Typological Constraints on Motion Event Encoding: Path Satellite Usages and the Perspectives of Turkish EFL Learners

Abstract

This study aims to investigate how Turkish EFL learners encode motion events in English, with a particular focus on path satellites. As Turkish is a verb-framed language and English satellite-framed, Turkish learners of English often struggle with adopting the canonical verbalization patterns of motion event descriptions in English. With an explanatory, sequential mixed-methods design, this study first quantitatively identifies patterns of motion event descriptions produced by Turkish EFL learners and their use or omission of path satellites. Quantitative data were collected from 25 senior students studying at an ELT department of a state university in Türkiye. Secondly, to deepen the understanding of the underlying linguistic and cognitive factors of these tendencies, it uses qualitative data collected from 6 of the participants through semi-structured interviews. The findings provide valuable insights into cross-linguistic influences in second language acquisition, enlightening how typological differences between L1 and L2 affect learners’ descriptions in their L2. Furthermore, instructional strategies such as “visual aids and dynamic video materials, role-play and kinesthetic practice of motion verbs”, and “explicit instruction on cross-linguistic differences” are proposed to help Turkish EFL learners enhance their motion event descriptions in English.

Keywords

• motion verbs
• path satellites
• English
• Turkish
• verb-framed
• satellite-framed

Devinim Olaylarının Kodlanmasında Tipolojik Kısıtlamalar: Yabancı Dil Olarak İngilizce Öğrenen Türk Öğrenicilerinin Yol Uyduları Kullanımı ve Bakış Açıları

Abstract

Bu çalışma, yabancı dil olarak İngilizce öğrenen Türk öğrenicilerinin İngilizcede devinim olaylarını nasıl kodladıklarını, özellikle yol uydularına odaklanarak incelemeyi amaçlamaktadır. Türkçenin fiil-çerçeveli, İngilizcenin ise uydu-çerçeveli bir dil olması nedeniyle, Türk İngilizce öğrenenleri İngilizcede devinim olaylarının betimlenmesinde kullanılan kanonik sözelleştirme örüntülerini benimsemede sıklıkla güçlük yaşamaktadır. Açıklayıcı ve sıralı karma yöntemli bir araştırma deseni benimseyen bu çalışmada, ilk olarak yabancı dil olarak İngilizce öğrenen Türk öğrenicileri tarafından üretilen devinim olayı betimlemelerindeki örüntüler ile yol uydularının kullanımı ya da ihmal edilmesi nicel olarak belirlenmiştir. Nicel veriler, Türkiye’de bir devlet üniversitesinin İngilizce Öğretmenliği bölümünde öğrenim gören 25 son sınıf öğrencisinden toplanmıştır. İkinci aşamada ise, bu eğilimlerin altında yatan dilsel ve bilişsel etmenlerin daha derinlemesine anlaşılabilmesi amacıyla, katılımcıların 6’sı ile yarı yapılandırılmış görüşmeler yoluyla elde edilen nitel veriler kullanılmıştır. Bulgular, ikinci dil ediniminde dillerarası etkiler hakkında önemli içgörüler sunmakta ve ana dil ile hedef dil arasındaki tipolojik farklılıkların öğrenenlerin hedef dildeki betimlemelerini nasıl etkilediğini ortaya koymaktadır. Ayrıca, yabancı dil olarak İngilizce öğrenen Türk öğrenicilerinin İngilizcede devinim olayı betimlemelerini geliştirmelerine yardımcı olmak amacıyla “görsel destekler ve dinamik video materyalleri, devinim fiillerinin rol oynama ve kinestetik uygulamalarla çalışılması” ile “dillerarası farklılıklara yönelik açık öğretim” gibi öğretimsel stratejiler önerilmektedir.

Keywords

• devinim fiilleri
• yol uyduları
• İngilizce
• Türkçe
• fiil-çerçeveli
• uydu-çerçeveli

References

1. Aktan Erciyes, A. (2020). Effects of second language on motion event lexicalization: Comparison of bilingual and monolingual children’s frog story narratives. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 16(3), 1127-1145. https://doi.org/10.17263/jlls.803576
2. Badem, N. (2020). A comparative study of motion verbs used by Turkish EFL learners in their L1 and L2. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Çukurova University, Adana, Türkiye.
3. Banaruee, H., Khatin-Zadeh, O., & Farsani, D. (2023). Motion events in English textbooks: a cross-linguistic analysis of Path. Frontiers in Education (8)1222549. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.1222549
4. Costa Silva, J., Zhang, S., & Lee-Schoenfeld, V. (2025). The effects of bilingual proficiency on the acceptability of motion encoding strategies. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 28(2), 444-456. https://doi.org/10.1017/S136672892400052X
5. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. SAGE Publications.
6. Demirtaş, A. D. (2009). Motion event descriptions in English by Turkish EFL instructors. (Unpublished master’s thesis). Anadolu University, Eskişehir, Türkiye.
7. Dobreva, R., Holtz, A., Birch, A., & Keller, F. (2025). Path encoding and manner salience in motion event descriptions: the case of Bulgarian and English. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (Vol. 47). Retrieved from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/62g152bz
8. Durmuş, S. (2016). What does Tom reveal about the acquisition of motion verbs in Turkish? In É. Á. Csató, B. Karakoç & A. Menz (Eds.), The Uppsala Meeting: Proceedings of the 13th International Turkish Linguistics Conference (pp. 80-88). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag. Retrieved from www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctvc770dc.14

9. Duruk, E. (2015). Turkish EFL learners’ naming motion events in English. International Journal of English Language Teaching, 4(1), 47-55.
10. Ibarretxe Antuñano, I., Cadierno, T., & Hijazo-Gascón, A. (2016). The role of force dynamics and intentionality in the reconstruction of L2 verb meanings: A Danish-Spanish bidirectional study. Review of Cognitive Linguistics. Published under the auspices of the Spanish Cognitive Linguistics Association, 14(1), 136–160. https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.14.1.06iba
11. İşler, Z. N. (2014). EFL learners’ use of path elements in motion event expressions: A study on Turkish university students. (Unpublished master’s thesis). Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Türkiye.
12. İşler, C. (2022). Linguistic typology in motion events: Expression of motion events in translated versions of Turkish and English novels. Litera: Journal of Language, Literature and Culture Studies, 32(2), 833-859. https://doi.org/10.26650/LITERA2021-1019820
13. Jarvis, S., & Pavlenko, A. (2008). Crosslinguistic influence in language and cognition. New York: Routledge.
14. Kilimci, A. (2017). The impact of explicit instruction and metalinguistic awareness on cross-linguistic interference: Path framing in motion events. Gaziantep University Journal of Social Sciences, 16(4), 1119-1133. https://doi.org/10.21547/jss.336882
15. Lai, V. T., Rodriguez, G. G., & Narasimhan, B. (2014). Thinking-for-speaking in early and late bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 17(1), 139-152. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728913000151
16. Lenneberg, E. H. (1967). Biological Foundations of Language. New York: Wiley.
17. Lewandowski, W. (2021). Variable motion event encoding within languages and language types: A usage-based perspective. Language and Cognition, 13(1), 34-65. https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2020.25
18. Łozińska, J. (2019). The expression of path in three satellite-framed languages. A cognitive study of Polish, Russian, and English. Jezikoslovlje, 20(1.), 31-61. https://doi.org/10.29162/jez.2019.2
19. Mengali, R. (2020). (Re) pensando o estilo retórico para expressar o Movimento: Noções aplicáveis ao ensino do português como língua estrangeira. Cadernos de Pós-Graduação em Letras, 20(3), 64-75. Retrieved from https://editorarevistas.mackenzie.br/index.php/cpgl/article/view/13946
20. Oliveira, A., Carvalho, L. M., & Fernandes, R. (2025). The expression of the manner of motion in Portuguese and other languages: a Bayesian statistical analysis of oral narratives. Journal of Speech Sciences, 14(00), e025013. https://doi.org/10.20396/joss.v14i00.20429
21. Önal, P. (2022). A Contrastive Study on Motion Events: Encoding Manner and Path Information in English and Turkish. Overtones Ege Journal of English Studies, (1), 9-22.
22. Özcalışkan, S., & Slobin, D. I. (1999). Learning how to search for the frog: Expression of manner of motion in English, Spanish, and Turkish. In A. Greenhill, H. Littlefield & C. Tano (Eds.), Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 541-552). Sommerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
23. Özçalışkan, Ş., & Emerson, S. N. (2016). Learning to think, talk, and gesture about motion in language-specific ways: Insights from Turkish. In The Acquisition of Turkish in Childhood (pp. 177-191). John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/tilar.20.08ozc
24. Özyürek, A., & Kita, S. (1999). Expressing manner and path in English and Turkish: Differences in speech, gesture, and conceptualization. Proceedings of the Twenty-first Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 507-512). Psychology Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410603494
25. Özyürek, A., & Özcalışkan, S. (2000). How do children learn to conflate manner and path in their speech and gestures? Differences in English and Turkish. In E. V. Clark (Eds.), The proceedings of the Thirtieth Child Language Research Forum (pp. 77-85). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. Retrieved from https://hdl.handle.net/2066/159435
26. Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. IRAL-International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 10(1-4), 209-232.
27. Selinker, L., & Gass, S. M. (2008). Second language acquisition. Lawrence Erlhaum Ass.
28. Slobin, D. I. (1991). Learning to think for speaking: Native language, cognition, and rhetorical style. Pragmatics, 1(1), 7-25. https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.1.1.01slo
29. Slobin, D. I. (1996a). From 'thought and language' to 'thinking for speaking'. In J. J. Gumperz & S. C. Levinson (Eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity (pp. 70-96). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
30. Slobin, D. I. (1996b). Two ways to travel: Verbs of motion in English and Spanish. In M. Shibatani & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Grammatical constructions: Their form and meaning (pp. 195-219). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
31. Slobin, D. I. (2003). Language and thought online: Cognitive consequences of linguistic relativity. In D. Gentner & S. Goldin-Meadow (Eds.), Language in mind: Advances in the study of language and thought, (pp. 157-192). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
32. Slobin, D. I. (2004). The many ways to search for a frog. In S. Strömqvist & L. Verhoeven (Eds.), Relating events in narrative, volume 2: Typological and contextual perspectives (pp. 219-257). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
33. Slobin, D. I. (2005). Relating narrative events in translation. In D. D. Ravid & H. B. Shyldkrot (Eds.), Perspectives on language and language development: Essays in honor of Ruth A. Berman (pp. 115-129). Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
34. Soroli, E. (2012). Variation in spatial language and cognition: exploring visuo-spatial thinking and speaking cross-linguistically. Cognitive Processing, 13(1), 333-337. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-012-0494-4
35. Spring, R., & Horie, K. (2013). How cognitive typology affects second language acquisition: A study of Japanese and Chinese learners of English. Cognitive Linguistics, 24(4), 689-710. https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2013-0024
36. Stam, G. (2015). Changes in thinking for speaking: A longitudinal case study. The Modern Language Journal, 99(S1), 83-99. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2015.12180.x
37. Talmy, L. (1985). Lexicalization patterns: Semantic structure in lexical forms. Language typology and syntactic description, 3(99), 36-149.
38. Talmy, L. (2000) Toward a cognitive semantics. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
39. Toplu, A. B. (2011). Linguistic expression and conceptual representation of motion events in Turkish, English and French: An experimental study. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Türkiye.
40. Yıldırım, E. (2016). Conceptual transfer of event frames: The case of motion verbs in the L2. (Unpublished master’s thesis). Yeditepe University, İstanbul, Türkiye.