WA Friday lunch talks, April 21, 1.30 p.m., room 601A - Talks by Dr Paweł Korpal & Mgr Katarzyna Jankowiak and Dr Katarzyna Wiercińska & Dr Robertus de Louw

Paweł Korpal
Katarzyna Jankowiak

“It makes me sad but mostly in my native language”: On emotional language processing in L1 and L2

Previous research has shown a decreased sensitivity to emotionally laden linguistic stimuli presented in the non-native language (L2) compared to the native tongue (L1; Harris 2004; Caldwell-Harris & Ayçiçeği-Dinn 2009; Peters et al. 2015; Pavlenko 2012). Studies conducted thus far have however not been devoted to examining how different modalities modulate L1 and L2 emotional language processing. The present experiment was therefore aimed at investigating the processing of native and non-native emotional stimuli in both visual and auditory modality by means of employing the GSR (galvanic skin response) method. To this aim, Polish (L1) – English (L2) late proficient bilinguals (N = 27) were exposed to Polish and English emotionally laden texts presented in the visual and auditory modality. GSR findings showed the effect of language (p < .001), with an increased galvanic skin response for the native relative to the non-native language. Additionally, we observed a more pronounced skin conductance level in response to visual compared to auditory stimuli, yet only in L1 (p = .003). The obtained results corroborate previously observed research findings, suggesting a decreased reactivity to emotionally laden stimuli presented in the non-native language. The preference for the visual over auditory modality in L1 will be discussed within the self-reference effect (Craik and Lockhart 1972; Rogers et al. 1977) that could potentially be modulated by both language and modality.

References:

Caldwell-Harris, C. L. & A. Ayçiçeği-Dinn. (2009). Emotion and lying in a non-native language. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 71(3), 193-204.
Craik, F. I. M. & R. S. Lockhart. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal behavior, 11, 671-684.
Harris, C. L. (2004). Bilingual speakers in the lab: Psychophysiological measures of emotional reactivity. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 25(2), 223-247.     
Pavlenko, A. (2012). Affective processing in bilingual speakers: Disembodied cognition? International Journal of Psychology, 47(6), 405-428.
Peters, S., K. Wilson, T. W. Boiteau, C. Gelormini-Lezama & A. Almor. (2015). Do you hear it now? A native advantage for sarcasm processing. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 19(2), 400-414.
Rogers, T. B., N. Kuiper & W. S. Kirker. (1977). Self-reference and the encoding of personal information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35(9): 677-678.

The aim of today’s talks is to present comparative research on the Dutch language conducted at the Department of Dutch and South African Studies.

dr Katarzyna Wiercińska

Diminutives in politeness strategies in the Netherlands and Belgium

When it comes to the differences between Dutch spoken in the Netherlands and in Flanders, the Dutch-speaking part of Belgium, we talk especially about vocabulary, pronunciation and grammar differences, but too little about style differences like the way we communicate certain things in everyday conversations. In this talk I will look at the use of diminutives in politeness strategies in the Netherlands and in Flanders using a corpus of eight contemporary films from Belgium and the Netherlands (four original versions and four that are their Dutch or Flemish remakes). The corpus material shows that there is a visible difference in both the quantitative and qualitative use of diminutives in the Netherlands and in Belgium. Besides its primary function, the diminutive has several pragmatic functions in both varieties of Dutch, however it is more frequently used in certain contexts in Belgium. This corresponds with the use of diminutives in politeness strategies. While the Dutch and Flemish use diminutives in a similar way in positive politeness strategies, there is quite a clear difference in the negative strategies.

dr Robert de Louw

I am currently involved in two research projects, which are both comparative by nature: one concerns the McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ) and its renditions into Polish and Dutch, while the aim of the other one is to examine the role of (the unrelated) L1 and (related) L2 in the acquisition of LX. In my talk, I would like to zoom in on the former, which, in fact, is a series of three studies.

The MPQ and its renditions into Polish and Dutch

The McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ), a tool used by specialists to let their patients describe the pain they (have) experience(d), has been rendered into different languages, mostly either as a literal translation or as a cultural adaptation. Two examples include the Polish version offered by Sedlak and the Dutch-language version(s) respectively. In the first (already completed) study, a detailed description of how the aforementioned renditions were created and what influence the chosen approach had on the final version is given. This is done by drawing on Fleck’s theory of scientific facts and thought collectives. Also, a comparison of the distribution of the pain descriptors in the three versions of the MPQ has allowed for an invaluable insight into the ‘while-rendition processes’ that regulate modifications made to the form and content of the translated/adapted text. In the second study, which is still work in progress, the focus is on the MPQ’s ‘adjectival descriptor + pain/pijn/ból’ collocations (in English, Dutch, and Polish respectively), as analyzed from a morphological and semantic point of view. Morphologically, the English descriptors emerge as most homogeneous and thus the least complex analytically, the Dutch ones seem to be more heterogeneous (due to prefixation and/or suffixation), and the Polish ones appear to be most heterogeneous since inflectional and derivational processes are conflated in complex ways to the effect of producing fine-grained meanings/concepts. Semantically, however, the analysis may turn out to be equally painstaking (pun premeditated) for all three versions. In the last study, which is based on the premise that the aforementioned ‘pain/pijn/ból’ collocations are in fact metaphors, a lexico-cognitive analysis of pain descriptors in the MPQ and its renditions into Polish and Dutch will be attempted.