16.2449, Review: Semantics/2nd La ng Acquisition: Schmiedtov á (2004)

[LINGUIST List]

LINGUIST List: Vol-16-2449. Mon Aug 22 2005. ISSN: 1068 - 4875.

Subject: 16.2449, Review: Semantics/2nd Lang Acquisition: Schmiedtová (2004)

Moderators: Anthony Aristar, Wayne State U <aristar at linguistlist.org>
            Helen Aristar-Dry, Eastern Michigan U <hdry at linguistlist.org>
 
Reviews (reviews at linguistlist.org) 
        Sheila Dooley, U of Arizona  
        Terry Langendoen, U of Arizona  

Homepage: http://linguistlist.org/

The LINGUIST List is funded by Eastern Michigan University, Wayne
State University, and donations from subscribers and publishers.

Editor for this issue: Lindsay Butler <lindsay at linguistlist.org>
================================================================  

What follows is a review or discussion note contributed to our 
Book Discussion Forum. We expect discussions to be informal and 
interactive; and the author of the book discussed is cordially 
invited to join in. If you are interested in leading a book 
discussion, look for books announced on LINGUIST as "available 
for review." Then contact Sheila Dooley at dooley at linguistlist.org. 

===========================Directory==============================  

1)
Date: 21-Aug-2005
From: Cristiano Broccias < C.Broccias at unige.it >
Subject: At the Same Time... 

	
-------------------------Message 1 ---------------------------------- 
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 21:10:51
From: Cristiano Broccias < C.Broccias at unige.it >
Subject: At the Same Time... 
 

AUTHOR: Schmiedtová, Barbara
TITLE: At the Same Time
SUBTITLE: The Expression of Simultaneity in Learner Varieties
SERIES: Studies on Language Acquisition 26
PUBLISHER: Mouton de Gruyter
YEAR: 2004
Announced at http://linguistlist.org/issues/16/16-1004.html 

Cristiano Broccias, Faculty of Modern Languages, University of Genoa 
(Italy)

This book studies how English and German learners of Czech express 
simultaneity, i.e. the partial or total overlap, between two events by way 
of explicit means. The monograph comprises nine chapters, which I will now 
summarise briefly, and an appendix of "materials", which includes 
descriptions of the five stimuli used in the quantitative analysis of this 
study.

SUMMARY

Chapter 1 (Simultaneity in native speaker and learner language)
This chapter offers a brief overview of the topic to be investigated, i.e. 
the explicit expression of simultaneity by adult English and German 
learners of Czech. Among the questions Schmiedtová intends to answer are 
(1) whether English speakers are better than German learners at using 
Czech aspect in the expression of simultaneity (since aspect is encoded 
grammatically in both languages, cf. the -ing form in English); (2) 
whether English speakers may in fact be misled by their grammatical aspect 
(since, although both Czech and English have grammatical aspect, the 
morphologically simple form in Czech is usually imperfective. By contrast, 
the morphologically simple form in English is taken to be perfective since 
the  -ing form has an imperfectivising function); (3) how aspect interacts 
with other strategies such as the use of temporal adverbials.

Chapter 2 (The notion of simultaneity and its categorization)
Schmiedtová defines simultaneity between two events as involving a "common 
subinterval on the time axis. Temporal boundaries need not coincide" 
(p.9). Next, she shows that simultaneity can be expressed either 
implicitly or explicitly. The latter case can be further subdivided into 
explicit marking of simultaneity by way of temporal devices (e.g. 
aspectual marking, temporal adverbials) and explicit marking of 
simultaneity by way of atemporal devices (e.g. spatial expressions, 
perception verbs). In the latter case, the simultaneity interpretation is 
context-dependent rather than part of the meaning of the sentence. The 
chapter concludes with a short discussion of aspect. Here the author 
points out that she subscribes to Klein's (1994) time-relational analysis 
of aspect (i.e. both tense and aspect are regarded as relational 
categories).

Chapter 3 (The expression of simultaneity in English, German and Czech)
This chapter discusses in some detail the various ways in which 
simultaneity can be expressed in English, German and Czech. Schmiedtová 
first analyzes explicit simultaneity marking by way of temporal devices in 
Czech. Czech speakers can use grammatical aspect, i.e. perfective vs. 
imperfective aspect - these two aspects are coded through specific 
prefixes and suffixes (such as "-va" for imperfectivity and "-nou" for 
perfectivity). Simultaneity can be expressed by either combining two 
imperfectives (aspectual juxtaposition) or contrasting an imperfective 
with a perfective (aspectual contrast). This strategy can be enriched by 
the use of other devices such as temporal connectives. Importantly, if two 
perfectives are used (i.e. without any additional simultaneity markers), a 
sequential reading ensues. The author then shows that the two strategies 
available in Czech, i.e. the use of aspectual marking and the use of 
temporal lexical items, are also possible in English. By contrast, German 
behaves differently because (im)perfective aspect is not grammaticalised. 
German relies mainly on lexical devices, i.e. temporal adverbials and 
connectives, but also avails itself of nominalisation and periphrastic 
constructions. The second part of this chapter discusses explicit 
atemporal means for the coding of simultaneity. They include particles, 
spatial expressions, verbs of perception and anaphors.

Chapter 4 (Experimental part)
Schmiedtová provides information on how she collected the simultaneity 
data to be examined in the following chapters. Schmiedtová used eleven 
television commercials which were retold by 40 learners (20 German 
speakers and 20 English speakers) and 20 native speakers of Czech. Each 
group of learners described the TV commercials (which generally did not 
involve any spoken language) both in their native languages (i.e. English 
or German) and in Czech. The second part of the chapter describes how the 
levels of proficiency of the two learner groups were evaluated. The author 
points out that she could not use any standard tests (p.108) so she had to 
devise an alternative method to assess the learners' proficiency in Czech. 
Her method was based on short warm-up interviews, the use of number 
marking and gender agreement between nouns and adjectives in the 
retellings, and, finally, the grading of the retellings by four examiners 
(one was the author herself). Out of the 20 English learners, 10 were 
classified as basic learners, 7 as medium learners, 3 as advanced 
learners. Out of the 20 German learners, 3 were classified as basic 
learners, 9 as medium learners, 8 as advanced learners. 

Chapter 5 (Coding and analysing data)
The author coded her data for eight independent variables, namely (1) 
number of learners performing the task first in their mother tongue and 
then in Czech (and vice versa), (2) age and number of participants, (3) 
gender, (4) stimulus set (only five out of the eleven commercials were 
used for the quantitative analysis although all eleven of them were used 
for the qualitative analysis), (5) language instruction (i.e. whether the 
subjects had received some tutored instruction in Czech), (6) level of 
proficiency (the author is aware that, given the low numbers of German 
beginners and English advanced learners, results related to these two 
groups may not be statistically significant), (7) source language and (8) 
knowledge of other Slavic languages. The chapter ends with some discussion 
of the dependent variables. For example, Schmiedtová distinguishes the 
following types of explicit temporal devices: aspectual marking, 
adverbials, phase verbs, prepositional phrases, when-clauses. Aspectual 
marking, in turn, is divided into simultaneity (i.e. aspectual contrast 
and aspectual juxtaposition) and sequentiality (i.e. two perfective marked 
verbs are used). Further, she identifies three patterns for the explicit 
expression of simultaneity: (1) the stronger aspectual style (i.e. only 
aspectual marking is used to code simultaneity), (2) the adverbial style 
(i.e. sequential aspectual marking is not used but temporal adverbials 
are), (3) the weaker aspectual style (i.e. aspectual marking is used in 
conjunction with other explicit temporal devices). 

Chapter 6 (Results: native speakers)
This chapter investigates how simultaneity is expressed by the subjects in 
their native languages. Schmiedtová finds that all native speakers prefer 
temporal means to atemporal means. In more detail, Czech speakers use more 
temporal devices than Germans and Germans use more temporal devices than 
English speakers. Further, both Czech speakers and English speakers favour 
the weaker aspectual style although the former use the stronger aspectual 
style more often than the latter (the difference is statistically 
significant). By contrast, Germans only use the adverbial style (since 
perfectivity vs. imperfectivity is not grammaticalised in their language).

Chapter 7 (Results: learners)
In this chapter, Schmiedtová presents the results of her investigation 
into how English and German learners express simultaneity when retelling 
the commercials in Czech. Both groups favour temporal devices, although 
not to the same extent as native speakers do. German learners, unlike 
English learners, show a tendency to use more temporal devices when 
retelling in Czech than in their native language. In this sense, 
Schmiedtová regards the German subjects as more target-oriented than the 
English subjects. The author then provides a more fine-grained analysis of 
the explicit temporal means, first by discussing the behaviour of the two 
groups irrespective of their proficiency levels and then by analysing her 
findings in terms of their linguistic competence in Czech. 

English speakers use aspectual marking much more than German learners and 
also more than Czech native speakers. In fact, English speakers mainly 
rely on the stronger aspectual style (this contrasts with their behaviour 
in their native language, where the weaker aspectual style is preferred). 
German learners slightly favour the adverbial style over the weaker 
aspectual style, while the stronger aspectual style is used much less 
(also in comparison with the English group). Schmiedtová concludes 
that "German learners seem to progress towards the target language [...] 
whereas English learners seem to depart [from it]." Another difference 
between the two groups involves the preferred use of aspectual contrast by 
German learners vs. the preferred use of aspectual juxtaposition by 
English learners. The two learner groups, however, behave similarly in 
that they use aspectual marking more often than they do in their native 
languages. Further, both groups mainly use the same type of additional 
explicit temporal devices in the weaker aspectual style (i.e. adverbials) 
and use fewer multiple combinations of explicit temporal devices compared 
to Czech speakers. 

Moving on to the analysis of the simultaneity data in relation to the 
learners' proficiency levels, Schmiedtová points out that English learners 
seldom use explicit atemporal devices. In fact, they do so less and less 
as their proficiency level increases. Therefore, the author regards the 
use of explicit atemporal means as a "fallback strategy". As to explicit 
temporal means, Schmiedtová observed a decrease in the use of the stronger 
aspectual style in favour of the weaker aspectual style from beginners to 
advanced learners (the stronger aspectual style is by far the favoured 
style by beginners. This contrasts with Hendriks's 1999 findings). 
Further, aspectual juxtaposition, although preferred over aspectual 
contrast at all levels of proficiency (contrary to what is the case both 
in English and Czech), decreases from beginners to advanced learners.

Next, Schmiedtová reports her findings as far as German learners are 
concerned. She points out that the trend in the use of explicit atemporal 
means by German learners is opposite to the one observed for English 
speakers: the higher the level of proficiency, the more German learners 
rely on explicit atemporal means. She concludes that the use of explicit 
atemporal means cannot therefore be regarded as a "fallback strategy" 
employed by beginners. By contrast, the use of explicit temporal means 
increases with the level of proficiency, as was also the case for English 
learners. In more detail, German beginners use only the adverbial style. 
This shows that at the basic level of proficiency both English and German 
learners are influenced by their native languages. English learners 
overuse the stronger aspectual style while German learners overuse the 
adverbial style. Intermediate German learners still prefer the adverbial 
style but also employ (in equal measure) the stronger aspectual style and 
the weaker aspectual style. A similar picture emerges for advanced 
learners although advanced learners employ a higher number of different 
lexical devices than the intermediate group. Although the results for both 
advanced English and advanced German learners are similar, Schmiedtová 
observes that the English group is less target-like than the German group 
in that they ignore the adverbial style.

Chapter 8 (Some explanatory factors)
The first part of this chapter focuses on the use of Czech aspect by the 
two groups of learners. Schmiedtová found that simplex imperfective verbs 
are preferred over simplex perfective verbs by both groups at all levels 
of proficiency. This is explained by the fact that Czech has more simplex 
imperfective verbs than simplex perfective verbs. The two groups differed 
however in that German learners used more derived perfective verbs than 
English learners and Czech speakers. English learners, on the other hand, 
derived both imperfective and perfective verbs equally well. Schmiedtová 
concludes that German learners focus on the derivation of aspect by 
prefixation while English learners focus on the derivation of aspect by 
suffixation. The author explains this contrast on the basis of 
her "perceptual saliency hypothesis", i.e. "learners pay attention to 
those features in the target language that are located in the same 
position as their counterparts in the source language" (p.245). Since 
German verbs are often prefixed, it follows that German learners should 
pay more attention to the left-side of verbs (i.e. derivation of aspect by 
prefixation in Czech). By contrast, since imperfectives in English are 
formed by suffixation, we expect English learners to pay more attention to 
the right-side of verbs (i.e. derivation of aspect by suffixation in 
Czech). This also means that the adverbial style cannot be regarded as the 
general device used by all learners of Czech. English learners, at the 
basic level, show a positive transfer of the English aspectual opposition. 
The use of the adverbial style by German learners should be analysed as a 
transfer from their native language. The chapter ends by showing that 
neither the type of instruction received (tutored vs. untutored) nor the 
knowledge of other Slavic languages influenced the use of aspect marking 
by English and German learners.

Chapter 9 (Conclusions)
The last chapter summarises the most important findings of this study and 
provides answers to the three questions mentioned in chapter 1 (see 
summary above). Schmiedtová concludes that it is easier for English 
learners to use Czech aspect at the basic level of proficiency (first 
question). However, English learners may be mislead by their native 
language at more advanced levels of proficiency in that they overuse the 
imperfective aspect and underuse the adverbial style. That is, at more 
advanced levels, German learners are more target-like than English 
learners (second question). Finally, German learner data show more 
interaction between explicit devices for expressing simultaneity.  

CRITICAL EVALUATION

This book is a welcome contribution to the study of simultaneity, which 
has not been the focus of much scholarly attention so far. The author 
shows that English and German speakers differ in how they learn to express 
simultaneity in Czech and tries to relate this difference to their 
respective native languages (via the perceptual saliency hypothesis).

Although this book is a must-read for all those interested in the 
expression of simultaneity and, more generally, in language acquisition, I 
have one major "formal" concern and various observations regarding the 
analyses provided in the book.

Unfortunately, the book does not seem to have been proofread properly. 
There are very numerous typos. Sometimes, they are just spelling mistakes 
(e.g. "wekaer", p.259, "oveall", p.253, "asepctual", p.228 and so on). 
Sometimes, they are un-English expressions (such as the numerous instances 
of "like in" instead of "as in", not to mention the use of 
German "schreiben" for English "write" on page 33). Sometimes, typos are 
of a more serious nature. For example, there are two notes marked as 81 in 
the text (p.164 and p.173) so that the reader must always add one to the 
number given for each note after the second instance of note 81 (up to the 
final note, which is 97 in the text but 98 in the Notes section) to find 
the corresponding text at the end of the book. Further, captions are 
sometimes incomplete (e.g. Fig.7.8 and Fig.7.11) and there are also 
problems with the use of punctuation (e.g. the comma after "Probably only" 
on page 1). All in all, one has the impression that the text was prepared 
rather hastily and one might feel inclined to recommend that a new edition 
be published which amends as many typos as possible. 

I must also point out that the content could have been organised in a more 
streamlined fashion. For example, the initial discussion of the various 
ways in which simultaneity can be expressed is excessively long, 
repetitive and sometimes confusing (e.g. the discussion of Aktionsart on 
pp.33-34). Some details could have been confined to footnotes. For 
example, the author mentions differences between the uses 
of "when", "while" and "as" but in the second part of the book she 
apparently conflates all cases where a temporal subordinator is employed 
under the label of "when-clauses". Since details about "when", "while" 
and "as" are not essential to the discussion, they could have been omitted 
from the text. (Incidentally, when Schmiedtová mentions "as" and "while" 
clauses in English, she states that "as" and "while" clauses require an 
imperfective form (p.63). This however is not correct. There are numerous 
cases where simultaneity "as" clauses do not employ the -ing form (for a 
preliminary analysis see Broccias, to appear)).

As a further illustration of problems involving the organisation and 
presentation of the material, consider the claim made on p.165 
that "explicit atemporal devices are not combined with explicit temporal 
devices in the English data". But, if I followed the author's discussion 
correctly, then examples (6.21)-(6.23) on pp.156-157 contradict this claim 
since aspect is marked explicitly (e.g. in (6.22) a perfect and an 
imperfect were used) and explicit atemporal devices are used as well 
(e.g. "there", "she", "back", "his").

This leads me to the more general point of how data are interpreted in 
this study. I think that the author should have stressed much more that, 
in the case of German beginners and English advanced learners, her data 
cannot be taken to be statistically significant (since the number of 
learners is only three in both cases). Also, I find it difficult to 
understand why the author evaluates the behaviour of both English and 
German speakers (see e.g. Fig. 7.5) using statistical tests if some data 
is too sparse to yield to statistical analysis. This also applies to the 
main conclusions drawn in the book. Since there are only three advanced 
English learners and three German beginners, the trends observed (e.g. 
absence of the adverbial style in the productions by advanced English 
learners) should be treated very cautiously.

Finally, the author might perhaps have devoted more space to the 
explanatory part of her study. For example, what factors might explain the 
fact that Schmiedtová arrived at conclusions different from those of 
Hendriks (1999)? Why does the knowledge of other Slavic languages seem to 
have no effect on the learners (one might want to argue that the 
perceptual saliency hypothesis should also involve non-native languages)? 
Also, the author does not really provide an answer to the question of why 
Czech native speakers use aspect marking in combination with other 
explicit devices (p.152). Could this be related to the fact that human 
languages often code information redundantly? Of course, one cannot expect 
the author to answer all these (and related) questions in her monograph. 
Still, it might have been useful to stress that they constitute topics for 
future investigation.

All in all, Schmiedtová's monograph is an important contribution to both 
the study of the expression of simultaneity and language acquisition in 
general. It raises many interesting questions and paves the way for future 
research which may involve other languages than Czech, English and German. 
It is unfortunate, however, that proofreading has been neglected and that, 
perhaps, a more streamlined structure has not been adopted. 

REFERENCES

Broccias, Cristiano. To appear. The construal of simultaneity in English 
with special reference to as-clauses. Annual Review of Cognitive 
Linguistics 4.

Hendriks, Henriëtte. 1999. The acquisition of temporal reference in first 
and second language acquisition: What children already know and adults 
still have to learn and vice versa. Psychology of Language and 
Communication 3: 41-59.

Klein, Wolfgang. 1994. Time in Language. London: Routledge. 

ABOUT THE REVIEWER 

Cristiano Broccias is a Research Fellow in English Language and 
Linguistics at the University of Genoa (Italy). He is interested in the 
description and cognitive linguistic analysis of English grammar, both 
synchronic and diachronic. His publications include a monograph on English 
change constructions, "The English Change Network: Forcing Changes into 
Schemas", Mouton de Gruyter, 2003.





-----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-16-2449