Post-‐doctoral position (july

2012+)

Soroli, Efstathia efstathia.soroli@univ-‐lille3.fr

STL 8163 (CNRS & University of Lille 3)


Aleksandrova, Tatiana [email protected]

SFL 7023 (CNRS & University of Paris 8) Doctoral student

Demagny, Annie-‐Claude annie-‐[email protected]


Chargée de recherche CNRS

Iakovleva Tatiana [email protected]

SFL 7023 (CNRS & University of Paris 8) Doctoral student

Morand, Georgie [email protected]

SFL 7023 (CNRS & University of Paris 8) ITA CNRS

Vincent, Coralie

[email protected]


ITA CNRS

French Team 2


Benazzo, Sandra sandra.benazzo@univ-‐lille3.fr



Patin, Cédric [email protected]



Paykin, Katia [email protected]



Jablonski, Emmanuelle

emmanuelle.jablonski@univ-‐lille3.fr


ITA CNRS

German Team 1


Dimroth, Christine christine.dimroth@uni-‐muenster.de


Project coordinator

Roberts, Leah [email protected] The University of York External collaborator

Schimke, Sarah

sarah.schimke@uni-‐muenster.de


Wissenschafliche Mitarbeiterin/Juniorprofessorin

Bonvin, Audrey

[email protected]


Wissenschaftliche Mitarbeiterin

Turco, Giusy

giuseppina.turco@uni-‐konstanz.de

Universität Konstanz

Wissenschaftliche Mitarbeiterin

7

German Team 2


von Stutterheim, Christiane [email protected]‐heidelberg.de University of Heidelberg Project

coordinator

Carroll, Mary [email protected]‐heidelberg.de University of Heidelberg Wissenschaftliche Mitarbeiterin

Flecken, Monique

[email protected]

Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition, and

Behaviour

Post-‐doctoral position

Tomita, Naoko [email protected]‐heidelberg.de University of Heidelberg Post-‐doctoral position

Pagonis, Giulio [email protected]‐heidelberg.de

University of Heidelberg Wissenschaftlicher Mitarbeiter

Dietrich, Rainer [email protected]‐heidelberg.de University of Heidelberg Prof. emeritus (from Sept.

2010) Weimar, Katja [email protected]‐heidelberg.de University of Heidelberg Doctoral student

Abbassia Bouhaous [email protected]‐heidelberg.de

University of Heidelberg Doctoral student

Johannes Gerwien [email protected]‐heidelberg.de University of Heidelberg Doctoral student

Agniescka Tytus [email protected]‐heidelberg.de University of Heidelberg Doctoral student

Viola Ganter

[email protected]‐heidelberg.de

University of Heidelberg

Doctoral student

Collaborators e-‐mail Affiliation Function

Andorno, Cecilia [email protected] Università di Torino Associate Professor

Arslangul Arnaud [email protected] INALCO Enseignant-‐chercheur

Braun, Bettina

bettina.braun@uni-‐konstanz.de

Universität Konstanz Junior Professor

Giuliano, Patricia [email protected]

Università Federico II di Napoli

Researcher

Gullberg, Marianne [email protected] Lund University Prof.

Hendriks, Henriette [email protected]

University of Cambridge Senior Researcher

Kihlstedt, Maria maria.kihlstedt@u-‐paris10.fr Université Paris X Enseignant-‐chercheur

Korecky-‐Kroll, Katherina Katharina.Korecky-‐[email protected]

Universität Wien Enseignant-‐chercheur

Munoz, Carmen [email protected] University of Barcelona Enseignant-‐chercheur

Natale, Silvia [email protected] Universität Bern Postdoc

Harr (Ochsenbauer), Anne-‐Katharina

[email protected] University of Munich Postdoc

Starren, Marianne [email protected]

Radboud University Nijmegen Researcher

Trevisiol, Pascale [email protected] University of Paris 8 Researcher Verhagen, Josje [email protected] University of Utrecht Postdoc

Watorek, Marzena [email protected]

SFL 7023 (CNRS &

University of Paris 8) Enseignant-‐chercheur

8

The conference

9

Final Conference / ANR-‐DFG project LANGACROSS2 (2011-‐2014)

LINGUISTIC DIVERSITY AND COGNITION:

IMPLICATIONS FOR FIRST AND SECOND LANGUAGE

ACQUISITION

10

LINGUISTIC DIVERSITY AND COGNITION: IMPLICATIONS FOR FIRST AND SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

Lille, 20-‐21 June 2014

Maison de la Recherche Conference organized by LANGACROSS2

This conference is organized by the French-‐German project entitled “Utterance structure in context: Language and cognition during acquisition in a cross-‐linguistic perspective” (LANGACROSS2, financially supported by the ANR and DFG). The project aims to provide theoretical and empirical advances in the field of language acquisition, with particular attention to the relationship between language and cognition in two major domains of investigation: I-‐ Contrastive and additive relations; II-‐ Space and Time. In both domains research is carried out around the following two main research questions: 1) the role of typological constraints across languages and their cognitive implications for native speakers; 2) the nature of conceptualization and reconceptualization processes during L1/L2 acquisition and in bilingualism. Furthermore, two specific research themes are simultaneously addressed: a) cross-‐linguistic differences in speakers’ output, as measured in controlled production tasks aiming at studying the impact of language-‐specific properties on how speakers organize information in discourse; and b) the cognitive underpinnings underlying these different outputs, as measured by a variety of psycholinguistic tools aiming at providing access to speakers’ internal representations in relation to their production in controlled situations. In line with these general aims, the conference brings together advances related to typological accounts of event representation and construal across languages and learners. Additional emphasis is placed on: 1) language use in context, 2) conceptualization processes in relation to language-‐specific structures, 3) relating the specific course of L1 and L2 acquisition and their outcomes or end-‐states, 4) in a wide range of languages and language combinations, particularly Germanic

and Romance, but also from other groups (e.g. Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Greek, Russian, Georgian, Arabic),

5) and a wide range of populations: adult native speakers, children acquiring their first language, bilingual children acquiring two languages simultaneously, adults acquiring a second language at different levels of proficiency, balanced bilingual adults,

6) using a variety of methodologies, such as comprehension and production, on-‐line measures of cognitive processes (eye-‐movements, reaction times), in verbal and non-‐verbal tasks (e.g. categorization, memory, picture-‐matching).

11

Program FRIDAY 20 JUNE: DISCOURSE RELATIONS

13h30-‐14h15

Invited speaker: Robert Van Valin (University of Düsseldorf & University at Buffalo), Dejan Matić & Saskia van Putten (Max-‐Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen) Variability of contrastive markers: Contrast in Avatime, Even and Lakhota

14h15-‐14h45 14h45-‐15h15

Dominique Bassano, Ewa Lenart, Pascale Trévisiol & Isabelle Maillochon: The emergence of nominal determiners in French: what is the impact of information structure? Sarah Schimke, Maya Hickmann & Saveria Colonna: Learning to maintain and to shift topics in French & German: general and language-‐specific determinants

15h15-‐15h40 Coffee break 15h40-‐17h (4x20 min)

Cecilia Andorno, Sandra Benazzo, Christine Dimroth, Giusy Turco & Cédric Patin: Additive & Contrastive relations in Germanic vs. Romance languages, as L1 & L2

17h-‐17h20 Short Coffee break 17h20-‐18h (2x20 min)

Katia Paykin & Tatiana Aleksandrova: Additive & Contrastive relations in native speakers of Russian Patrizia Giuliano: How to contrast and maintain information in English and Italian, as L1 & L2

18h-‐18h30

Discussion: Discourse relations -‐ with the participation of all speakers & invited discussants Giuliano Bernini (Università di Bergamo), Martin Howard (University College Cork), Jeanine Treffers-‐Daller (University of Reading)

SATURDAY 21 JUNE: SPACE & TIME 9h-‐9h45

Invited speaker: Yo Matsumoto (Kobe University) Common tendencies in the descriptions of manner, path and cause across languages: closer look at their subcategories

9h45h-‐10h30

Invited speaker: Teresa Cadierno (University of Southern Denmark) Cross-‐linguistic variation in the expression of placement events: Research on L1 and L2 speakers of Danish and Spanish

10h30-‐11h Coffee break

11h-‐11h45 (3x15 min)

Maya Hickmann, Henriëtte Hendriks, Helen Engemann, Efstathia Soroli & Coralie Vincent: Verbal and non-‐verbal cognition in English and French: adults and L1 acquisition

11h45-‐12h30

Abassia Bouhaous & Christiane von Stutterheim: Implications of aspectual distinctions (+/-‐) on motion event construal in L1 Tunisian Arabic, French, German and L2 Tunisian -‐> MSA, L2 Tunisian-‐French, L2 French-‐German

12h30-‐13h30 Lunch 13h30-‐14h15

Monique Lambert, Christiane von Stutterheim & Mary Carroll: Global principles of information organization in advanced L2 acquisition: Studies based on L1 (source and target) and L2 narratives

14h15-‐15h

Invited speakers: Eliana Mastrantuono (University of Seville), Jacqueline Laws & Jeanine Treffers-‐Daller (University of Reading) Aspectual markers in motion event construals among English and Italian monolinguals and Italian-‐English bilinguals

15h-‐15h30 Coffee break

15h30-‐16h

Discussion: Space/Time -‐ with the participation of all speakers & invited discussants -‐ Giuliano Bernini (Università di Bergamo), Martin Howard (University College Cork), Jeanine Treffers-‐Daller (University of Reading)

12

Speakers

Aleksandrova, Tatiana SFL 7023 (CNRS & University of Paris 8) Andorno, Cecilia Università degli Studi di Torino Bassano, Dominique SFL 7023 (CNRS & University of Paris 8) Benazzo, Sandra University of Lille 3 & STL 8163 (CNRS) Bouhaous, Abassia University of Heidelberg Cadierno, Teresa University of Southern Denmark Carroll, Mary University of Heidelberg Colonna, Saveria SFL 7023 (CNRS & University of Paris 8) Dimroth, Christine Westfälische Wilhelms-‐Universität Münster Engemann, Helen SFL 7023 (CNRS & University of Paris 8) Giuliano, Patrizia Università degli Studi di Napoli Federico II Hickmann, Maya SFL 7023 (CNRS & University of Paris 8) Hendriks, Henriëtte University of Cambridge Lambert, Monique SFL 7023 (CNRS & University of Paris 8) Laws, Jacqueline University of Reading Lenart, Ewa SFL 7023 (CNRS & University of Paris 8) Maillochon, Isabelle SFL 7023 & Université du Havre Mastrantuono, Eliana University of Seville Matić, Dejan Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen Matsumoto, Yo Kobe University Patin, Cédric University of Lille 3 & STL 8163 (CNRS)

Paykin, Katia University of Lille 3 & STL 8163 (CNRS) Schimke, Sarah University of Münster Soroli, Efstathia University of Lille 3 & STL 8163 (CNRS) Treffers-‐Daller, Jeanine University of Reading Trévisiol, Pascale University of Poitiers, Forell A Turco, Giusy Universität Konstanz Van Putten, Saskia Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen Van Valin, Robert Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf & University at Buffalo, The State University

of New York Vincent, Coralie SFL 7023 (CNRS & University of Paris 8) Von Stutterheim, Christiane University of Heidelberg

13

Abstracts

CONFERENCE LANGACROSS 2, Lille, 20-‐21 June 2014

Variability of contrastive markers: Contrast in Avatime, Even and Lakhota Robert D. Van Valin, Jr. (Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf & University at Buffalo, The State University of New York), Dejan Matić (Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen) & Saskia van Putten (Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen)

This presentation looks at the marking of contrast in three unrelated non-‐Indo-‐European languages: Avatime, a Kwa language spoken in Ghana; Even, a Tungusic language spoken in Siberia, and Lakhota, a Siouan language spoken in the northern Great Plains region of North America. Each presents a different strategy for coding contrastive focus and contrastive topic. Avatime employs syntactic, morphological and tonal means to signal the two kinds of contrast, whereas Even uses the same marker for both. Lakhota has no dedicated topic or focus markers but nevertheless signals the two kinds of contrast by means of pronouns and a typologically unusual type of cleft construction. A comparison among the three language shows that they differ not only in the morphosyntactic means by which they signal contrast but also in what exactly is signaled.

***

The emergence of determiners in French: What is the impact of information structure? Dominique Bassano (CNRS-‐SFL & University Paris 8), Ewa Lenart (University Paris 8 & CNRS-‐SFL), Pascale Trévisiol (University of Poitiers, Forell A) & Isabelle Maillochon (SFL 7023 & Université du Havre) In languages with articles, the acquisition of determiner use is a central aspect of the emergence of grammar in child speech. After a variable period in which children generally ‘omit’ determiners from their productions, they become able to use these morphemes in the contexts required in the target language, although determiners may not be produced as correct forms or with appropriate discourse functions. This acquisition process has inspired many works. Crosslinguistic studies show that determiners emerge earlier in Romance than in Germanic languages and that variation depends on a range of interacting factors; particular attention is given in the literature to prosodic and lexical-‐semantic influences (for review Bassano, to appear). In contrast, the impact of discourse factors on determiner emergence has been under-‐investigated. This talk examines the influence of information structure on determiner emergence in French children’s early speech. Based on longitudinal spontaneous production data of six children at 20, 30 and 39 months, we analyse the respective impact of three informational dimensions: topic/comment structure (cf. the Quaestio model, Klein & von Stutterheim, 1991), the information status of

14

referents in discourse and their status in regard to the nonlinguistic context. Nouns were much more frequently used in children’s comments than in topics, for discourse-‐given rather than for new referents and for contextually-‐given referents rather than for non-‐given. At 20 months, determiner/filler use was significantly favoured for nouns in comments over nouns in topics. It was also favoured for new over given referents in discourse and for non-‐given over given referents in nonlinguistic contexts. These results, discussed in terms of young children’s sensitivity to informativity and accessibility features, support the early influence of discourse factors on the emergence of grammar. Bassano, D. (to appear). The acquisition of nominal determiners: Evidence from

crosslinguistic approaches. In L. Serratrice & S. Allen (eds), The acquisition of reference. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Klein, W. & von Stutterheim, Ch. (1991). Text structure and referential movement. Sprache und Pragmatik 22, 1-‐32.

***

Learning to maintain and to shift topics in French and German: General and language-‐specific determinants Sarah Schimke (University of Münster), Maya Hickmann & Saveria Colonna (CNRS & University Paris 8) In order to introduce, switch and maintain reference in narrative discourse, speakers have to use linguistic means including word order, specialized syntactic constructions and referring expressions that can vary in explicitness. The use of these means is complex in particular because there is no one-‐to-‐one mapping of forms and functions. Moreover, they are exploited differently in different languages and interact with language-‐specific grammatical constraints. As a consequence, when studying the acquisition of referential means, it is desirable to compare data that have been obtained with the same elicitation stimuli in different languages, so that processes that are specific for a given language can be separated from language-‐independent developmental changes. The current study compared retellings of 5, 7 and 10-‐year old children as well as adults in German and French, obtained with a new set of carefully controlled elicitation stimuli. All participants narrated 16 short video clips, each showing two animals interacting with each other. We coded how participants expressed reference to one of these animals (“target”) throughout the narratives. In the first scene of each video, both animals appeared one after the other. In the second scene, a transitive action happened between the two animals. In the third scene, the target animal disappeared and then re-‐appeared with an object. We varied whether the target animal appeared first or second in the first scene, and whether it was the agent or patient in the second scene, thereby creating contexts for maintained or switched reference that were highly comparable to each other. Our results reveal effects of age, language, and discourse context on referential cohesion. French and German adults exploit the means available in their language in

15

quite different ways. German adults maintain reference by zero anaphora and express switched reference either by full noun phrases or by the demonstrative pronoun der. French adults frequently use clitic pronouns and zero anaphora for maintained reference, particularly in chains of increasingly reduced forms (e.g., full NP – relative pronoun – clitic or zero pronoun). 5-‐year-‐olds tend to be under-‐explicit in both languages, resulting in ambiguous references. In contrast, 7-‐year-‐olds are highly over-‐explicit, producing few discourse contexts that favor the use of lean forms, a pattern which is more striking in German than in French. Similarly, German 10-‐year-‐olds are highly over-‐explicit, while French 10-‐year olds use lean forms as frequently as adults. The late development of an adult-‐like use of lean forms in German children is probably related to their frequent use of sentence-‐initial adverbials that lead to obligatory subject-‐verb inversions (V2-‐constraint, e.g. da-‐V-‐S). The resulting postverbal forms are normally associated with new information. As a result, children may have difficulties reconciling grammatical vs. pragmatic constraints on form-‐position associations.

*** Additive and contrastive relations in Romance and Germanic languages, as L1 & L2 Cecilia Andorno (Università di Torino) Sandra Benazzo (Université Lille 3 & UMR 8361 STL), Christine Dimroth (Westfälische Wilhelms-‐Universität Münster) Giusy Turco (Universität Konstanz) & Cédric Patin (Université Lille 3 & UMR 8361 STL) At every point in an unfolding discourse speakers have to bring together information that is maintained from prior utterances with information that is changing or new. Different discourse types come with different default regularities for the domains in which maintenance or change is expected (referential movement; Klein & von Stutterheim 2002). In a narration, for instance, at least local maintenance in the domain of a topical referent (‘protagonist’ or ‘agent’) goes hand in hand with temporal shifts and with changing predicates that are claimed to hold for the topical referent(s) at different points in time. Structural differences between languages have been shown to influence the way in which properties of referential movement are mapped onto surface form (e.g. which entity is typically selected as subject; cf. Carroll, Lambert, Stutterheim 2005). By contrast, less is known about cross-‐linguistic variation for information contexts which deviate from such a prototypical discourse scheme, i.e. when change and maintenance do no longer conform to default expectations on referential movement. In order to investigate this question, we used an experimental task (the video Finite Story) eliciting narrative discourse stretches where the type of action is given information, whereas the changing information is in the domain of entities or of the assertive polarity. The comparison of native productions in four languages has shown a clear cross-‐linguistic difference between Romance (French, Italian) and Germanic languages (German, Dutch) in the linguistic structures speakers used to signal such contexts (Dimroth, Andorno, Benazzo & Verhagen 2010). As a follow up to Dimroth et al., this paper presents the findings from empirical studies which further investigate the typological contrast identified between Germanic and

16

Romance languages in L1 production and discuss its implications for L2 acquisition. The presentation is subdivided in the following 4 parts:

1) Introduction (Dimroth). Part I provides some background information on the theoretical and methodological approach of the sub-‐project.

2) Polarity Contrasts (Turco). Part 2 reports on data from a controlled dialogue production experiment (Polarity Switch task) in which L1 and L2 speakers of Romance or Germanic languages were encouraged to express switches from negative to assertive polarity.

3) Contrastive relations (Benazzo). Part 3 compares how L2 learners of Romance languages (French, Italian), having either a Romance or a Germanic language as L1, organize the information structures of narrative utterances relating contrasting events.

4) Additive relations (Andorno). Part 4 compares, on the basis of Finite Story data, the sentence information structure (word order, intonation) of additive sentences in German and Italian native speakers and L2 learners (German learners of Italian, Italian learners of German).

The study of native productions highlights the presence of a Germanic vs. Romance preferred discourse perspective to express additive and contrastive relations. Whereas speakers of Italian and French chose marked expressions of topical referents, time spans and predicates (e.g. contrastive pronouns, stressed temporal adverbials etc.), speakers of Germanic languages prefer to manipulate the expression of the hold-‐for-‐relation that links the predicate to the topic(s). With the help of intonation (Verum Focus; Höhle 1992) and contrastive particles they can directly access this relation and thus use a different piece of information in order to establish discourse coherence. In addition, the Polarity switch data reveals a different use of contrastive intonation: German native speakers mark assertion by producing a nuclear pitch accent on the finite verb, whereas Romance speakers (Italian and French) prefer other encoding strategies (e.g., accenting the non-‐finite verb). The analysis of L2 narrative data shows that learners can adopt (to a different extent) the target language discourse perspective, but also that they are particularly reluctant to produce the typical L2 constructions, preferred by native speakers, which diverge from the default topic / comment structure.

*** Additive and Contrastive Relations in native speakers of Russian Katia Paykin (Université Lille 3 & UMR 8163 STL) & Tatiana Aleksandrova (Université Paris 8 & UMR 7023 SFL) In line with what has been presented by Andorno et al. (“Additive and contrastive relations in Romance and Germanic languages”), we examine various strategies used by native speakers of Russian in coding additive and contrastive relations in narrative discourse prompted by the Finite Story video. In particular, we try to determine to what extent the typological contrast identified between Germanic and Romance languages can also apply for Russian. To some degree Russian data provides similar

17

and comparable results to those obtained for Romance languages, in particular in the use of additive particles or contrastive adverbials, which put the emphasis on the entity or the predicate. However, it does seem that speakers of Russian make full use of particularities of Slavic linguistic system to attain maximal coherence, i.e. variable word order accompanied by contrastive intonation, lexical variation in order to avoid repetition and especially the aspectual shift. Moreover, we can trace the same tendencies in Russian speaking learners of French L2 on the intermediate level. These typically Russian means tend to progressively give way to more canonical ways of expression, proper to French, in advanced learners.

***

How to contrast and maintain information in English, as L1 and L2 Patrizia Giuliano (Università degli Studi di Napoli Federico II) The purpose of this paper is to analyse the way informants change or contrast information in the Topic Entity and Topic Time domains (Klein 2008) in Italian and English, as L1s and L2s. In the narrative task proposed, informants also have to maintain predicative information, since a process claimed to hold for some Topic Entities and Topic Times is actually maintained from previous discourse. The data have been elicited using the video clip The Finite Story (Dimroth 2006) and are divided in three groups: English L1, English L2 of Italian advanced learners, Italian L2 of English advanced learners. Dimroth et al. (2010) have analysed Finite Story narrations of German, Dutch, French and Italian adult native speakers, identifying the type of items signalling which parts of the information are maintained and which parts have been changed or contrasted. The anaphoric linking devices range from additive particles to polarity or temporal contrasting markings and to prosodic devices. The same authors suggest that: (a) when a polarity contrast is present, Dutch and German mark this polarity contrast much more frequently than Romance languages, which prefer to mark the contrast on the topic component (entity or time); (b) where no polarity contrast is involved, Germanic languages show a clear preference for the marking of contrast on the Topic Entity with the help of additive particles, while Romance languages can also signal the maintenance of information on the predicate level. My purpose is to test Dimroth et al.’s hypothesis on English, both as L1 and L2, in order to enlarge the debate about the possible ways of building textual cohesion in Romance and Germanic languages, extending it to the L2 perspective as well. References Dimroth, Christine, 2006. The Finite Story. Max-‐Planck-‐Institute for Psycholinguistics,

http://corpus1.mpi.nl/ds/imdi_browser?openpath=MPI560350%23 Dimroth, Christine / Andorno, Cecilia / Benazzo, Sandra / Verhagen, Josie (2010), “Given

claims about new topics. The distribution of contrastive and maintained information in Romance and Germanic Languages”, Journal of Pragmatics 42: 3328-‐3344.

Giuliano, P. (2012), “Contrasted and maintained information in a narrative task: analysis of texts in English and Italian as L1s and L2s”, EUROSLA Yearbook 2012, Amsterdam, John Benjamins, vol. 12, 30-‐62.

18

Höhle, Tilman, 1992, „Über Verum-‐fokus im Deutschen“, Linguistische Berichte, Sonderheft 4, Sonderheft 4, 112–141.

Klein, Wolfgang, 2008, “The topic situation”. In: Ahrenholz, B. et al. (Eds.), Empirische Forschung und Theoriebildung. Festschrift für Norbert Dittmar zum 65. Geburtstag (287-‐306). Frankfurt a.M., Peter Lang.

***

Common tendencies in the descriptions of manner, path and cause across languages: closer look at their subcategories Yo Matsumoto (Kobe University) In this talk I will discuss some of the findings of NInjal-‐Kobe Project on Motion Event Descriptions, in which production experiments were conducted in 16 different languages to elicit descriptions of motion events differing in manner, path, deixis, and cause of motion. The findings show clear typological differences among languages in terms of the coding positions of path (cf. Talmy 1991): some languages tend to code path in the head (i.e. main verb) of the clause while others tend to code it “head-‐external” positions (e.g., satellites). At the same time, our findings suggest that languages claimed to belong to different typological types exhibit similar tendencies in describing particular subcategories of manner, path, and cause. For example, UP path is described in a position closer to the main verb or the main verb itself, while TO path tends to be expressed closer to nominal argument of the verb. Physical manipulation induces a simplex clause descriptions while verbal commands tend to induce less integrated, often biclausal event descriptions. These suggest that linguistic descriptions of motion events are in fact more similar across languages than might have been believed.

*** Cross-‐linguistic variation in the expression of placement events: Research on L1 and L2 speakers of Danish and Spanish Teresa Cadierno (University of Southern Denmark) Cross-‐linguistic research conducted in the last two decades has evidenced widespread variation in how languages cut up the world. While earlier research tended to focus on domains such as color (e.g., Robertson et al., 2000; Regier and Kay, 2009), artifacts (e.g., Ameel et al., 2005; Malt et al., 1999, 2003), topological relations (e.g., Bowerman, 1996; Levinson et al., 2006) and frames of reference (e.g., Levinson & Wilkins, 2006), among others, recent studies have started to investigate the linguistic encoding of every day events (e.g., ‘carrying events’, Bowerman, 2005; and ‘cutting and breaking events’, Majid et al., 2007, 2008). One type of event that has attracted a great deal of attention lately is that of placement events. Placement events are examples of caused-‐motion (Talmy, 1985, 2000) as they involve an Agent causing an object (the figure object) to move to another location (a goal ground) in space The investigation of placement events is an interesting area for SLA as recent research (e.g., Kopecka & Narasimhan, 2012) has revealed considerable variation in

19

the linguistic conceptualization of this domain by native speakers (NSs) of different languages. For example, NSs of Germanic languages such as Dutch use posture verbs (e.g., zetten vs. leggen)) that express properties of the figure object and its orientation with respect to the ground, while NSs of Romance languages tend to use general-‐purpose verbs that can apply to a wide range of scenes (e.g., Spanish poner ‘put’ or dejar ‘leave’). Following research on the linguistic encoding of placement events in L1 acquisition (e.g., Hickmann, 2007; Hickman & Hendriks, 2006; Slobin et al., 2011; Gullberg and Narasimhan, 2010; Narasimhan & Gullberg, 2011), a few studies have started to examine the expression of placement events in functional bilinguals (Berthele, 2012; Alferink & Gullberg, 2014) and adult L2 learners. This latter type of studies have focused on examining the relative degree of difficulty in placement verbs meaning reconstruction when moving from a more general system to a more specific system (Viberg,1998; Gullberg, 2009) or when moving in the opposite direction, i.e., from a more specific system to a more general one (Gullberg, 2011). Crucially, the direction of the movement has been examined so far in separate studies involving different combinations of L1 and L2 language pairs (e.g., English learners of L2 Dutch and Dutch learners of L2 French). To our knowledge, no research has yet examined in one single study the relative difficulty of moving in one or the other direction. The study that will be reported in the workshop is designed to examine this. By means of a bi-‐directional design, the investigation examines the semantic categorization of placement verbs in four groups of informants: two groups of native speakers (NSs), i.e., NSs of Danish and NSs of Spanish, and two groups of adult L2 learners with the same level of L2 proficiency, i.e., Danish learners of L2 Spanish and Spanish learners of L2 Danish. Semantic categorization was investigated by means of cluster analysis, a statistical technique previously used in the semantic categorization of other types of events in L1 (Majid et al., 2007a, 2008; Vulchanova et al., 2013; Jessen, 2013) and L2 speakers (Jessen & Cadierno, 2013). The results of the study show difficulties for both learner groups in the semantic reorganization of placement verbs.

*** Verbal and non-‐verbal cognition in English and French Maya Hickmann (UMR SFL, CNRS & University Paris 8), Henriëtte Hendriks (University of Cambridge), Helen Engemann (University of Cambridge) Efstathia Soroli (Université Lille 3 & UMR STL, CNRS) & Coralie Vincent (UMR SFL, CNRS & University Paris 8)

Spatial systems show considerable variation across languages (Slobin 2004; Talmy 2000). When describing motion events, native speakers differ with respect to the degree to which they pay attention to the Manner in which motion is carried out in addition to the Path followed and this difference follows lexicalization patterns in their language: satellite-‐framed languages (e.g. Germanic, such as English) lexicalize Manner in the verb root and express Path in adjuncts, while verb-‐framed languages (e.g. Romance, such as French) lexicalize Path in the verb root expressing Manner by peripheral means, if at all. Such crosslinguistic differences have been shown to

20

influence how speakers and learners represent spatial information (e.g. Bowerman & Choi 2003; Cadierno 2008; Choi & Hattrup 2012; Engemann 2012; Hendriks & Hickmann 2011; Hickmann et al. 2009; Hickmann 2010; von Stutterheim & Nüse 2003). The present paper addresses the question of whether such language-‐specific factors have a deeper cognitive impact on speakers’ representations (e.g. Filipović 2011; Gennari et al., 2002; Papafragou & Selimis 2010; Soroli 2012) in adult speakers and on language development by comparing verbal and non-‐verbal responses across different languages and age groups.

This paper presents preliminary findings from experimental studies investigating the representation of motion in English and French speakers (adults, children of 7 and 10 years) who performed tasks based on animated cartoons showing different types of voluntary motion events. The tasks tested (a) verbal production as well as (b) non-‐verbal vs. verbal categorization (forced choice paradigm) and (c) memory. The present contribution is subdivided into three parts, each focusing on different aspects of our research, with particular attention to categorization and production: 1. Issues and implications for language acquisition (Hickmann & Hendriks): Part 1

provides a general introduction to the framework, aims, and experimental design of our study, highlighting the theoretical and methodological challenges faced by research on linguistic relativity.

2. Adult native speakers’ event construal (Soroli): Part 2 examines universal vs.

language-‐specific factors affecting spatial cognitive processing in adult native speakers, extending the study with data from a parallel system of conflation (Greek) and additional non-‐verbal measures (reaction times, eye-‐movements).

3. Children’s event construal (Engemann): Part 3 discusses the relative role of age-‐

related cognitive determinants vs. typological constraints on first language acquisition and conceptualization across languages, also discussing implications for bilingual language acquisition.

Findings show that at all ages English and French speakers’ productions are language-‐specific, showing more frequent Manner expressions in English than in French. In categorization, adults focus more on Path than on Manner. Manner focus also varies with condition (non-‐verbal > verbal), Manner salience (JUMP > WALK), and type of Path (IN/OUT > UP/DOWN). Children are significantly more attentive to Manner than adults in French, whereas no age differences occur in English. These results indicate that language properties influence verbal cognition more than non-‐verbal cognition, resulting in differential focus on semantic components depending on language, event types, and age. Our ongoing research addresses further issues that arise from these results by comparing complementary methodologies (video stimuli, memory tasks, eye-‐tracking).

***

21

Implications of aspectual distinctions (+/-‐) on motion event construal in L1 Tunisian Arabic, French, German and L2 Tunisian-‐>MSA, L2 Tunisian-‐French, L2 French-‐German. Abassia Bouhaous, Mary Carroll & Christiane v. Stutterheim (University of Heidelberg) There is growing evidence that structural features of languages influence conceptualisation processes, in particular information selection and perspective taking, surfacing in language specific patterns of attention and cognitive salience in the context of event construal (cf. for motion events Talmy 1985; Slobin 1996, Papafragou et al. 2008, Athanasopoulos & Bylund 2012, v. Stutterheim et al. 2012, Flecken et al. 2014a,b). The present study contrasts speakers of typologically distant languages, German (satellite-‐framed, no verbal aspect), French (verb-‐framed, no verbal aspect), Tunisian-‐Arabic (verb-‐framed, 4 partite aspectual system) and Modern Standard Arabic (MSA), (verb-‐framed, 2-‐partite aspectual system) and investigates conceptual transfer effects in the description of motion events: L1 speakers of Tunisian Arabic with Modern Standard Arabic as L2 (early acquisition onset), Arabic-‐German L2 (late acquisition onset) and French-‐German L2 (late acquisition onset). The experiment involves the description of motion events in which selected components of were varied systematically (short versus long trajectories, boundary crossings (video clips N=70). Speakers elicited online (N=20 in each case) include monolingual speakers of German, Tunisian-‐Arabic, and MSA as well as advanced Arabic-‐German L2 speakers and French-‐German L2 speakers, both describing the events in German. Eye movement was registered during verbalization for all groups. The analyses focus on the following aspects: a) the types of aspectual forms used by the speakers of the Arabic varieties and their distribution across the different types of motion events; b) the types of spatial concepts selected and the formal constituents in which the are encoded (verbs, particles, prepositional phrases); c) the process of acquisition in this domain, comparing in particular L2 speakers of MSA and L2 speakers of German. Preliminary findings with respect to temporal concepts show convergence for all types of events in that speakers of Tunisian select a subphase of the event, conceptualizing components which are relevant for this phase, whereas speakers of German take a holistic view, integrating given or even only inferred endpoints or resultant states of events. The selection of spatial concepts differs across these two groups when structuring the path of motion in that Tunisian speakers locate the moving figure whereas German speakers relate explicitly to contours of the path. The results for the bilingual speakers differ markedly: MSA L2 speakers do not show traces of conceptual transfer whereas German L2 speakers (Arabic/French L1) do so with regard to specific spatial components of the motion events. We interpret the contrasts observed across languages in terms of what we call the cognitive diversity hypothesis given the role of grammaticalised concepts in structuring processes of conceptualization in the context of language production. The learner data show that the question of conceptual transfer is not a simple case of ‘either – or’. Concepts are tied to form and associated typologies, with this the hierarchies they entail within the language. We have to assume a complex network in which some components and relations are less readily restructured than others.

22

Our aim is to gain insight into the cognitively complex underpinnings of these principles.

***

Global principles of information organization in advanced L2 acquisition. Studies based on L1 (source and target) and L2 narratives Monique Lambert (Université Paris 8 & UMR SFL), Christiane von Stutterheim & Mary Carroll (University of Heidelberg) The study presented in this talk is part of a long term research project on L2 acquisition of target language specific preferences in the overall structure of narrative texts. As point of reference to the analyses of L2s, crosslinguistic studies of how L1 speakers proceed in organizing information for expression have shown coherent and distinctive patterns which correlate with typologically differently coalesced grammatical concepts (+/-‐ ongoing aspect, role of the subject, word order). The focus of the present study lies on the concept of ongoingness in three film retelling tasks which vary in cognitive load (online vs. offline short vs. offline long fragment). The question is whether the selective activation of the knowledge base in the course of the retelling process by L2s follows L1 oriented principles, L2 oriented principles or a mix. Under investigation are principles underlying the selection of events, the temporal perspective coded as ongoing, mapping options (main clause vs. subordinate) and the integration of the individual events in the story line, i.e. the principles of information structure. L1 and L2 participants in each group (n=15 to 20) are all university student assumed to be competent storytellers. L2 speakers’ competence range from advanced to near native. Numbers of occurrences show that events presented as ongoing vary in both L1 and L2 according to task demands reflecting learners' sensitivity to the contextual factors underlying the choice of this temporal perspective. Distribution, however, manifests remarkable differences: in L1English the selection of coding options follows patterns which can be described as resulting from the following introductory questions and now what can you see?(online condition), and then what can you see? (offline short fragment) and then what happens in this episode? (offline long fragment). In contrast, L2 narrators follow mixed patterns. They adhere to the target system in the uses of ongoingness as applying to the time of speaking and as marker of backgrounded information in subordinate clauses. They diverge from L1s options in their unfrequent use of the be+-‐Ing form coded as part of the story line, in not providing adequate anchor points for their integration, in not using contextually based gerund constructions. Regarding patterns of information organization, divergences show up globally at the level of topic management and at the level of sequencing principles based on predominant causal relations by mention of the protagonist’s perceptions and attitudes and by mention of the narrator as witness and source of implicit interpretation, as in source language. Findings will be discussed in the light of L1 and L2 convergences vs. divergences at the level of conceptual restructuring implied in the 'deactivation' of components of

23

production routines acquired and automatized in L1. They will be discussed also in relation to the types of input with their different degrees of cognitive load in their implications for patterns of information organization.

*** Aspectual markers in motion event construals among English and Italian monolinguals and Italian-‐English bilinguals Eliana Mastrantuono (University of Seville), Jacqueline Laws (University of Reading) & Jeanine Treffers-‐Daller (University of Reading)

In this paper we focus on the relationship between the presence of aspectual markers and the frequency with which endpoints are mentioned in motion events related by English and Italian monolinguals as well as two groups of Italian-‐English bilinguals with different levels of proficiency in English. As Von Stutterheim (2003), Von Stutterheim and Carroll (2006), Flecken (2011) and (Von Stutterheim, Andermann, Carroll, Flecken and Schmiedtová, 2012) have pointed out, speakers of languages which obligatorily mark progressive aspect tend to focus on the ongoing prominent phase of the event, whilst speakers of non-‐aspect languages are more likely to focus on the endpoint of the events. Italian forms a particularly interesting test case for this hypothesis, not only because it shares properties with Verb-‐framed as well as Satellite-‐framed languages (Bernini, 2010; Bernini et al., 2006), but also because progressive aspect is not obligatorily marked in Italian (Bertinetto, 2000). Participants in the study were 30 Italian speakers of L2 English (15 intermediate and 15 advanced level L2-‐users), 15 monolingual Italians and 15 monolingual English speakers. The bilinguals’ level of English was tested with the Oxford Quick Placement test. The intermediate level participants were at B2 level in their proficiency in English and the advanced level were at C2 level. The video clips of motion events used in the study were developed by the research team of M. Carroll and C. Von Stutterheim and permission for their use was kindly provided by M. Flecken. Our results demonstrated that Italian monolinguals mark progressive aspect less often than English monolinguals. This finding is in accordance with the earlier studies mentioned above; however, contrary to expectations, Italian monolinguals in our study did not focus more on endpoints of the events than English monolinguals and Italian L2-‐users of English, despite the lack of aspectual markers in their Italian. There were no differences either between groups in the frequency with which they mentioned different segments of the events: all groups mentioned intermediate segments of the event in about 50% of the cases in which they mentioned endpoints. We therefore conclude that for Italian there is no direct relationship between the presence of aspectual markers and the mention of endpoints or intermediate stages of motion. Italian monolinguals did focus more generally on path than on manner, as was found by Cardini (2010), but they also expressed manner in more than one fifth of the sentences in adjuncts, which provides some counter evidence to Cardini’s (2012) speech economy principle, according to which the frequent use of path verbs by speakers of V-‐languages would inhibit speakers from expressing manner information.

24

Appendix

25

Conferences and Publications

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CONFERENCES AND PUBLICATIONS SINCE 2011

I. FRENCH-‐GERMAN PAPERS

Articles in journals

Books, special journal issues, chapters in collected volumes

Papers presented at conferences

II. OTHER MULTIPARTNER PAPERS

Articles in journals



III.PAPERS PRODUCED WITHIN FRENCH OR GERMAN TEAMS

Journal articles



IV. DOCTORAL DISSERTATIONS

26

PRODUCTIONS LANGACROSS2 DEPUIS 2011

I. PRODUCTIONS MULTIPARTENAIRES FRANCO-‐ALLEMANDES

Articles dans des revues à comité de lecture internationales

01. Carroll, M., Weimar, K., Flecken, M., Lambert, M. & von Stutterheim, C. (2012). Tracing

trajectories: motion event construal by advanced L2 French-‐English and L2 French-‐

German speakers. LIA 3(2), 202-‐230.

02. Colonna, S., Schimke, S. and Hemforth, B. (2012). Information structure effects on

anaphora resolution in German and French: A cross-‐linguistic study of pronoun

resolution. Linguistics, 50(5), 991-‐1013.

03. Colonna, S., Schimke, S. & Hemforth, B. (submitted). Different effects of focus in intra-‐ and inter-‐sentential pronoun resolution in German. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology

04. Järvikivi, P., P. Piyykkonen-‐Klauck, Schimke, S., Colonna, S. & Hemforth, B. (2013).

Information structure cues for 4 year olds and adults: tracking eye-‐movements to

visually presented anaphoric referents. Language and cognitive processes. (on line DOI:

10.1080/01690965.2013.804941)

Ouvrages, édition de numéros thématiques de revues à comité de lecture & chapitres

d’ouvrages

01. Benazzo, S., Flecken, M. & Soroli, E. (eds) (2012). Typological perspectives in second

language acquisition: ‘Thinking for Speaking’ in L2.. Numéro thématique de la revue

Langage, Interaction & Acquisition. LIA 3(2).

02. Benazzo, S. & Dimroth, C. (soumis/2014) Additive particles in Germanic & Romance

languages: are they really similar? In Anna Maria De Cesare & Cecilia Andorno (éds.)

Focus particles in the Romance and Germanic languages. Experimental and corpus-‐based

approaches, Linguistik on line.

03. Colonna, S., Schimke, S. & Hemforth, B. (to appear) Information structure and pronoun

resolution in German and French: Evidence from the visual-‐world paradigm. In:

Hemforth, B., Schmiedtová, B. & Fabricius-‐Hansen, C. (eds Hrsg.) Psycholinguistic

approaches to meaning and understanding across language. Dordrecht: Springer.

04. Hickmann, M., Schimke, S. & Colonna, S. (accepted, in revision). From early to late

mastery of reference: multifunctionality across child languages. To appear in: Serratrice,

27

L. & Allen, S. (eds.), The Acquisition of Reference (Trends in Language Acquisition

Research, TiLAR). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

05. Lambert, M. & von Stutterheim, Ch. (2011). Interrelations entre la recherche en L2 et les

principes sous-‐tendant les organisations textuelles. In Pascale Trévisiol-‐Okamura et al.

(eds) Quand les sciences du langage se mettent à dialoguer – échanges en linguistique,

didactique et acquisition des langues. Sciences du Langage, Ed. Orizons.

06. Schimke, S., Colonna, C. & Hickmann, M. (submitted) Reference in French and German: a

developmental perspective. In: Gagarina, N. Kühn, N. & Musan, R. (Hrsg.) Referential and

relational discourse coherence in adults and children. Dordrecht: Springer.

(Volume collectif franco-‐allemand LANGACROSS2 également en préparation)

Communications à des congrès ou colloques internationaux à comité de lecture

01. Andorno, C. & Turco, G. (2013) Embedding additive particles in the sentence information

structure. What L2 learners of Italian and German do (not) learn. 19e Congrès

International des Linguistes (ILC) L’interface Langage-‐Cognition, Genève, juillet.

02. Benazzo S. & Dimroth C. (2013.) Additive particles in Romance and Germanic languages.

Are they really similar ? conférence invitée au Workshop “Additive and restrictive

quantification in discourse”. 19e Congrès International des Linguistes (ILC) L’interface

Langage-‐Cognition, Genève, 22-‐27 juillet.

03. Colonna, S., Schimke, S. and Hemforth, B. (2013). The role of focus in within and

between sentence anaphor resolution. 19th Annual Conference on Architectures and

Mechanisms for Language Processing, Marseille, septembre.

04. Colonna, S., Schimke, S., Hemforth, B. & Istanbullu, S. (2011) Priming in French anaphora

resolution. 11th CUNY conference on human sentence processing, Stanford, mars.

05. Colonna, S., Schimke, S., Medam, T. & Hemforth, B. (2012) Different effects of focus in

intra-‐ and inter-‐sentential pronoun resolution in German and French. 12th CUNY

conference on human sentence processing. New York, mars.

06. Flecken, M., v. Stutterheim C. , Weimar, K., Lambert, M., & Carroll, M. (2012). Seeing for speaking about events in L1 and L2. American Association for Applied Linguistics Conference, Boston, USA.

07. Järvikivi, J., Pyykkönen, P., Schimke, S., Colonna, S., & Hemforth, B. (2011) Information

structure cues in children's pronoun comprehension. Symposium: Referential

Expressions and Text Coherence in Pre-‐School Children. The XII International Congress

for the Study of Child Language (IASCL), Montreal, Juillet.

28

08. Lambert, M., Weimar, K., Carroll, M., Flecken, M. & von Stutterheim, C. (2011).

Structuring motion events: learning the role of grammaticized structures. EUROSLA 21,

Stockholm, 8-‐10 September 2011.

09. Lambert, M. & Weimar, K. (2012). Learning to structure the trajectory between source

and goal when talking about motion events: a comparison with eye-‐tracking of

advanced L2 learners of German (L1Italian-‐L2German; L1French-‐L2German) and L1

German speakers. EUROSLA 22, Poznan, 5-‐8 septembre 2012.

10. Schimke, S., Colonna, S. & Hemforth, B. (2013). Pronoun resolution is fast and automatic:

Evidence from German visual world experiments. 19th Annual Conference on

Architectures and Mechanisms for Language Processing, Marseille, September.

11. Schimke, S., Colonna, S., Hemforth, B. & Istanbullu, S. (2011) Syntactic and pragmatic

cues in the resolution of overt vs. zero anaphora in French. 17th Annual Conference on

Architectures and Mechanisms for Language Processing, Paris, septembre.

12. Schimke, S., Colonna, S. & Hickmann, M. (2011) Agentivity and pronoun use: Evidence

from a controlled production experiment. 33. Jahrestagung der deutschen Gesellschaft

für Sprachwissenschaft, Göttingen, 23-‐25 février 2013.

13. Schimke, S., Colonna, S. & Istanbullu, S. (2011) Syntactic and pragmatic factors in the

resolution of zero anaphora in Turkish. 17th Annual Conference on Architectures and

Mechanisms for Language Processing, Paris, septembre.

14. Soroli, E. & Papadimitraki, Ch. (2013). Static and dynamic events in modern Greek: a

typological perspective. 5th International AFLiCo conference Empirical approaches to

multi-‐modality and to language variation Proceedings, 80-‐81. Lille, 15-‐17 mai 2013.

29

II. AUTRES PRODUCTIONS MULTIPARTENAIRES


01. Bassano, D., Korecky-‐Kröll, K., Maillochon, I. & Dressler, W.U. (2011). L’acquisition des

déterminants nominaux en français et en allemand: une perspective interlangues sur la

grammaticalisation des noms. Language, Interaction and Acquisition 2(1), 37-‐60.

02. Bassano, D., Maillochon, I., Korecky-‐Kröll, K., van Dijk, M., Laaha, S., Dressler, W.U. & van

Geert, P. (2011). A comparative and dynamic approach to the development of

determiner use in three children acquiring different languages. First Language, 31(3)

253-‐279.

03. Bassano, D., Korecky-‐Kröll, K., Maillochon, I., van Dijk, M., Laaha, S., van Geert, P. &

Dressler, W.U. (in press). Prosody and Animacy in the development of noun determiner

use: A cross-‐linguistic approach. First Language, 33(5), 476-‐503.

04. V. Beek, G., Flecken, M. & Starren, M. (2013). Aspectual perspective-‐taking in event construal in L1 and L2 Dutch. International Review of Applied Linguistics 51 (2), 199-‐227.

05. Behrens, B., Flecken, M. & Carroll, M. (2013). Progressive attraction: on the use and grammaticalization of progressive aspect in Dutch, Norwegian and German. Journal of Germanic linguistics 25 (2), 95-‐136.

06. Benazzo, S., Andorno, C., Interlandi, G. & Patin, C. (2012). Perspective discursive et

influence translinguistique : exprimer le contraste d’entité en français et en italien L2.

Language, Interaction & Acquisition 3(2), 173-‐201.

07. Dimroth, C. & Narasimhan, B. (2012). The acquisition of information structure. In M.

Krifka & R. Musan (eds.), The expression of information structure (319-‐362). Berlin: de

Gruyter/Mouton.

08. Hickmann, M., Hendriks, H. & Gullberg, M. (2011). Developmental perspectives on the

expression of motion in speech and gesture: A comparison of French and English. LIA

2(1), 129-‐156.

09. Ji, Y., Hendriks, H. & Hickmann, M. (2011a). Children’s expression of voluntary motion

events in English and Chinese. Journal of Foreign Languages 34(4), 2-‐20.

10. Ji, Y., Hendriks, H. & Hickmann, M. (2011b). How children express caused motion events

in Chinese and English: Universal and language-‐specific influences. Lingua 121(12),

1796-‐1819.

11. Ji, Y., Hendriks, H. & Hickmann, M. (2011c). The expression of caused motion events in

Chinese and in English: some typological issues. Linguistics 49(5), 1041-‐1076.

30

12. Ochsenbauer, A.-‐K. & Engemann, H. (2011). The impact of typological factors in

monolingual and bilingual first language acquisition: Caused motion expressions in

English and French. LIA 2(1), 101-‐128.

13. 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. LIA 3(2), 261-‐287.


d’ouvrages

01. Andorno, C. & Benazzo, S. (2014) L’acquisition L2 de langues proches : l’expression de la

continuation et de l’itération en français et en italien L2. In M. Borreguero Zuloaga & F.

Gómez-‐Jordana (eds.) Marqueurs discursifs dans les langues romanes: une approche

contrastive (424-‐448). Limoges: Lambert Lucas.

02. Bassano, D., Korecky-‐Kröll, K., Maillochon, I., Dressler, W.U. (2013). The acquisition of

nominal determiners in French and German: A crosslinguistic perspective on the

grammaticalization of nouns. In D. Bassano & M. Hickmann (eds), Grammaticalization

and First Language Acquisition. Crosslinguistic perspectives. In the series Benjamins

Current Topics (BTC 50, 37-‐59). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

03. Bassano, D. & van Geert, P. (to appear). New perspectives on input-‐output dynamics: Example from the emergence of the noun category. In Sources of variation in first language acquisition, M. Hickmann, E. Veneziano & H. Jisa (eds), Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

04. Engemann, H., Harr, A.-‐K. & Hickmann, M. (2012). Caused motion events across

languages and learner types: A comparison of bilingual first and adult second language

acquisition. In L. Filipović & K. M. Jaszczolt, (eds.), Space and Time in Languages and

Cultures (263-‐288). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

05 Engemann, H., Ochsenbauer, A.-‐K. & Hickmann, M. (2012). Caused motion events across

languages and learner types: Acquiring one or more first languages in childhood and a

foreign language in adulthood. In L. Filipović, K. Jaszczolt & J. Tellings (eds.), Space and

Time II: Culture and Cognition (263-‐287). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

06. Flecken, M. & Gerwien, J. (2013). Grammatical aspect modulates event duration

estimations: findings from Dutch. In M. Knauff, M. Pauen, N. Sebanz, & I. Wachsmuth

(eds.), Proceedings of the 35th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society

(2309-‐2314). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.

31

07. Harr, A.-‐K. & Engemann, H. (2013). The impact of typological factors in monolinguals and

bilingual first language acquisition: Caused motion expression in English and French. In

D. Bassano & M. Hickmann (eds.), Grammaticalization and First Language Acquisition.

Crosslinguistic Perspectives. In the series Benjamins Current Topics (BTC 50, 101-‐127).

Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

08. Hendriks, H. & Hickmann, M. (2011). Expressing voluntary motion in a second language:

English learners of French. In V. Cook & B. Bassetti (eds.), Language and Bilingual

Cognition (315-‐340). Hove, UK: Psychology Press.

09. Hickmann, M., Hendriks, H. & Gullberg, M. (2013). Developmental perspectives on the

expression of motion in speech and gesture: A comparison of French and English. In D.

Bassano & M. Hickmann (eds.), Grammaticalization and First Language Acquisition.

Crosslinguistic Perspectives. In the series Benjamin Current Topics (BCT 50, 129-‐155)

Amsterdam: John BenjaminsBenjamins Current Topics 50, 129-‐155.

10. Hickmann, M. & Soroli E. (sous presse). From language acquisition to language

pathology: cross-‐linguistic perspectives. In C. Astésano & M. Jucla, (eds.)

Neuropsycholinguistic perspectives on language cognition (dedicated to Jean-‐Luc

Nespoulous). London: Routledge Editions.

11. Ji, Y., Hendriks, H. & Hickmann, M. (2011). Motion expressions in Chinese and English: A

typological perspective. In G. Marotta, A. Lenci, L. Meini & F. Rovai (eds.), Space in

Language (pp. 533-‐542). Pise: Edizioni ETS.

12. Ochsenbauer, A.-‐K. & Hickmann, M. (2012). How do German and French children express

voluntary motion? In J. Hudson, U. Magnusson & C. Paradis (eds.), Conceptual spaces

and the construal of spatial meaning: Empirical evidence from human communication

(195-‐213). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

13. Ochsenbauer, A.-‐K. & Hickmann, M. (sous presse). Dynamic location in French and

German child language. In P. Guijarro-‐Fuentes, K. Schmitz & N. Müller (eds.), The

acquisition of French in its different constellations. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

Communications à des congrès ou colloques internationaux à comité de lecture

01. Andorno C. & Benazzo S. (2011). Acquisition de langues proches : Structure

informationnelle et constructions marquées en italien et en français L2, communication

affichée. Colloque international Adyloc Variation dans l’acquisition des langues

premières ou secondes, Paris 7-‐9 juin.

32

02. Andorno, C. & Benazzo, S. (2011). Acquisition L2 de langues proches : le cas de quelques

ordres de mots marqués en italien et en français. Colloque international AFLICO 4, Lyon

24-‐27 mai.

03. Bassano, D. & van Geert, P. (2011). The emergence of the noun category in children’s

speech: new perspectives on the dynamic of input-‐output relationships. Communication

invitée, Colloque international ADYLOC Variations dans l’acquisition des langues

premières et secondes, Paris, 7-‐9 Juin.

04. Bassano, D., Korecky-‐Kröll, K., Maillochon, I. & Dressler, W.U. (2011). Noun

grammaticalization and the acquisition of determiners in French and German:

Morphological and lexical factors. IASCL 2011 Conference, Montréal, 18-‐24 juillet.

05. Bassano, D., Korecky-‐Kröll, K., Maillochon, I., Dressler, W.U. (2013). The acquisition of

determiners in French and German: Variation in prosodic and lexical influences.

Communication orale au colloque AFLICO 5 Empirical Approaches to Multi-‐modality and

Language Variation, Lille, 15-‐17 mai.

06. Benazzo S. & Andorno C. (2014). L’expression de l’itération et de la continuation en

français L2 : l’influence de la proximité / distance entre les langues en contact ».

Colloque international Temporalité dans les discours d’apprenants, Université de

Montpellier, 22-‐24 mai.

07. Engemann, H., Demagny, A-‐C., Hendriks H. & Hickmann, M. (2013). Learning to express

motion as a child and adult L2 learner: The effect of age and typology on L2 thinking-‐for-‐

speaking. 23th Conference of the European Association for the Study of Second Language

Acquisition (EUROSLA). Amsterdam, Pays-‐Bas, 28-‐31 août 2013.

08. Flecken, M. & Gerwien, J. (2012). Is event apprehension language-‐specific? A

comparison of Spanish and German. Poster, AMLaP (Architectures and Mechanisms of

Language Processing), Riva del Garda, Italy.


estimations: evidence from Dutch. AMLaP (Architectures and Mechanisms of Language

Processing), Marseille, France.

10. Flecken, M. & Gerwien, J. (2013). L2 effects on visual processing for event construal.

Neurobilingualism workshop, Groningen, the Netherlands.


estimations: evidence from Dutch. Poster, Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science

Society, Berlin, Germany.

33

12. Flecken, M. & Gerwien, J. (2012). Is event apprehension language-‐specific? A comparison

of Spanish and German. Poster, AMLaP (Architectures and Mechanisms of Language

Processing), Riva del Garda, Italy.

13. Flecken, M. & Gerwien, J. (2013). Event duration estimations are modulated by

grammatical aspect. Embodied and Situated Language Processing Conference, Potsdam,

Germany.

14. Gerwien, J. & Flecken, M.(2013). Progressive priming: conceptual and form-‐related

features of grammatical aspect in Dutch. Poster, AMLaP (Architectures and Mechanisms

of Language Processing), Marseille, France.

15. Harr, A.-‐K. & Hickmann, M. (2013). The expression of dynamic location across languages

and learner types: German-‐French bilingual vs. monolingual children. Poster, Conference

internationale du Child Language Seminar, Manchester, 25-‐27 juin 2013.

16. Hendriks, H. & Hickmann, M. (2012). Typological constraints on the expression and

conceptualization of motion during language acquisition: A study of adult second

language learners. Communication invitée, Atelier Thinking, speaking and gesturing in

two languages. ESF Workshop, Reading 12-‐15 september 2012.

17. Hickmann, M., Engemann, H., Soroli, E., Hendriks, H. & Vincent, C. (2013). Expressing

and categorizing motion in French and English: Verbal and non-‐verbal cognition across

languages. Colloque International Sylex III – Space and Motion across Languages and

Applications. Zaragoza, Espagne. 21-‐ 22 novembre.

18. Hickmann, M. & Granfeldt, J. (2013). Motion and location in early French and Swedish

child language. University of Lund (Sweden), 18 december 2013.

19. Hickmann, M., Hendriks, H. & Ochsenbauer, A.-‐K. (2011). Typological constraints in the

expression of motion across child languages: a comparison of English, French, German,

and Chinese. Fourth International Conference of the French Cognitive Linguistics

Association (AFLiCo IV). Lyon, 23-‐27 mai 2011.

20. Hickmann, M. & Hendriks, H. (2012). Typological constraints on the expression and

conceptualization of motion in first language acquisition. Communication invitée, Atelier

Thinking, speaking and gesturing in two languages. ESF Workshop, Reading 12-‐15

september 2012.

21. Hickmann, M. & Hendriks, H. (2012). Typology and event types in the expression of

motion across child languages: a comparison of English, German, French and Chinese.

Conférence plénière invitée, 25èmes Journées de Linguistique d'Asie Orientale. CRLAO,

EHESS, Paris, 28-‐29 juin 2012.

34

22. Hickmann, M., Granfeldt, J. & Engemann, H. (2013). Motion and location in early French

and Swedish child language. Conférence internationale du Child Language Seminar

Manchester, UK, 24-‐25 June.

23. Hickmann, M., Hendriks, H. & Ochsenbauer, A.-‐K. (2011). Typological constraints in the

expression of motion across child languages: a comparison of English, French, German,

and Chinese. Fourth International Conference of the French Cognitive Linguistics

Association (AFLiCo IV). Lyon, 23-‐27 mai.

24. Hickmann, M., Hendriks, H. & Ochsenbauer, A.-‐K. & Engemann, H. (2011). Lexicalization

patterns and event types in the expression of motion across child languages: English,

French, German and Chinese. XIIth Conference of the International Association for the

Study of Child Language (IASCL). Montreal, Canada, 18-‐24 juillet.

25. Hickmann, M., Soroli, E., Engemann, H., Hendriks, H. & Vincent, C. (2014). Typological

factors in the development of verbal and non-‐verbal spatial cognition: a comparison of

French and English. 5th International Conference in Cognitive Linguistics, University of

Lancaster, UK, 29-‐31 July.

26. Iakovleva, T., Hickmann, M. & Hendriks, H. (2011). Motion events in Russian, English and

French: implications for second language acquisition. 12th International Pragmatics

Conference (IPrA). Manchester, 3-‐8 juillet.

27. Maillochon, I., Korecky-‐Kröll, K., Dressler, W.U. & Bassano, D. (2013). L’émergence des

déterminants en français et en allemand : impact des différences prosodiques et lexico-‐

sémantiques. Communication orale au colloque AEREF L’acquisition des expressions

référentielles : perspectives croisées. Paris, 25-‐26 octobre.

35

III. PRODUCTIONS MONOPARTENAIRES (France F, Allemagne A)


01F. Bassano, D. & Hickmann, M. (2011). Grammaticalisation and acquisition in first

language acquisition: Crosslinguistic perspectives. Special issue, Langage, Interaction &

Acquisition (LIA) 2(1), 1-‐11.

02F. Demagny, A.-‐C. (2013). L’expression du temps et de l’espace en français et en anglais :

perspectives typologiques sur l’acquisition des langues par l’adulte. Langue française

179, 109-‐127.

03A. Flecken, M., Stutterheim, C.v, & Carroll, M. (2013). Principles of information

organization in L2 use: Complex patterns of conceptual transfer. In Stutterheim, C.v.,

Flecken, M., & Carroll, M. (eds.) Principles of information organization in language use:

on the L2 acquisition of complex conceptual structures. IRAL 51-‐ 2, 229-‐242.

04A. Flecken, M., Gerwien, J., Carroll, M. & v. Stutterheim, C. (to appear, 2014). Analyzing

gaze allocation during language planning: a cross-‐linguistic study on dynamic events.

Language and Cognition.

05A. Flecken, M., v. Stutterheim. C. & Carroll, M. (2014). Grammatical aspect influences motion event perception: evidence from a cross-‐linguistic, non-‐verbal recognition task. Language and Cognition 6(1), 45-‐78.

06A. Flecken, M., Carroll, M., Weimar, K. & v. Stutterheim, C. (to appear, 2015). Driving along the road, or heading for the village? Conceptual differences underlying motion event perception and description in French, German and French-‐German L2 users. Modern Language Journal.

07F. Hickmann, M. (2012). Diversité linguistique et acquisition du langage: espace et

temporalité chez l’enfant. Langages 188(4), 5-‐39.

08F. Iakovleva, T. & Hickmann, M. (2012). Contraintes typologiques dans l’acquisition d’une

langue étrangère : L’expression du mouvement chez les apprenants russophones du

français. Langages 188(4), 41-‐57.

09F. Iakovleva, T. (2012). Typological constraints in foreign language acquisition: the

expression of motion by advanced Russian learners of English. Numéro thématique de

Langage, Interaction & Acquisition (LIA) 3(2), 231-‐260.

10F. Lambert, M. (in press/2014) Subordination et hiérarchisation de l’information dans les

récits Étude comparative des options en anglais L2 et en français et en anglais L1. In P.

Trévisiol et al.. (eds) Relatives et autres subordonnées -‐ regards croisés en linguistique,

acquisition et didactique. Rennes : Presses Universitaires de Rennes.

36

11F. Leclerq, P. (2013). Acquisition de la cohésion discursive en français et en anglais L2 dans

une tâche complexe de récit. In C. Martinot, S. Gerolimich, U. Paprocka-‐Piotrowska

(eds). La complexité en langue et son acquisition, Presses universitaires de la Société

des Lettres et des Sciences de l’Université Catholique de Lublin (Towarzystwo Naukowe

KUL).

12F. Leclerq, P. & Lenart, E. (2013). Discourse cohesion and accessibility of referents in oral

narratives: a comparison of L1 and L2 acquisition of French and English. Discours, 12.

13F. Leclerq, P. & Lenart, E. (sous presse). Rôle de la subordination pour construire les

chaînes événementielles du récit chez des apprenants avancés du français L2. In

Trévisiol et al. (eds) Relatives et autres subordonnées -‐ regards croisés en linguistique,

acquisition et didactique. Rennes: Presses Universitaires de Rennes (PUR).

14F. Lenart, E. & Leclercq, P. (2013). Procédés anaphoriques dans les récits d'enfants

monolingues et d’adultes apprenant une L2. In C. PRÉNERON & C. MARTINOT (eds)

Récits d’enfants et d’adolescents : développements typiques, atypiques,

dysfonctionnements, ANAE N° 124, Vol 25, tome III.

15A. Flecken, M., von Stutterheim, C. & Carroll, M. (2013). Principles of information

organization in L2 discourse: Factors affecting L2 performance. International Review of

Applied Linguistics in language Teaching 51 (3), 229 – 242.

16A. Natale, S. (2013). Linkage in narratives: A comparison between monolingual speakers of

French and Italian and early and late French-‐Italian bilinguals. International Review of

Applied Linguistics in language Teaching 51(2), 151-‐170.

17A. Schimke, S. (2011) Variable verb placement in L2 German and French: Evidence from

elicited production and elicited imitation of finite and nonfinite negated sentences.

Applied Psycholinguistics, 32(4), 635-‐685.

18F. Soroli, E. (2012). Variation in spatial language and cognition: exploring visuo-‐spatial

thinking and speaking cross-‐linguistically. Cognitive Processing – International Quarterly

of Cognitive Science, 13 (1), 333-‐337.

19A. Stutterheim, C. v., Andermann, M., Carroll, M., Flecken, M., Schmiedtová, B. (2012). How grammaticized concepts shape event conceptualization in language production: Insights from linguistic analysis, eye tracking data and memory performance. Linguistics 50 (2), 833-‐867.

20A. Stutterheim, C. v., Flecken, M. & Carroll, M. (2013). Introduction: Patterns of

conceptualization when organizing information/in information organization in an L2.

International Review of Applied Linguistics in language Teaching 51 (3), 77-‐85.

37

21A. Stutterheim, C.v., Flecken, M., & Carroll, M. (2013) (guest eds). Principles of

information organization in language use: on the L2 acquisition of complex conceptual

structures. IRAL 51 (2), 77-‐86.

22A. Stutterheim, C.v., & Carroll, M. (to appear). Texts as answers to questions: information

structure and its grammatical underpinnings in narratives in German and English (topic

and anaphoric linkage). In M. Steinbach & A. Hübl (eds) Linguistic foundations of

narration in spoken and sign languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins

23A. Turco, G., Dimroth, C., Braun B. (2012). Intonational means to mark verum focus in

German and French. Language and Speech 56 (4), 461-‐491.

24A. Turco, G, Braun, B. & Dimroth, Ch. (2014). When contrasting polarity, Germans use intonation, the Dutch particles. Journal of Pragmatics 62, 94-‐106.

25A Turco, G., Dimroth, Ch., Braun, B. (submitted). Effects of typological differences on L2 common ground management. Second language research.


d’ouvrages

01F. Aleksandrova, T. (2012). Reference to Entities in Fictional Narratives of Russian/French

Quasi-‐Bilinguals. In Watorek, M., Benazzo, S., Hickmann, M. (eds.) Comparative

Perspectives to Language Acquisition: Tribute to Clive Perdue (520-‐535), Bristol:

Multilingual Matters.

02F. Bassano, D. & Hickmann, M. (eds.) (2011). Grammaticalization in First Language

Acquisition: Cross-‐Linguistic Perspectives. Langage, Interaction et Acquisition (LIA) 2(1).


03F. Bassano, D. & Hickmann, M. (eds.) (2013). Grammaticalization in First Language

Acquisition: Cross-‐Linguistic Perspectives. Numéro special de la revue LIA réédité dans

la série Benjamins Current Topics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

04F. Bassano, D. (to appear). The acquisition of nominal determiners: Evidence from

crosslinguistic approaches. In L. Serratrice & S. Allen (eds), The acquisition of Reference.


05A. Carroll, M. & Flecken, M. (2012). Language production under time pressure: insights

into grammaticalisation of aspect (Dutch, Italian) and language processing in bilinguals

(Dutch, German). In B. Ahrenholz (Ed.) Einblicke in die Zweitspracherwerbsforschung

und Ihre methodischen Verfahren, (49-‐76). Berlin: De Gruyter.

38

06F. Demagny, A.-‐C. (2012). Paths in L2 acquisition : the expression of temporality on

spatially oriented narration. In M. Watorek, S. Benazzo & M. Hickmann (eds.),

Comparative perspectives on language acquisition – A tribute to Clive Perdue (482-‐501).

Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

07A. Dimroth, C. (2012). Videoclips zur Elizitation von Erzählungen: Methodische

Überlegungen und einige Ergebnisse am Beispiel der „Finite Story“. In B. Ahrenholz

(ed.), Einblicke in die Zweitspracherwerbsforschung und ihre methodischen Verfahren

(77-‐98). Berlin: de Gruyter.

08F. Hickmann, M. (in press/2014). Children’s discourse. International Encyclopedia of

Language and Social Interaction. In J. Guéron (ed.), Tense, Aspect and Modality: from

Sentence Grammar to Discourse Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

09A. Schimke, S. (2013) Dummy verbs and the acquisition of verb raising in L2 German and

French. In E. Blom, I. van de Craats, J. Verhagen (eds.) Dummy auxiliaries in first and

second language acquisition (307-‐338). Berlin: de Gruyter.

10A. Schimke, S. (2012). Selbstgesteuertes Hören und Bildauswahlaufgaben in der

Zweitspracherwerbsforschung. In B. Ahrenholz (ed.) Einblicke in die

Zweitspracherwerbsforschung und ihre methodischen Verfahren. (Reihe „DaZ-‐

Forschung. Deutsch als Zweitsprache, Mehrsprachigkeit und Migration“, Bd. 1), (301-‐

324). Berlin: De Gruyter.

11A. Schimke, S., Verhagen, J. & Turco, G. (2012). The different role of additive and negative

particles in the development of finiteness in early adult L2 German and L2 Dutch. In M.

Watorek, S. Benazzo & M. Hickmann (eds.), Comparative Perspectives to Language

Acquisition: Tribute to Clive Perdue (73-‐91) Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

12F. Soroli, E. & Hickmann, M. (2011). Language and spatial representations in French and in

English: evidence from eye-‐movements. In G. Marotta, A. Lenci, L. Meini & F. Rovai

(eds.), Space in Language (581-‐597). Pise: Edizioni ETS.

13A. Stutterheim, von, C., Flecken, M. & Carroll, M. (eds.) (2013). Principles of information

organization in production and comprehension: on the L2 acquisition of complex

conceptual structures. Numéro spécial, International Review of Applied Linguistics in

language Teaching 51(3).

14F. Watorek, M., Benazzo, S., Hickmann, M. (eds.), Comparative Perspectives to Language

Acquisition: Tribute to Clive Perdue, Multilingual Matters

39

Communications/Actes à des congrès ou colloques internationaux à comité de lecture

01F. Aleksandrova, T. (2011). Référence aux procès dans des récits de fiction produits par

des locuteurs quasi-‐bilingues russes/français. 4e Colloque International de l’Association

Française de Linguistique Cognitive (AFLiCo IV), Université Lyon 2, 24-‐27 mai.

02F. Aleksandrova, T. (2011). Effects of the L2 on the Russian/French bilinguals’ narratives.

International Symposium on Bilingualism 8 (ISB8), Oslo 2011, University of Oslo,

Norvège, 18 juin.

03F. Aleksandrova, T. (2012) Construction de récits et encodage de procès par des bilingues

russes/français. Actes du Colloque Rencontres Jeunes Chercheurs 2009 – Cognition,

représentation, langage, corela.edel.univ-‐poitiers.fr

04F. Aleksandrova, T. (2013) Second language influence on the introduction of entities in

First language narratives: The case of Russian/French late bilinguals. The Fourth

Conference of the Scandinavian Association for Language and Cognition (SALC IV),

University of Eastern Finland, Joensuu, FINLAND, 12-‐14 June.

05F. Aleksandrova, T. (2013) Reference to time in L2 narratives of Russian/French quasi-‐

bilinguals. The European Second Language Association (EUROSLA 23), University of

Amsterdam, THE NETHERLANDS, 28-‐31 August.

06F. Aleksandrova, T. (2013) Étude des influences réciproques d’une langue première (L1)

sur la production du discours en langue seconde (L2) et d’une L2 sur la production du

discours en L1 par des bilingues tardifs russes/français: choix du cadre d’analyse.

Cultures de recherche en linguistique appliquée, Université de Lorraine, Nancy, France,

14-‐16 novembre.

07F. Bassano, D., Lenart, E., Maillochon, I. & Trévisiol, P. (2013). L’acquisition des

déterminants nominaux en français L1 : quel est l’impact de la configuration

informationnelle? Communication orale au XXVIIè Congrès international de Linguistique

et Philologie Romanes, Nancy, 15-‐20 juillet. (Pré-‐Actes : p. 338)

08F. Bassano, D. (invited/2013). L’émergence des déterminants nominaux : un carrefour

d’influences prosodiques, sémantiques et discursives. Communication orale invitée au

colloque AEREF L’acquisition des expressions référentielles : perspectives croisées, Paris,

25-‐26 octobre.

09F. Demagny, A-‐C. (2011). Time and space in the expression of motion: typological

constraints in second language acquisition. 4ème Colloque International de

l’Association française de Linguistique Cognitive (AFLICO IV). Lyon. 24-‐27 mai.

40

12F. Demagny, A-‐C (2011). L’expression de la temporalité chez l’apprenant adulte

anglophone dans une tâche à visée spatiale. Colloque international L'expression de

l'espace et du temps en français. Belgrade, Serbie. 23-‐26 mars.

13F. Demagny, A-‐C. (2014). Relation entre spatialité et temporalité en L2 : contraintes

typologiques dans l’acquisition. Colloque international Temporalité dans les discours

d’apprenants, Université de Montpellier, 22-‐24 mai.

14A. Dimroth, C. (2012). Focus particles in Germanic and Romance languages: Can

facultative linguistic categories shape perspective-‐taking in discourse? International

Workshop Discourse Particles and Information Processing in Romance Languages,

Ruprecht-‐Karls Universität Heidelberg, 11-‐12 juillet.

15A. Dimroth, C. (2013). Polaritätspartikeln, Verumfokus, Addition und Negation:

Assertionskontraste in germanischen Sprachen und Prädikationskontraste in

romanischen Sprachen? Wiener Sprachgesellschaft, Vienna, 11 janvier.

16A Dimroth, C. (2014). The addition of assertions with maintained or changed polarity: Production data from speakers of Dutch, French, German and Italian. Focus realization and interpretation in Romance and beyond. International and interdisciplinary workshop on focus realization in different languages. Cologne,30-‐31 janvier.

17F. Engemann, H. (2011). The expression of motion events in bilingual English-‐French first

language acquisition: Evidence for typological determinants. AFLiCo IV: 4th International

Conference of the French Cognitive Linguistics Association, Lyon, 23 – 27 May.

18F. Engemann, H. (2011). Motion events in bilingual first language acquisition: The impact

of typology on crosslinguistic interactions. Tuesday Colloquia, University of Cambridge

Research Centre for English and Applied Linguistics), 17 May.

19F. Engemann, H. (2013). Selective attention in simultaneous bilingual development:

Effects of task and typology. Poster, International Workshop on Bilingualism and

Cognitive Control, Krakow, 15-‐17 May.

20F. Engemann, H. (2013). Motion Expression in Simultaneous and Successive Bilingualism.

International Conference on Multilingualism: Linguistic Challenges and Neurocognitive

Mechanisms, McGill University, Montréal (Canada), 24-‐25 octobre

21F. Engemann, H. & Hendriks, H. (2011). The expression of motion events in bilingual first

language acquisition. Poster, 12th International Congress for the Study of Child

Language (IASCL), Montreal, 18-‐24 July.

22A. Flecken, M., Carroll, M. & von Stutterheim, C. (2013). Language-‐specific constraints on

discourse. DGFS, Potsdam, Allemagne, 13-‐15 mars.

41

23A Flecken, M., Carroll, M. & v. Stutterheim, C. (2013). Grammatical aspect influences

motion event perception: findings from a cross-‐linguistic, nonverbal recognition task.

Poster, AMLaP (Architectures and Mechanisms of Language Processing), Marseille,

France.

24F. Hickmann, M. (2011). Typologie et acquisition du langage : implications cognitives de la

diversité des langues. Communication invitée (« Keynote address »), Colloque

International L’expression de l’espace et du temps en français ? Université de Belgrade,

Serbie, 23-‐26 mars.

25F. Hickmann, M. (2013). Reference and multifunctionality across child languages.

Communication orale invitée au colloque AEREF L’acquisition des expressions

référentielles : perspectives croisées, Paris, 25-‐26 octobre.

26F. Iakovleva T. & Hickmann M. (2011). Contraintes typologiques dans l’acquisition d’une

langue étrangère : l’expression du mouvement chez les apprenants russophones du

français, Colloque franco-‐serbe : L’expression de l’espace et du temps en français :

quelles formes pour quel sens, Belgrade, Serbie, 23-‐26 mars.

27F. Iakovleva T. (2011). The expression of voluntary motion in contemporary Russian;

typological issues and implications for Second Language Acquisition, AFLiCo IV: 4th

International Conference of the French Cognitive Linguistics Association. Lyon, 24-‐27

mai.

28F. Iakovleva T. (2011). Typological constraints in foreign language acquisition: the

expression of motion by advanced Russian learners of English, EUROSLA 2011: 21st

Annual Conference of the European Second Language Association, Stockholm, 7-‐10

septembre.

29F. Iakovleva T. (2012). Typological constraints in foreign language acquisition: the

expression of motion by advanced Russian learners of English and French, AATSEEL:

2012 Annual conference of American Association of Teachers of Slavic and East

European Languages, Seattle, 5-‐8 janvier.

30F. Iakovleva T. (2013). Instructed Second Language Acquisition and the Domain of Motion.

Conférence invitée, Donders Centre for Cognition (DCC), Radboud University Nijmegen,

Pays-‐Bas, 21 octobre.

31F. Iakovleva T. (2013). Space representation and second language acquisition: The

expression of movement by adult Russian speakers learning English and French, the

First IAAP School on Applied Cognitive Research, Paris, 8 avril.

42

32F. Iakovleva T. (2013). Space representation and instructed SLA: motion conceptualization

by adult Russian speakers learning English and French at two proficiency levels,

EUROSLA 23, Amsterdam, 28-‐31 août.

33F. Iakovleva T. & Hickmann M. (2011). Contraintes typologiques dans l’acquisition d’une

langue étrangère : l’expression du mouvement chez les apprenants russophones du

français, Colloque franco-‐serbe : L’expression de l’espace et du temps en français,

Belgrade, 23-‐26 mars.

34F. Lambert, M. (2013). Role of subordination in the information structure of a narrative:

comparison between French and English. DGFS, Potsdam, 13-‐15 March.

35F. Lambert, M. (2013). Complexité des connaissances qui sous-‐tendent l’acquisition et

l’usage des subordonnées. 2ème Journée d'études de Recherches en Acquisition et

Didactique des langues, Nouvelles perspectives de recherche, Université de Lille,13 juin.

36F. Lambert, M. (2013). Subordination vs. other procedures in assigning informational

status to entities.A comparative study of advanced L2French-‐English and French and

English L1s. EUROSLA 23, Amsterdam, 28-‐31 août.

37F. Lambert, M. & Leclercq, P. (2012). Do L2 learners attend to aspects of motion events in

narratives that are specific of their target language or remain influenced by their L1

preferences? EUROSLA 22, Poznan, 5-‐8 septembre.

38F. Leclercq, P. (2011). How do learners of French and English include space and time

reference in narratives? EUROSLA 21, Stockholm, 8-‐10 septembre.

39F. Leclerq, P. (2013). Use of nominal reference in oral narratives: how do L2 learners of

French and English acquire discursive cohesion? Congrès de la SAES, Dijon, 17-‐19 mai.

40F. Leclerq, P. & Lenart, E. (2011). Pronominal anaphora and discourse cohesion: what child

and adult learners of French and English tell us. Textkohärenz und Textverstehen bei

Erwachsenen und Kindern. DGfS conference, Göttingen, 23-‐25 février..

41F. Leclerq, P. & Lenart, E. (2012). How do Polish, German and English Learners of French

select and link events in oral narrative discourse? EUROSLA 22, Poznan, 5-‐8 septembre.

42F. Leclerq, P. & Lenart, E. (2013). How do English, German and Polish learners of French

link events in oral narrative discourse? EUROSLA 23, Amsterdam, 28-‐31 août.

43F. Leclerq, P. & Lenart, E. (2013). Anaphore nominale dans des récits oraux: quelles

stratégies référentielles chez les apprenants enfants et adultes du français et de

l’anglais? Conférence international AEREF, Paris, 25-‐26 octobre.

44A. Schimke, S. & Dimroth, C. (2011) Morphological and syntactic finiteness in adult and

child L2 learners of German. International Symposium on Bilingualism, Oslo, Juin.

43

45A. Schimke, S., Järvikivi, J., Dimroth, C. & Pyykkönen-‐Klauck, P. (2012) Rapid integration of

intonational and contextual information when processing the focus particle auch. 18th

Annual Conference on Architectures and Mechanisms for Language Processing, Riva del

Garda, Septembre.

46F. Soroli E. (2011). Typology and spatial cognition in English, French and Greek: evidence

from eye tracking. In A. Botinis (ed.), Proceedings of the ISCA Tutorial and Research

Workshop on Experimental Linguistics (127-‐130). Paris: International Speech

Communication Association & University of Athens.

47F. Soroli, E. (2011). Encoding and allocating attention to motion events in English, French,

and Greek: typological perspectives. 4th International Conference of the French

Cognitive Linguistics Association Proceedings (Aflico IV), Lyon, 2, 24-‐27 mai.

48F. Soroli E. (2011). Typology and spatial cognition in English, French and Greek: evidence

from eye tracking. The International Speech Communication Association (ISCA) Tutorial

and Research Workshop on Experimental Linguistics. Paris, May 25-‐27.

49F. Soroli, E. (2011). Do language-‐specific properties constrain the way we think and speak

about space? Evidence from Greek. New Trends in Experimental Psycholinguistics,

Madrid, 28-‐30 septembre.

50F. Soroli, E. (2012). Linguistic and non-‐linguistic representation of motion events in Greek:

converging cross-‐language data and evidence from eye-‐tracking. Language, Culture and

Mind V-‐Integrating Semiotic Resources in Communication and Creativity (LCM V),

Universidade Católica Portuguesa, CECC-‐FCH. Lisbon, June 28.

51F. Soroli E. (2012). ‘Seeing and thinking for speaking’ across languages: spatial encoding

and attention allocation in agrammatic aphasia. The International Speech

Communication Association (ISCA) Tutorial and Research Workshop on Experimental

Linguistics (ExLing-‐2012). Athens, GREECE, 27-‐29 August 2012.

52F. Soroli E. (2012). ‘Seeing and thinking for speaking’ across languages: spatial encoding

and attention allocation in agrammatic aphasia. In Antonis Botinis (ed.), Proceedings of

the 5th International Society of Experimental Linguistics (ISEL) Conference on

Experimental Linguistics (ExLing-‐2012) (113-‐116). Athens: ISCA & University of Athens.

53F. Soroli, E. (2013). Seeing, Thinking and Speaking across languages. In “Space,Time and

Existence: Typological, cognitive and philosophical viewpoints” Workshop Proceedings,

349-‐350. 46th Annual Meeting of the Societas Linguistica Europaea 2013, University of

Split, CROATIA, 17-‐21 September.

44

54F. Soroli, E. (2013). Event categorization, semantic representation and visual attention in

agrammatic aphasia: a cross-‐linguistic study. 11th International Symposium of

Psycholinguistics, Tenerife, SPAIN, 20-‐23 mars 2013.

55F. Soroli, E. (2014). The expression of spatial semantic components in French and Greek :

an experimental, cross-‐linguistic and typological account. 7th Annual International

Conference on Languages & Linguistics. ATINER, Athens, GREECE, 7-‐10 July.

56F. Soroli, E. (2013). Experimental methods of linguistics research. Conférence invitee, 2-‐

days Workshop at the ‘Empirical methods in usage-‐based linguistics’ Spring School-‐

Aflico5. Lille, 13-‐14 mai.

57F. Soroli, E. & Hickmann, M. (2011). Representation of motion events in Greek, English,

and French: evidence from verbal and non-‐verbal tasks. 12th International Pragmatics

Association (IprA). Manchester, 3-‐8 July.

58A. Stutterheim, C.v., Bouhaous, A., Carroll, M. & Flecken, M. (2014). Psycholinguistic

insights into aspect. CHRONOS conferences, Pisa (Italy).

59A. Stutterheim, C.v. (2012). Information organisation in narrative texts under a cross

linguistic perspective. Universität Göttingen, Courant Zentrum.

60A.Stutterheim, C.v. (2013). Sprachspezifische Konzeptualisierung von

Bewegungsereignissen Deutsch, Französisch, Italienisch sowie fortgeschrittene

Lernersprachen. Universität Berlin.

61A. Stutterheim, C.v.. (2013) Language-‐specific constraints on discourse coherence. DGfS

Jahrestagung, Potsdam.

62A. Stutterheim, C.v. (2013) Grammatical foundations of narrative structure -‐ cross-‐

linguistic and cross-‐developmental studies. DGfS Jahrestagung, Potsdam.

63F. Trévisiol, P., Rast, R., Watorek, M. & Bassano, D. (2013). L’émergence du syntagme

nominal en français L1 et L2 : étude comparative de l’apprenant enfant et adulte.

Communication orale au colloque AEREF L’acquisition des expressions référentielles :

perspectives croisées, Paris, 25-‐26 octobre.

64A. Turco, G., Gubian, M. (2012) L1 Prosodic transfer and priming effects: A quantitative

study on semi-‐spontaneous dialogues. Speech Prosody, Shangai, 22-‐25 Mai.

65A. Turco, G., Gubian, M., Schertz, J. (2011) A quantitative investigation of the prosody of

Verum Focus in Italian. Interspeech, Florence, 28-‐31 août.

66A Turco, G. & Dimroth, C. (2014) Bei mir wohl/doch/schon! Affirmative particles and prosodic marking in German children. Talk at the 11th International Conference on General Linguistics. Pamplona, University of Navarra (Spain), 21-‐23 May.

45

IV. Thèses et HDR menées à terme et/ou soutenues

Thèses

01. Aleksandrova, T. (12/2012). Influences translinguistiques dans les productions de quasi-‐

bilingues russes/français. Université Paris 8.

02. Demagny, A.-‐C. (03/2013). Temporalité et espace en langue seconde : contraintes

typologiques dans l'acquisition du français par l'adulte anglophone. Université Paris 8

03. Engemann H. (2012) Motion Event Expression in Bilingual First Language Acquisition,

University of Cambridge

04. Fast, K. (10/2013) Spatial Language in Tungag. Universität Heidelberg.

05. Hellerstedt, M. (11/2013) L’utilisation et l’acquisition des verbes de position en suédois

L1 et L2. University Paris Sorbonne Paris IV.

06. Iakovleva, T. (12/2012). Acquisition des langues étrangères et représentation de l’espace

: l’expression du mouvement par des locuteurs russophones apprenant l’anglais ou le

français. Université Paris 8.

07. Sharaf, O. (11/2012) Der Wortartwechsel. Eine linguistisch-‐kontrastive Untersuchung zur

Transposition im Deutschen und Arabischen. Universität Heidelberg.

08. Soroli, E. (12/2011). Langage et cognition spatiale en anglais et en français : perspectives

translinguistiques en aphasie. Université Paris 8.

09. Turco, G (01/2014) Contrasting opposite polarity in Romance and Germanic languages:

Verum focus and affirmative particles in native speakers and advanced L2 learners. MPI

for Psycholinguistics. Nijmegen.

Habilitation à Diriger des Recherches

10. Benazzo, S. (2012) Structure informationnelle et organisation du discours dans

l’acquisition des langues secondes. HDR, Université Paris 8.

46

Theses Title: Time and space in second language acquisition: typological constraints in the acquisition of the French by English adults. Name: Demagny, Annie-‐Claude Discipline: Linguistics Supervisor: Maya Hickmann Institute: University Paris 8. Date of defense: 12 March 2013 Thesis committee: Sandra Benazzo, Henriëtte Hendriks, Maya Hickmann, Daniel Véronique, Marzena Watorek Distinction: Highly Honorable with Praise (Summa Cum Laude). Abstract: A growing number of studies have examined the expression of motion events in the spatial domain. However, few have focused on how this domain interacts with the domain of temporality, including during second language acquisition (SLA). The thesis aims to address two main questions: how space and time are interrelated; whether language-‐specific properties have an impact on the SLA. Particular attention is placed on the implications of typological factors in English and French (as satellite-‐ vs. verb-‐framed languages) in the spatial domain. In addition, the thesis tests several hypotheses concerning the emergence of verbal morphology in SLA. The analyses examine the acquisition of French by English adult learners by means of two tasks that served to elicit verbalizations about motion events. English natives speakers show the lexicalization pattern of S-‐framed languages: they encode manner and cause in the verb, and path in the network of the verb, where utterances are often bounded. French native speakers show variations in the distribution of these three main components of motion events as a result of the boundary constraint that is typical of verbs in V-‐framed languages. The learners express cause and manner in the verb and express at first localisations. At the first level of proficiency, they bound their utterances by means of verbal morphology. With the development of their L2, they gradually integrate the lexicalization pattern of the target language. Finally, discourse context plays an important role in how all speakers use verbal morphology. It shows how learners partially integrate the spatial and verbal markings of the L2 to express motion in discourse. Keywords: Linguistics typology, lexicalization patterns, L2 acquisition, psycholinguistics, space, time, inter-‐linkages between space and time. *** Title: Motion Event Expression in Bilingual First Language Acquisition Name: Helen Engemann Discipline: Bilingual Language Acquisition Supervisor: Henriette Hendriks Institute: University of Cambridge Date of defense: 21 November 2012 Thesis committee: Henriëtte Hendriks, Maya Hickmann, Teresa Parodi Distinction: (not applicable) Abstract: The thesis explores the implications of Talmy’s typology of motion expression for bilingual first language acquisition of English (satellite-‐framing) and French (verb-‐framing), addressing the following question: How does the expression of motion develop in

47

simultaneous bilingual children in comparison to monolinguals? The particular focus is on the role of crosslinguistic interactions and the extent to which their occurrence and directionality are affected by language-‐specific properties, children’s age and task complexity. Oral event descriptions elicited by means of short video clips from bilingual and monolingual children aged 4 to 10 years are analysed and compared across two production tasks of varying semantic complexity. The results indicate both parallels and differences to monolingual performance patterns. Although bilinguals’ event descriptions generally follow the typological tendencies characterising monolinguals’ English and French verbalisation tendencies, they also exhibit significant departures from the monolingual range in both languages, at all tested ages and in both tasks. However, these differences are most prominent in French caused motion expressions. In this task, bilinguals display a striking preference for satellite-‐framing encoding, resulting both in the overuse of crosslinguistically overlapping packaging strategies and in qualitatively deviant extensions of French locative satellites. The findings are discussed in the context of recent proposals regarding crosslinguistic interactions in simultaneous bilingualism. The persistence of bilingual-‐specific effects even at age 10 suggests that crosslinguistic interactions characterise bilinguals’ verbal behaviour throughout development. This supports the notion that the bilingual is a unique speaker-‐hearer in his own right. With regard to the impact of typological and general determinants, the findings indicate that bilinguals’ verbalisation choices are guided by a complex interplay of event-‐specific factors and the perceived overlap of language-‐specific properties of both languages. Keywords: Bilingualism, Language Acquisition (2L1 and L1), Typology, Space and Language, Conceptualisation *** Title: Influences translinguistiques dans les productions de quasi-‐bilingues russes/français Name: Tatiana Aleksandrova Discipline: Linguistics Supervisor: Marzena Watorek Institute: University of Paris 8 Date of defense: 11 December 2012 Thesis committee: Marzena Watorek, Maya Hickmann, Harriet Jisa, Monique Lambert, Serge Sakhno, Daniel Véronique Distinction: Highly Honorable with Praise (Summa Cum Laude). Abstract: This study focuses on the reciprocal influences of the First language on the Second language in the productions of very advanced Russian learners of French. Learners at this level are defined as quasi-‐bilinguals. Our analyses show the differences in their productions compared with the productions of monolingual speakers of these two languages, representing the control groups. The differences attested are the result of the crosslinguistic influences in different informational domains: the domain of entities, the domain of time and events. We show that grammatical means of one language tend to be transferred to production in the other language. For instance, grammatical determiners, obligatory in French and optional in Russian, incite quasi-‐bilinguals to use optional determiners in Russian in contexts where such determiners are absent in the productions of Russian monolinguals. At the same time, the specificity of the categories of time and aspect in Russian influences the choice of narrative strategy adopted by quasi-‐bilinguals in French. Some other

48

phenomena linked to the grammatical patterns in the two languages were observed in the discourse of our quasi-‐bilinguals in both Russian and French. This study contributes to the development of the domain of language contact and brings new elements of analysis regarding language pairs such as Russian and French, which have not been studied together to determine crosslinguistic influences. Keywords: bilingualism, second language acquisition, linguistic transfer, informational structure, narrative, entities, aspect, movement *** Title: Language and Spatial Cognition in French and in English : crosslinguistic perspectives on aphasia Name: Efstathia Soroli Discipline: Psycholinguistics Supervisor: Maya Hickmann Institute: University of Paris 8 Date of defense: 12 December 2011 Thesis committee: Maya Hickmann, Michel Aurnague, Michèle Kail, Jean-‐Luc Nespoulous , Loraine Obler, Dan Slobin Distinction: Highly Honorable with Praise (Summa Cum Laude). Abstract: Languages differ strikingly in how they lexicalize and grammaticalize information about motion events. Thus, Satellite-‐framed languages (e.g., English) express manner in the verb root and path in satellites, while Verb-‐framed languages (e.g., French) lexicalize Path in the verb, leaving Manner implicit or expressing it in the periphery of the sentence. Such properties constrain how speakers organize spatial information to encode motion in discourse thereby reviving questions concerning the relation between language and thought. They are also of great relevance for the study of language pathology and more specifically for the study of aphasic speakers who typically present dissociations between lexical and grammatical knowledge. Despite a few crosslinguistic studies of aphasia, little is still known about universal vs. language-‐specific aspects of aphasics’ deficits. The present comparative study investigates the relative impact of language-‐independent and language-‐specific factors on how speakers represent motion events in control groups and in speakers with agrammatism in two languages, English and French, and in monolingual and bilingual contexts. The methodology combines a variety of complementary tasks (production, comprehension, non-‐verbal and verbal categorization), coupled with an eye-‐tracking paradigm measuring attention allocation. The findings show that typological properties of languages can have an impact on both linguistic organization and non-‐linguistic measures (i.e., categorical choices, attention allocation patterns). This research opens new crosslinguistic/typological perspectives on aphasia and contributes more generally to the debates concerning universal and language-‐specific dimensions of spatial cognition. Keywords : Language and space, typology, spatial cognition, agrammatism, production, categorization, eye-‐movements *** Title: L'utilisation et l'acquisition des verbes de position en suédois L1 et L2 Name: Hellerstedt, Maria Discipline: Linguistics

49

Supervisor: Karl Erland Gadelii et Maarten Lemmens Institute: University Paris Sorbonne Paris IV Date of defense: 29 November 2013 Thesis committee: Maya Hickmann, Marianne Gullberg, Aliyah Morgenstern, Jean-‐Michel Fortis, Karl Erland Gadelii, Maarten Lemmens Distinction: Highly Honorable with Praise (Summa Cum Laude). Abstract: The Swedish posture verbs encode static (stå « stand », ligga « lie », sitta « sit ») and dynamic (ställa « stand », lägga « lay », sätta « set ») location of a person or a concrete object. The elaborated stimuli elicited data from 98 participants. Our data shows that the usage frequency of these verbs guarantees an early acquisition by children learning Swedish as their first language and by adult French-‐speaking learners of Swedish as a second language. However, their semantic complexity constitutes an obstacle for arriving at idiomatic language use with regard to choosing the correct verb. These difficulties exist even at high levels of competence (children of 10 years and advanced L2 learners respectively). An acquisition order can be distinguished regarding the verb type (static verbs are acquired before the dynamic ones), the semantic parameters (horizontality and verticality are acquired before base and contact/containment) and the prototypical meaning (acquired before the extended meanings). Several strategies are used by the learners to solve these problems: the use of a static verb to encode a dynamic situation; the generalized use of one of the verbs (generally the one encoding horizontality); a collocational use of a verb and a Figure; the use of a verbal ellipsis or a positionally neutral verb, like the copula. The Swedish discourse organization seems to be acquired late by the L2 learners, due to the typological differences between the two languages. Keywords: posture verbs, language acquisition, L1, L2, semantics, typology *** Title: Der Wortartwechsel.Eine linguistisch-‐kontrastive Untersuchung zur Transposition im Deutschen und Arabischen. Name: Sharaf, Omar Discipline: Linguistics Supervisor: von Stutterheim, Prof. Dr. Christiane Date of defense: 26 November 2012 Insitute : Philosophische Fakultät -‐ Seminar für Sprachen und Kulturen des Vorderen Orients Neuphilologische Fakultät -‐ IASK -‐ Seminar für Deutsch als Fremdsprachenphilologie Abstract: The aim of the present work is to contrastively highlight the transposition of parts-‐of-‐speech in New High German and Modern Standard Arabic. This will be done by firstly identifying the similarities and differences resulting from the different morphological structures the two languages have and secondly, by comparing these similarities and differences by means of using one single theoretical framework. Establishing such a framework is a basic prerequisite to conduct a contrastive and typological linguistic study. It avoids analysing the same linguistic phenomena from different perspectives and offers a good tool to inquire linguistic features in different language systems whilst using the same analysing criteria. As affixation and conversion are the only word-‐formation processes inducing the transposition in German, the affixation in Arabic is the sole productive word-‐formation process. However, this does not work in the same way as in German. Analysing the structure of both languages in terms of concatenative and nonconcatenative morphology shows that German and Arabic have incompatible structures. Affixation in

50

German implies using concatenative morphology which is usually reflected by adding affixes to a stem belonging syntactically to a specific word-‐class. This results in a word with different syntactic features (eg., schön → Schönheit). In other cases the affixation does not transfer the new word into another word-‐class (eg., Grammatik → Grammatiker; laden → beladen). Conversion in German is always closely connected with transposition of word-‐classes. The word-‐formation process in Arabic is characterised by the extensive use of nonconcatenative mor¬phology. Except two nominals, i.e. the nomina qualitatis and the nisba adjective, all the words in Ara¬bic are formed by means of morphologically modifying the roots. Conversion in Arabic is a blocked word-‐formation process due to the word-‐patterns which are always connected with a specific syntactic and semantic word category. As the stems in German are always connected with a specific word-‐class but the roots in Arabic are not, I assume that there are two different kinds of transposition in both languages: the first one is a real transposition implying a difference in the syntactic function between a stem and a derivative (schön vs. Schönheit; laufen vs. Lauf). This kind of transposition is typical for the Indo-‐European languages. The second one is the root modification which characterises the phenomenon found in the Semitic languages, i.e., derivation of words from abstract roots (eg., √KTB → kitāb; √DRS → madrasa). The following work also shows that the parts-‐of-‐speech in German and Arabic are grammatically dif-‐ferent. While the parts-‐of-‐speech in German are in an ongoing process of degrammaticalization, lan-‐guages with nonconcatenative morphology like Arabic seem to always have a high degree of gram-‐maticalization. In order to be able to use the term “transposition” to describe the phenomena found in Arabic, the ref¬erence of the term should be extended to include any syntactic or semantic change that can be a result of affixation, conversion of a base or modification of a root. Keywords: Morphologie nominale, grammaticalisation (Wortbildung, Wortarten, Grammatikalisierung) *** Title: Contrasting opposite polarity in Germanic and Romance languages: Verum focus and affirmative particles in native speakers and advanced L2 learners. Name: Turco Giuseppina Supervisor: Bettina Braun and Christine Dimroth Institute : Radboud University Nijmegen Defense date: 20 January 2014 Thesis Committee : Giuliano Bernini, Aafke Hulk, Carlos Gussenhoven, Steve Levinson Abstract: This dissertation investigated the expression of affirmative polarity contrast (e.g., speaker B: In my picture the child is eating the candies following after In my picture the child is not eating the candies uttered by speaker A) from a typological and an acquisitional perspective, framed in the finiteness-‐assertion hypothesis proposed by Klein (1998). As recently suggested, polarity contrast plays a crucial role for common ground management in German and Dutch but not in the Romance languages Italian and French (Dimroth, Andorno, Benazzo, & Verhagen, 2010). It is not by accident that the grammar of Germanic languages is equipped with a rich set of linguistic means, namely Verum focus -‐ an accent on the finite verb (e.g., Höhle, 1992) -‐ and affirmative particles (e.g., the Dutch particle wel) for the expression of polarity contrast. A further research question links such typological differences to learnability problems in second language acquisition (L2). As shown in previous studies, even at higher levels of proficiency, learners are not able to encode information structure in a target-‐like way (von Stutterheim, 2003).

51

In this dissertation we provided experimental evidence of polarity contrast, by adopting the same task procedure in German, Dutch, French and Italian and in L2 learners. Results showed that for German and Dutch speakers marking polarity contrast is crucial for common ground management. By contrast, even though French and Italian are equipped with assertion/polarity markings (e.g. Verum focus is produced occasionally), speakers do not choose these options in the contexts tested here; conceivably, Romance speakers feel that highlighting the contrast on the relevant operators might result in a “too assertive” pragmatic effect. The analysis on the L2 acquisition data supports these cross-‐linguistic differences. Results showed that learners tend to look for means in their L2 that allow them to build up L1-‐like discourse information organization. *** Title: The expression of motion in L2 Danish by Turkish and German learners – the role of inter-‐ and intratypological differences. Name: Jessen, Moiken Insitute : Submitted at the University of Southern Denmark. C.v.Stutterheim, external evaluator on the committee *** Title: Spatial Language in Tungag. Name: Fast, Karin Supervisor: Gunter Senft Institute: Universität Heidelberg. Date of defense: 18 October 2013 Distinction: Magna cum laude.

53

NOTES

60

Partners • Laboratoire « Structures Formelles du Langage » (UMR 7023 CNRS & Paris 8), 2, rue de la Liberté, St Denis, France

• Laboratoire « Savoirs, textes, langage » (UMR 8163, CNRS & Lille 3), BP 60149, F-‐59653 Villeneuve d’Ascq, France.

• Germanistisches Institut. Westfälische Wilhelms-‐Universität Münster (Schlossplatz 34, D -‐ 48143 Münster, Germany)

• Seminar für Deutsch als Fremdsprachenphilologie. Ruprecht-‐Karls-‐Universität Heidelberg (Plöck 55, D-‐69117 Heidelberg, Germany)

Contacts Laboratoire Structures Formelles du Langage (UMR 7023) CNRS & Université Paris 8 59/61 rue Pouchet 75017, Paris, FRANCE Secretary: Georgie MORAND; Email: [email protected] Tel: +33(0)1.40.25.10.40 / Fax: +33(0)1.40.25.10.41 http://www.umr7023.cnrs.fr/-‐LANGACROSS-‐2-‐2011-‐2014-‐Utterance-‐.html Germanistisches Institut Westfälische Wilhelms-‐Universität Münster Schlossplatz 34 D -‐ 48143 Münster, GERMANY Secretary: Birgit Bohnenkamp, Email: [email protected] Tel. +49 (0)541 8324142

Agence Nationale de la Recherche 212, rue de Bercy 75012 PARIS Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft German Research Foundation 53170 Bonn, Germany

booklet final-18juin2014-soroli page web - umr...

Documents