1. ICLC 6th FU Berlin, 30.9. – 2.10.2010 1 Monique Lambert Christiane von Stutterheim Mary Carroll Monique Flecken University of Heidelberg Université Paris VIII Empirical approaches to aspect: Language systems and learner languages ICLC 6th FU Berlin, 30.9. – 2.10.2010

2. ICLC 6th FU Berlin, 30.9. – 2.10.2010 2 Your analysis of the English present perfect is by far the best. You just don't use it properly. Personal communication between Dan Slobin and Wolfgang Klein

3. ICLC 6th FU Berlin, 30.9. – 2.10.2010 3 The problem Aspectual categories are extremely hard to acquire in a second language. Even at very advanced stages we find on the side of the learner - inconsistent usage - absence of native-like intuitions Aspect hypothesis for L2 acquisition: Progressive aspect is related to inherent atelicity on the side of the native speaker - no explicit knowledge What exactly is this knowledge?

4. ICLC 6th FU Berlin, 30.9. – 2.10.2010 4 The progressive: a point in question Context: what is Peter doing in the kitchen?. Peter is baking a cake Peter ist dabei einen Kuchen zu machen. Piet is een coekje aan het maken. Pierre est en train de faire un gâteau. Pietro sta facendo una torta Context : Can you see Peter over there ? Where is he going? Peter is walking to the station. ?Peter ist dabei zum Bahnhof zu gehen. (inchoative reading?) ?Piet is naar de station aan het lopen. *Pierre est en train d’aller à la gare. Pietro sta andando a la stazione.

5. ICLC 6th FU Berlin, 30.9. – 2.10.2010 5 How do we know? Bergljot Behrends (University of Oslo) Abassia Bouhaous Natascha Sahonenko Barbara Schmiedtová Takara Baumbach Xingyu Zhu Ginés Carpena Renate Delucchi Naoko Tomita Silvia Natale The multilingual research group

6. ICLC 6th FU Berlin, 30.9. – 2.10.2010 6 The state of research We have legions of studies on temporal categories and we still cannot answer basic questions when learners want to understand and manage e.g. the English or Japanese aspectual system. If the semantic descriptions of tense/aspect-forms were as straightforward as suggested by many theoretical accounts then this should provide the basis for using these forms appropriately.

7. ICLC 6th FU Berlin, 30.9. – 2.10.2010 7 The question In acquiring a second language we not only acquire new forms and new functions. We also have to acquire knowledge as to how grammatical categories are put to use. In the case of aspect: what are the principles that a native speaker relies on when selecting a particular temporal perspective? Very few studies have addressed this question crosslinguistically.

8. ICLC 6th FU Berlin, 30.9. – 2.10.2010 8 Question cont.  Theoretical accounts do not explain different constraints across languages in the use of one semantic operation (e.g progressiveness). They do not explain differences within one verb type (e.g. Vendler accomplishment / achievement) as being subjected to one aspectual operation.  They do not explain principles underlying optional marking.

9. ICLC 6th FU Berlin, 30.9. – 2.10.2010 9 Goals of the comparative study  How can we describe the differences between languages within what is described as one aspectual category in current theories?  How can we theoretically account for developing systems and the optionality of aspectual marking at a given stage?  How can we describe the principles of use of aspectual forms?  How and to what extent do second language learners discover structure and function of aspectual systems?

10. ICLC 6th FU Berlin, 30.9. – 2.10.2010 10 Empirical approach to language use: the basic idea Speakers see the same real world scene, they are introduced to the verbal task under the same temporal perspective. This allows for a systematic variation of event features potentially relevant for temporal perspective taking and selection of aspectual marking. (Elicitation instruction Say what is happening/what happens/happened has no impact.)

11. ICLC 6th FU Berlin, 30.9. – 2.10.2010 11 The levels of event construal External world: the stimulus perceptual filter selective attention Conceptual representation cognitive filter information selection, perspective taking Verbal representation Empirical methods eye tracking chronometry memory verbal product

12. ICLC 6th FU Berlin, 30.9. – 2.10.2010 12 Scenes

13. ICLC 6th FU Berlin, 30.9. – 2.10.2010 Scenes

14. ICLC 6th FU Berlin, 30.9. – 2.10.2010 14 Scenes

15. ICLC 6th FU Berlin, 30.9. – 2.10.2010 15 Design of the study variables: language, situation type Languages investigated: Adult speakers L1 (similar education, aged between 20 - 30) of: Germanic (German, Dutch, Norwegian, English), Romance (French, Italian, Spanish), Slavic (Russian, Czech, Polish, Bulgarian), Arabic (Modern Standard, Algerian Arabic), Japanese, Chinese Adult speakers L2 (matched for sociocultural background), (very) advanced: L1English/Russian/Czech German Dutch L2German English/Japanese/Italian French

16. ICLC 6th FU Berlin, 30.9. – 2.10.2010 16 Design of the study variables: language, situation type Situation types investigated: Motion events -with endpoint reached (somebody is walking to a house) -with endpoint not reached (somebody is walking on a road) Causative action (somebody is knitting a scarf)

17. ICLC 6th FU Berlin, 30.9. – 2.10.2010 17 Type of Data  Language production audio-taped, transcribed  (Speech onset time  Eye tracking  Memory performance)

18. ICLC 6th FU Berlin, 30.9. – 2.10.2010 18 Range of languages Differences of aspectual systems with respect to the degree of grammaticalisation emerging lexical only fully grammaticalized e.g. English, Japanese, Russian Italian, Dutch German, Norwegian French (high individual variation) L2 speakers

19. ICLC 6th FU Berlin, 30.9. – 2.10.2010 19 Hypothesis: Attractor factors for progressive aspect type of situation Locomotion (spatial orientation) walk, causative action (with affected / effected object) paint a picture vs. build a model airplane, activity (swim, surf) relevant features of situations  +/- endpoint of situation bake a cake vs. walk on a lawn  +/- endpoint reached a man walks into a house vs. a man walks towards a house  +/- homogeneity knitting a scarf vs. tidying up a room Material: 40 /80 videoclips, critical items, control items, presented in randomised order

20. ICLC 6th FU Berlin, 30.9. – 2.10.2010 20 Results: fully grammaticalised vs. lexical Use of aspectual on-goingness marker in the given task across all situation types (present tense):

21. ICLC 6th FU Berlin, 30.9. – 2.10.2010 21 Developing systems: the role of transition points Situations with a qualified resultant state (building a monument; moulding a vase; painting a picture; knitting a scarf) (20 speakers per language ;10 situations)

22. ICLC 6th FU Berlin, 30.9. – 2.10.2010 22 Developing systems: the role of transition points Situations without an inherent boundary surfing, jogging, kicking a football, swimming; (20 speakers; 10 situations)

23. ICLC 6th FU Berlin, 30.9. – 2.10.2010 23 Developing systems: the role of transition points motion events; figure underway; endpoint not reached (20 speakers 10 situations )

24. ICLC 6th FU Berlin, 30.9. – 2.10.2010 24 Situation and aspect: general tendency A progressive perspective is more likely to be selected in situations with an inherent transition point and a qualified resultant state, compared to those which do not show a temporal property of this kind.

25. ICLC 6th FU Berlin, 30.9. – 2.10.2010 25 Developing systems: the role of homogeneity Situations with a qualified resultant state and homogeneous subevents (moulding a vase; knitting a scarf) (20 speakers per language ;5 situations)

26. ICLC 6th FU Berlin, 30.9. – 2.10.2010 26 Situation and aspect general tendency The main attractor factors for progressive aspect are situations with a qualified second state and a first state with a dynamic action and homogeneous subevents. The relevance of this type of situation for view point selection may lie in the fact that it delivers a measure for progression toward a qualified resultant state that can be expected to come about (the moulded vase, for example).

27. ICLC 6th FU Berlin, 30.9. – 2.10.2010 27 Summary of empirical findings  Crosslinguistic patterns are rooted in a limited set of temporal categories.  Critical for PROG/IMPERF is the contrast of states and with this some point in time (boundary, closure, transition point; homogenous, dynamic, durative, first state).  Major attractor/emerging systems: 2-state situations with change of quality resulting in a tangible second state  Locomotion implies specific constraints across languages.

28. ICLC 6th FU Berlin, 30.9. – 2.10.2010 28 Conclusion: Systems The empirical result show the relevance of preferences in language use. The selection among options in perspective taking is not arbitrary but guided by deeply rooted principles mediated through grammar. These draw on universal notional categories (such as quality of entities, delimitation, temporal phase) to form language specific clusters of related temporal features. These clusters are conceptually dominant and provide a language specific basis for temporal perspective taking  principles of use

29. ICLC 6th FU Berlin, 30.9. – 2.10.2010 29 Implications for learning  Aspect requires perspective taking. Languages differ with respect to the options at a fine grained level.  At text level these options are constrained by principles of information organisation.  Learning problems

30. ICLC 6th FU Berlin, 30.9. – 2.10.2010 30 The acquisition of aspect in L2 Learning task: -forms -functions -principles of use, i.e. which context licenses/requires a particular grammatical operation Previous research: Studies in SSLA focus on earlier phases of the acquisition of aspect and form-function relations.

31. ICLC 6th FU Berlin, 30.9. – 2.10.2010 31 Empirical study : very advanced L2 speakers Same material as for the L1: Generally similar results as the L1 speakers for: German –> English Italian –> French German –> Japanese

32. ICLC 6th FU Berlin, 30.9. – 2.10.2010 32 Empirical study : very advanced L2 speakers Problems arise -at text level (language specific principles of perspective taking cf. Tomita) -when speakers are distracted by - time pressure - inappropriate perspective introduction

33. ICLC 6th FU Berlin, 30.9. – 2.10.2010 33 L1 German/French – L2 English text production Use of progressive aspect in film renarrations L1 English and he hears the water again but suddenly he’s pushed up into the air by one of these towers (completion) that comes up out of the ground and he’s up on top of this tower (state: it is now the case) and he’s looking around for the water (progressive; ongoing event) L1 German  English so he ends up at the summit of the rocks and is just trying to look around to see what's happening

34. ICLC 6th FU Berlin, 30.9. – 2.10.2010 L1 German/French – L2 English text production combination of phasal segmentation with holistic perspectives L1 German and falls down like always he is never hurt and then he walks up to the water and the water is dripping on a huge stone plate L1 French he starts digging a hole eventually falls into it and is covered with the sand he is trying to get out of it but he can’t and he falls

35. ICLC 6th FU Berlin, 30.9. – 2.10.2010 L1 German/French – L2 English text production lack of anaphoric situation for events presented under an ongoing perspective L1 German there is no water in him he consists of sand then he is still searching for water L1 French and he starts digging and the ground is suddenly opening he suddenly watches little holes in the ground

36. ICLC 6th FU Berlin, 30.9. – 2.10.2010 36 Conclusion: L2 acquisition In order to decide when the one or the other perspective has to be selected, world knowledge has to be combined with language concepts (like in the case of spatial prepositions). For the L2 learner there are no formal indicators which help to discover the principles of use. Under processing aspects L2 syntactic knowledge is less automated.

37. ICLC 6th FU Berlin, 30.9. – 2.10.2010 37 Bibliography Binnick, Robert I. (2006). Aspect and Aspectuality. In Bas Aarts & April McMahon (Eds.), Handbook of English Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell. S.244-68. Klein, W. (1992). The present perfect puzzle, Language 68, 525- 552. Klein, Wolfgang (1994). Time in Language. London: Routledge. Tomita, Naoko (2008). Der Informationsaufbau in Erzählungen. (Japanisch, Deutsch, Englisch). München: Iudicium.

38. ICLC 6th FU Berlin, 30.9. – 2.10.2010 38 Time argument structures (W. Klein) Temporal structure of a 1-state situation The situation in the external world is a person who sleeps Entity 1 person = e1 -----------------|-------------------------|---------------------------- prestatecourse of activity post state not specified no spec.homogeneous for e1subintervals Temporal structure of a 2-state situation with an unqualified second state The situation in the external world is a person who walks up to a house Entity 1 person = e1, entity 2 house/goal e2 -----------------|-------------------------|---------------------------- prestatecourse of activity goal reached, end of activity no spec.homogeneousno resultant state qualified for e1, e2subintervalsonly e1 at loc e2 e1 active

39. ICLC 6th FU Berlin, 30.9. – 2.10.2010 39 Time argument structures (W. Klein) Temporal structure of a 2-state situation with effected object The situation in the external world is a person who bakes a cake Entity 1 person = e1, entity 2 cake = e2 -----------------|-------------------------|---------------------------- prestatecourse of activity resultant state no spec.not homogeneous for e1, e2subintervals e1 activee2 exits e2 emergesno spec. for e1