Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details

Linguistics

An Interdisciplinary Journal of the Language Sciences

Editor-in-Chief: van der Auwera, Johan


IMPACT FACTOR increased in 2015: 0.763
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 0.872
Rank 78 out of 179 in category Linguistics in the 2015 Thomson Reuters Journal Citation Report/Social Sciences Edition

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2015: 0.496
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2015: 1.099
Impact per Publication (IPP) 2015: 0.689

99,00 € / $149.00 / £75.00*

Online
ISSN
1613-396X
See all formats and pricing
Select Volume and Issue

Issues

30,00 € / $42.00 / £23.00

Get Access to Full Text

How grammaticized concepts shape event conceptualization in language production: Insights from linguistic analysis, eye tracking data, and memory performance

12 / Martin Andermann, / Mary Carroll, / Monique Flecken, / Barbara Schmiedtová,

1University of Heidelberg

2University of Heidelberg Hospital

Institut für Deutsch als Fremdsprachenphilologie, Universität Heidelberg, Plöck 55, 69117 Heidelberg, Germany

Citation Information: . Volume 50, Issue 4, Pages 833–867, ISSN (Online) 1613-396X, ISSN (Print) 0024-3949, DOI: 10.1515/ling-2012-0026, July 2012

Publication History

Received:
2010-11-11
Revised:
2011-12-09
Published Online:
2012-07-17

Abstract

The role of grammatical systems in profiling particular conceptual categories is used as a key in exploring questions concerning language specificity during the conceptualization phase in language production. This study focuses on the extent to which crosslinguistic differences in the concepts profiled by grammatical means in the domain of temporality (grammatical aspect) affect event conceptualization and distribution of attention when talking about motion events. The analyses, which cover native speakers of Standard Arabic, Czech, Dutch, English, German, Russian and Spanish, not only involve linguistic evidence, but also data from an eye tracking experiment and a memory test. The findings show that direction of attention to particular parts of motion events varies to some extent with the existence of grammaticized means to express imperfective/progressive aspect. Speakers of languages that do not have grammaticized aspect of this type are more likely to take a holistic view when talking about motion events and attend to as well as refer to endpoints of motion events, in contrast to speakers of aspect languages.

Citing Articles

Here you can find all Crossref-listed publications in which this article is cited. If you would like to receive automatic email messages as soon as this article is cited in other publications, simply activate the “Citation Alert” on the top of this page.

[2]
Nikki van de Pol and Peter Petré
Studies in Language, 2015, Volume 39, Number 1, Page 199
[3]
Panos Athanasopoulos and Jeanine Treffers-Daller
International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 2015, Volume 18, Number 5, Page 519
[4]
Emanuel Bylund and Panos Athanasopoulos
International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 2015, Volume 18, Number 5, Page 588
[5]
Monique Flecken, Panos Athanasopoulos, Jan Rouke Kuipers, and Guillaume Thierry
Cognition, 2015, Volume 141, Page 41
[6]
Monique Flecken, Mary Carroll, Katja Weimar, and Christiane Von Stutterheim
The Modern Language Journal, 2015, Volume 99, Number S1, Page 100

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.