The purpose of the present study was to examine the encoding of motion in the two languages of Russian-English bilinguals who differed in their ages of arrival in the United States. Three groups of participants took part in the study: 38 L1 Russian speakers, 31 L1 English speakers and 30 Russian-English bilinguals who differed in the ages of arrival in the US (10 early, 10 childhood, and 10 late bilinguals). The participants produced oral narratives elicited with two books, Frog, Where Are You? (Mayer, 1969) and One Frog Too Many (Mayer & Mayer, 1975), with bilingual participants producing narratives in both of their languages. Quantitative and qualitative analyses of the data revealed several differences between L1 Russian and English speakers, including the obligatory encoding of manner of motion in Russian but not in English, where narrators also used generic motion verbs, such as to come or to go. In the context of these differences bilinguals in all three groups were shown to perform in accordance with specific language constraints in both of their languages. At the same time, Russian-English bilinguals used fewer motion verbs in L1 Russian and displayed lower levels of lexical diversity than L1 Russian speakers. The analyses revealed no effects of the age of arrival on the maintenance of L1 Russian, nor of the L1 Russian on the motion talk in L2 English. The findings of the study deepen our understanding of motion encoding in bilingual speakers. They also have important theoretical implications, suggesting that Talmy's dichotomy may be too broad in grouping together languages, such as Russian and English, which display dramatic differences in encoding of motion. / CITE/Language Arts

Motion events are ubiquitous in conversation, from describing a tiresome commute to recounting a burglary. These situations, where an entity changes location, consist of four main semantic components: Motion (the movement), Figure (the entity moving), Ground (the object or objects with respect to which the Figure carries out the Motion) and Path (the route taken). Two additional semantic components can occur simultaneously: Manner (the way the Motion occurs) and Cause (the source of/reason for the Motion). Languages differ in preferences for provision and packaging of semantic components in descriptions. It has been suggested, in the thinking-for-speaking hypothesis, that these preferences influence the conceptualisation of events (such as their memorisation). This thesis addresses questions relating to the description and memory of Motion events in British Sign Language (BSL) and English. It compares early BSL (acquired before age seven) and late BSL (acquired after age 16) descriptions of Motion events and investigates whether linguistic preferences influence memory. Comparing descriptions by early signers and late signers indicates where their linguistic preferences differ, providing valuable knowledge for interpreters wishing to match early signers. Understanding how linguistic preferences might influence memory contributes to debates around the connection between language and thought. The experimental groups for this study were: deaf early BSL signers, hearing early BSL signers, deaf late BSL signers, hearing late BSL signers and hearing English monolinguals. Participants watched target Motion event video clips before completing a memory and attention task battery. Subsequently, they performed a forced-choice recognition task where they saw each target Motion event clip again alongside a distractor clip that differed in one semantic component. They selected which of the two clips they had seen in the first presentation. Finally, participants were filmed describing all of the target and distractor video clips (in English for English monolinguals and BSL for all other groups). The Motion event descriptions were coded for the inclusion and packaging of components. Linguistic descriptions were compared between languages (English and BSL) and BSL group. Statistical models were created to investigate variation on the memory and attention task battery and the recognition task. Results from linguistic analysis reveal that English and BSL are similar in the components included in descriptions. However, packaging differs between languages. English descriptions show preferences for Manner verbs and spatial particles to express Path ('run out'). BSL descriptions show preferences for serial verb constructions (using Manner and Path verbs in the same clause). The BSL groups are also similar in the components they include in descriptions. However, the packaging differs, with hearing late signers showing some English-like preferences and deaf early signers showing stronger serial verb preferences. Results from the behavioural experiments show no overall relationship between language group and memory. I suggest that the similarity of information provided in English and BSL descriptions undermines the ability of the task to reveal memory differences. However, results suggest a link between individual linguistic description and memory; marking a difference between components in linguistic description is correlated with correctly selecting that component clip in the recognition task. I argue that this indicates a relationship between linguistic encoding and memory within each individual, where their personal preference for including certain semantic components in their utterances is connected to their memory for those components. I also propose that if the languages were more distinct in their inclusion of information then there may have been differences in recognition task scores. I note that further research is needed across modalities to create a fuller picture of how information is included and packaged cross-modally and how this might affect individual Motion event memory.

Spanish, as a V(erb)-framed language (Talmy 1985), is expected to lexicalize the path of motion in the verb and manner in some satellite when it comes to the description of motion events. Nonetheless, it shows mixed properties (e.g. Aske 1989, Berman & Slobin 1994). All manner of motion verbs can take a path satellite introduced by the prepositions "hacia" and "hasta", and yet only some can take a path satellite introduced by the preposition "a." I claim that goal XPs introduced by "hasta" and "hacia" are adjuncts, whereas "a" is an argument marker. In order to capture the intermediacy of a verb’s ability to take a goal XP, I classify manner of motion verbs according to a three-way distinction that takes into account whether they encode path categorically, overwhelmingly, or only sometimes, and whether they lexically reject the notion of a goal. Finally, I posit verb coercion—under certain semantic and pragmatic conditions—of manner of motion verbs that strongly or categorically favor displacement in order to express a goal. These semantic/pragmatic influential factors are reduced to (i) degree of manner and (ii) degree of goal-orientedness. / text