Speaking in a second language but thinking in the first language: Language-specific effects on memory for causation events in English and Spanish

Abstract

Aims and objectives/purpose/research question: This paper’s objective is to offer new insights into the effects of language on memory for causation events in a second language (L2) context. The research was driven by the question of whether proficient L2 users acquired L2 thinking-for-speaking-and-remembering strategies along with the relevant expressions for different types of causation (intentional versus non-intentional). Design/methodology/approach: The cognitive domain of causation is an ideal platform for this investigation, since the lexicalisation of causation differs clearly in the two languages under consideration, English and Spanish. Spanish speakers always distinguish between intentional and non-intentional events through the use of different constructions. The English pattern of lexicalisation in this domain often leaves intentionality unspecified. Our methodology involves an experimental elicitation of event verbalisations and recall memory responses to video stimuli by English and Spanish monolinguals and bilinguals. Data and analysis: The analysis has shown that the Spanish monolinguals and first language (L1) Spanish/L2 English speakers always distinguished between intentional and non-intentional events, while the English monolinguals and L1 English/L2 Spanish speakers generally used expressions that were underspecified with regard to intentionality. Findings/conclusions: All populations used their habitual language patterns as an aid to memory. Spanish monolingual had better recall than their English peers. L2 speakers were mainly relying on the L1 in spite of speaking only the L2 during the experiment. Originality: Possible effects of these typological differences between an L1 and an L2 on speaker recall memory have not been investigated before. Significance/implications: The research presented in this paper informs the theoretical assumptions related to the thinking-for-speaking hypothesis by showing empirically that late bilinguals adhere to their L1 patterns as an aid to memory while speaking in their L2. This novel finding contributes to an improved understanding of language processing and language use among late bilinguals

The Complex Adaptive System Principles model for bilingualism: Language interactions within and across bilingual minds

“…Some bilingual speakers can still try to maximise common ground even though it can lead to ungrammaticality and communication breakdown because their language proficiency is uneven. Perhaps with explicit instruction that raises awareness about the typological similarities and differences between languages the beneficial processing strategies for L2 learners can be enhanced (see Filipović, 2018 for discussion). The best pedagogy for second language teaching is one of the applications of our model that merits future research.…”

“…Whether and how bilingualism affects other cognitive functions still awaits a holistic scientific account although some evidence is emerging about how bilingualism affects memory for events (e.g. Filipović, 2011Filipović, , 2013aFilipović, , 2018 and categorisation (e.g. Lai et al, 2014) as well as having some benefits for executive function (see Kroll & Bialystok, 2013, for a focused overview).…”

“…Note that in English both She broke the glass and The glass broke can be used in descriptions of either event type (intentional or non-intentional). English speakers may assign less intentionality to the inchoative construction The bottle broke than to She broke the bottle but inchoative constructions are still used by native speakers to describe stimuli that depict intentional events (as in She crushed the plastic cup and it broke) in the same way that SVO constructions can be used for non-intentional events (The woman knocked the bottle off the table, see Filipović, 2013aFilipović, , 2013bFilipović, , 2018.…”

Language Contrasts in Translation: Cognitive and Practical Consequences

“…The memory for intentionality vs. non-intentionality was better in Spanish speakers as a result. These cross-linguistic differences in the domain of intentionality have also been captured in the context of second language acquisition (Filipović 2016). Namely, L1 English learners of L2 Spanish did not regularly and explicitly distinguish between intentional and non-intentional actions in L2 Spanish and their memory for causation was worse than those of L1 Spanish learners of L2 English, who always explicitly distinguished intentional from nonintentional events even in L2 English, where the relevant distinctions are not lexicalised.…”

“…She pushed the glass off the table and it broke [intentionally or not?]). Moreover, recent research (Filipović 2016) has shown that the inchoative construction is not consistently used by native speakers of English to discriminate intentional from non-intentional acts but is rather used interchangeably as a description of both intentional video stimuli, e.g. The girl pushed the doll and it fell off the bed, and nonintentional video depictions of actions, e.g.…”