Abstract
To understand constructs underpinning L2 production, this study investigated how native speakers (mean age = 26.61) of Chinese (n = 29), Korean (n = 23), and English (n = 28) formulated spoken narratives in English and how functional factors were related to the linguistic richness of narratives under the framework of thinking for speaking. To identify operating mechanisms behind the manifestation of conceptualization and verbal output, analyzed were 80 spoken narratives elicited using a picture book, Frog, where are you? Results showed that the two nonnative groups’ attentional foci were similar to that of the native group. The modes of mental analyses showed a partial difference between Chinese and Korean speakers. The nonnative groups showed the different usage of syntactic elements than English speakers. This study suggested that L1 was a foundational schema for thinking for speaking, as indicated by the trans-linguistic transfer of syntactic features. It also suggested that cultural/attentional foci and assertiveness in narration could be restructured as a result of learning the linguistic and sociopragmatic properties of L2 English. The richness of L2 narratives with respect to lexical diversity, clausal variety, and sentential expressions unevenly varied according to L2 proficiency for both Chinese and Korean speakers. When English proficiency was taken into consideration, the mental analysis, syntactic features, and rhetorical devices were significant predictors of the richness of lexical, clausal, and sentential formulation. Further research should continue under the framework of thinking for speaking in both L1 and L2 with various language groups and different L2 proficiency levels.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Although Korean has the large number of Sino-Korean words, comprising about 70% of the Korean lexicon, these Chinese-derived words are considered to be Korean because they are used in Korean pronunciation with considerably different semantics from that of Chinese. For example, the Chinese word “一切” (/yi2qie4/ meaning all) is used as a heteronym, which means that the word has multiple pronunciations with multiple meanings. Specifically, when it is pronounced /ɪl tʃe/, it means all, while when it is pronounced /ɪl dʒəl/, it means never. With regard to the use of written language, the Hangul-only policy has been in place since the 1990s in South Korea (and since 1948 in North Korea).
The English-speaking group had a wide variability in age. Three participants were non-traditional students in their 40s. Given that the participants have similar educational levels, the three groups were deemed comparable.
This picture book was first used by Bamberg (1985) in his dissertation with the first full-scale analysis of German stories (Berman & Slobin, 1987). As of 1994, “[a]t least 150 researchers had collected frog stories in 50 languages, including signed languages” (p. xi, Berman & Slobin, 1994). Much more researchers have been using the frog story in much more languages ever since.
The codebook is available upon request.
In the process of the coders’ multiple meetings for coding, we misplaced the computed reliability coefficients. Hence, we are afraid that we cannot report the reliability statistics.
Bamberg and Damrad-Frye’s (1991) used evaluative comments to refer to a set of variables including frames of mind, character speech, negative qualifiers, causal connectors, and hedges. A reviewer pointed out the potential use of direct and indirect speech or thought. Since it was beyond the scope of this study, it could be examined in another study.
References
Athanasopoulos, P., & Bylund, E. (2013). The ‘thinking’ in thinking-for-speaking: Where is it? Language, Interaction and Acquisition, 4, 91–100.
Bamberg, M. (1985). Form and function in the construction of narratives: Developmental perspectives. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of California. Berkeley.
Bamberg, M. (2009). Sequencing events in time or sequencing events in storytelling? From cognition to discourse—with frogs paving the way. In J. Guo, E. Lieven, N. Budwig, S. Ervin-Tripp, K. Nakamura, & S. Ozcaliskan (Eds.), Crosslinguistic approaches to the psychology of language (pp. 127–136). Psychology Press.
Bamberg, M., & Damrad-Frye, R. (1991). On the ability to provide evaluative comments: Further explorations of children’s narrative competencies. Journal of Child Language, 18, 689–710.
Berman, R. A., & Slobin, D. I. (1987). Five ways of learning how to talk about events: A crosslinguistic study of children’s narratives. Retrieved March 12, 2021, from https://www.tau.ac.il/~rberman/papers/1987_Berman%20&%20Slobin_Five%20ways%20of%20learning%20how%20to%20talk%20about%20events%20-%20A%20crosslinguistic%20study%20of%20children%27s%20narratives.pdf
Berman, R. A., & Slobin, D. I. (1994). Relating events in narrative: A crosslinguistic developmental study. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Bradac, J., Mulac, A., & Thompson, S. A. (1995). Men’s and women’s use of intensifiers and hedges in problem-solving interaction: Molar and molecular analyses. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 28, 93–116.
Brown, A. (2015). Universal development and L1–L2 convergence in bilingual construal of manner in speech and gesture in Mandarin, Japanese, and English. Modern Language Journal, 99, 66–82.
Bylund, E., & Athanasopoulos, P. (2014). Linguistic relativity in SLA: Toward a new research program. Language Learning, 64, 952–985.
Carruthers, P. (2002). The cognitive function of language. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 25, 657–725.
Chen, L., & Guo, J. (2009). Motion events in Chinese novels: Evidence for an equipollently-framed language. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(9), 1749–1766.
Chen, L., & Pan, N. (2009). Development of English referring expressions in narratives of Chinese-English bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 12(4), 429–445.
Chien, S-C. (2006). Contrastive rhetoric: Evidence from the English expository writings of Chinese EFL learners and their teachers’ writing instruction. Paper presented at the British Education Research Association Annual Conference. Retrieved April 13, 2020, from http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/158105.htm.
Cowan, R. (2008). The teacher’s grammar of English: A course book and reference guide. Cambridge University Press.
Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind (3rd ed.). McGraw Hill.
Ji, Y. (2017). Motion event similarity judgments in one or two languages: An exploration of monolingual speakers of English and Chinese vs. L2 learners of English. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1–12.
Ji, L.-J., Zhang, Z., & Nisbett, R. E. (2000). Culture, control, and perception of relationship in the environment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 943–955.
Ji, L.-J., Zhang, Z., & Nisbett, R. E. (2004). Is it culture or is it language? Examination of language effects in cross-cultural research on categorization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 57–65.
Jin, H. G. (1994). Topic-prominence and subject-prominence in L2 acquisition: Evidence of English-to-Chinese typological transfer. Language Learning, 44, 101–112.
Jung, E. H. (2004). Topic and subject prominence in interlanguage development. Language Learning, 54, 713–738.
Lakoff, R. (1973). Language and woman’s place. Language in Society, 2, 45–79.
Li, C. N., & Thompson, S. A. (1976). Subject and topic: A new typology of language. In C. N. Li (Ed.), Subject and topic (pp. 457–489). Academic Press.
Li, X. (2014). Variation in subject pronominal expression in L2 Chinese. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 36, 39–68.
Lu, X. (2012). The relationship of lexical richness to the quality of ESL learners’ oral narratives. The Modern Language Journal, 96(2), 190–208.
Lucy, J. A. (1997). Linguistic relativity. Annual Review of Anthropology, 26, 291–312.
Masuda, T., & Nisbett, R. E. (2001). Attending holistically versus analytically: Comparing the context sensitivity of Japanese and Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 922–934.
Mayer, M. (1969). Frog, where are you? Dial Press.
Nakamura, K. (2009). Language and affect: Japanese children’s use of evaluative expressions in narratives. In J. Guo, E. Lieven, N. Budwig, S. Ervin-Tripp, K. Nakamura, & S. Ozcaliskan (Eds.), Crosslinguistic approaches to the psychology of language (pp. 225–239). Psychology Press.
Nisbett, R. E. (2003). The geography of thought: How Asians and Westerners think differently and why. Free Press.
Pae, H. K. (2020). Script effects as the hidden drive of the mind, cognition, and culture. Springer.
Pae, H. K., & Lee, Y.-W. (2015). The resolution of visual noise in word recognition. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 44(3), 337–358.
Pan, F., & Zheng, B. (2017). Gender difference of hedging in interpreting for Chinese government press conferences: A corpus-based study. Across Languages and Cultures, 18(2), 171–193.
Rhode, A. K., Voyer, B. G., & Gleibs, I. H. (2016). Does language matter? Exploring Chinese-Korean differences in holistic perception. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1058.
Rutherford, W. (1983). Language typology and language transfer. In S. M. Gass & L. Selinker (Eds.), Language transfer in language learning (pp. 358–470). Newbury House.
Sampson, G. (2015). Writing systems (2nd ed.). Bristol, CT: Equinox Publishing
Slobin, D. I. (1987). Thinking for speaking. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 13, 435–444.
Slobin, D. I. (1991). Learning to think for speaking: Native language, cognition and rhetorical style. Pragmatics, 1, 7–26.
Slobin, D. (1996). From “thought and language” to “thinking for speaking.” In J. J. Gumperz & S. C. Levinson (Eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity (pp. 70–96). Cambridge University Press.
Slobin, D. (2004). The many ways to search for a frog: Linguistic typology and the expression of motion events. In S. Strömqvist & L. Verhoeven (Eds.), Relating events in narrative: Typological and contextual perspectives (pp. 219–257). Lawrence Erlbaum.
Slobin, D. I., & Bever, T. G. (1982). Children use canonical sentence schemas: A crosslinguistic study of word order and inflections. Cognition, 12, 229–265.
Soroli, E. (2012). Variation in spatial language and cognition: Exploring visuo-spatial thinking and speaking cross-linguistically. Cognitive Processing, 13, 333–337.
Stam. (2006). Thinking for speaking about motion: L1 and L2 speech and gesture. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 44, 145–171.
Su, I.-R. (2001). Transfer of sentence processing strategies: A comparison of L2 learners of Chinese and English. Applied Psycholinguistics, 22, 83–112.
Whorf, B. (1956). Language, thought, and reality (edited by J. B. Carroll). Wiley.
Yuan, B. (1997). Asymmetry of null subjects and null objects in Chinese speakers’ L2 English. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 467–497.
Acknowledgements
This study was supported in part by the CECH Graduate Student and Faculty Mentoring grant to Jing Sun and Hye Pae. We greatly appreciate three anonymous reviewers’ extensive and constructive feedback on an earlier version of the manuscript.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflicts of interest
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendix. Examples of Background Description of Picture 1
Appendix. Examples of Background Description of Picture 1
Chinese | Korean | English | |
|---|---|---|---|
Background-Heavy | I feel like…I saw a dog, a frog, a boy in a … maybe it’s boy’s bedroom. It’s night obviously. I felt the boy must be sharing their happiness that actually owing a frog in their house. And I felt this boy is quite curious about this frog and also as well as the dog. I felt this bedroom is a little bit messy. Because I saw the clothes on the ground. It is a little bit messed up | It looks like a bedroom of a boy. And the boy is looking at a frog in a jar with his puppy. And it is night time because I can see the moon outside the window and the lamp is on. And besides, the boy sitting on the chair and beside the chair there is a T-shirt that has several stripes | It appears that the little boy is with his dog, and they’re both are looking at the pet frog, who is in his cage, sitting calmly. The room is very clean, there are some shirts on the ground, some socks on the floor. But the bed is made neatly and it appears to be the night time with a….you can see the moon background through the window and the dark sky |
Background Coding | 4 | 6 | 7 |
Background-Lean | There is a boy and sit next to the bed, and there is a dog watching at a bin. In the bin, there is a frog. The dog and the boy are focusing at the frog, I think the frog is thinking about something, but we will see | In the late night, a boy was sitting and then he’s watching his dog and frog. I think the frog is from outside. So, his dog and the boy are watching the frog interestingly and he is curious about the frog | I see a boy who has just caught a frog, He is excited because the frog, you know, is new friend and new pet. He is really excited to have this new friend in his room, him and his dog. It looks like he’s got on his pj’s, he just took off his clothes so he’s saying goodnight |
Background Coding | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Pae, H.K., Sun, J., Luo, X. et al. Linguocultural cognition manifested in spoken narratives in L2 English by native Chinese and Korean speakers. J Cult Cogn Sci 5, 345–365 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41809-021-00088-3
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41809-021-00088-3