Crosslinguistic influence on English and Chinese L2 speakers’ conceptualization of event series

Abstract

Aims and objectives/purpose/research question: The expression of event series varies across languages in intriguing ways. One key difference is that in some linguistic systems, such as Chinese, events can be tightly sequenced using serial verb constructions (SVCs), for example, qù kāi mén ‘go open door’. Linguistic systems with this property are known as serializing, and those without it, such as English, as non-serializing. This paper explores whether second language (L2) learners with a serializing first language (L1) conceptually transfer tight L1-based event serialization patterns into their non-serializing L2, and, if L2 learners with a non-serializing L1 acquire tight SVC-modulated event serialization in the L2. Design/methodology/approach: To investigate this, a task was created to estimate temporal distances between events on a time axis. Participants were asked to circle two numbers on the axis (0 = far past, 9 = far future) based on their understanding of when two events expressed by two verbs in each stimulus sentence happen. Data and analysis: Results showed that Chinese learners of English estimated significantly shorter temporal distances between multiple events in English SVC-like sentences compared to English natives. Tighter temporal sequencing in L2 English is interpreted as L1-based conceptual transfer of event serialization patterns. In the opposite direction, English learners of Chinese marked events in Chinese SVCs as significantly further apart than did Chinese natives, also showing that their event serialization is L1-based. Originality: This study demonstrates for the first time crosslinguistic influence on the conceptual level in the domain of event serialization. Significance/implications: The reported findings inform L2 acquisition research by providing empirical support for the idea that L1-based event serialization patterns influence how L2 learners conceptualize event distances, and this holds in both directions, from a serializing to a non-serializing language as well as vice versa.