Author:
Liao Yiyun,Dijkstra Katinka,Zwaan Rolf A.
Abstract
AbstractThe current study aims to explore the factors that could affect people’s description of a motion event endpoint. The study conducted by Liao, Dijkstra, and Zwaan (2021, Language and Cognition, 13[2], 161–190) found that two non-linguistic factors (i.e., the actor’s goal and the interlocutor’s social status) affect people’s choice between two Dutch directional prepositions (i.e., naar and richting) during event description tasks. The current study aims to extend these findings by examining the choice between a similar pair of directional prepositions in English (i.e., to and towards). Moreover, we aim to study whether grammatical aspect (i.e., the English simple present and the English progressive aspect) affects the sensitivity to the two non-linguistic factors and consequently also affects how people describe a motion event endpoint. In Experiment 1, we used the English simple present for all sentence stimuli (e.g., he walks (?) the trash bin). We found a significant effect of Interlocutor (the interlocutor’s social status) on preposition choice, but no significant effect of Intention (the actor’s goal). In Experiment 2, we replaced the English simple present with the English progressive aspect (e.g., he is walking (?) the trash bin). We found significant main effects of both Interlocutor and Intention on preposition choice. These findings extend those reported in Liao et al. (2021) Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 35(4), 498–520 in that protagonist intention and interlocutor status were found to indeed affect motion event endpoint description. The current findings furthermore show that grammatical aspect affects people’s sensitivity to these factors, thus also affecting how a motion event endpoint is described.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Arts and Humanities (miscellaneous),Experimental and Cognitive Psychology,Neuropsychology and Physiological Psychology
Reference40 articles.
1. Anderson, S. E., Matlock, T., Fausey, C. M., & Spivey, M. J. (2008). On the path to understanding on-line processing of grammatical aspect. Proceedings of the 30th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 2253–2258). Cognitive Science Society.
2. Baldwin, D. A., Baird, J. A., Saylor, M. M., & Clark, M. A. (2001). Infants parse dynamic action. Child Development, 72(3), 708–717. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00310
3. Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01
4. Bolker, B. M. (2015). Linear and generalized linear mixed models. In G. A. Fox, S. Negrete-Yankelevich, & V. J. Sosa (Eds.), Ecological statistics: Contemporary theory and application (pp. 309–333). Oxford University Press.
5. Cowper, E. (1998). The simple present tense in English: a unified treatment. Studia Linguistica, 52(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9582.00027
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献