Descriptions of figure-ground relationships by native Dutch speakers: influences of language and attention

In order to find out more about figure-ground relationships in motion events, the central question for this study was whether describing a figure-ground motion event influences the degree to which participants remember a video. Choi, Goller, Hong, Ansorge and Yun (2018) found a difference between German and Korean speakers with regard to how they encode different aspects of figure-ground relationships in their speech. This study aims to build on the findings of Choi et al. (2018) and make a small contribution to the question how figure-ground relationships are encoded in speakers’ minds in different languages. To investigate this, 54 target videos were created, divided over 9 different categories that all depicted a different motion type. Two versions of each video were created, one depicting a canonical direction of motion and the other a reverse direction. In the first part of the experiment, the description task, two groups of participants were given a different task. The motion...Show moreIn order to find out more about figure-ground relationships in motion events, the central question for this study was whether describing a figure-ground motion event influences the degree to which participants remember a video. Choi, Goller, Hong, Ansorge and Yun (2018) found a difference between German and Korean speakers with regard to how they encode different aspects of figure-ground relationships in their speech. This study aims to build on the findings of Choi et al. (2018) and make a small contribution to the question how figure-ground relationships are encoded in speakers’ minds in different languages. To investigate this, 54 target videos were created, divided over 9 different categories that all depicted a different motion type. Two versions of each video were created, one depicting a canonical direction of motion and the other a reverse direction. In the first part of the experiment, the description task, two groups of participants were given a different task. The motion description group (18 participants, L1 Dutch, 16 participants L2 English, 2 participants L2 French, Bulgarian and/or Japanese) was asked to describe the motions they saw in a video, the object description group (24 participants, L1 Dutch, L2 English, 10 participants L2 French, German, Italian and/or Swedish) got the task to describe the objects. Participants filled out a language background questionnaire during part two, the intermission, and in part three, the recall task, participants from both groups had to judge whether they had seen a video during the first part or not. For each category in the recall task there were 2 true videos (videos participants had seen before in the description task) and 4 deviant videos (videos they had not seen before in the description task). A repeated measures ANOVA was conducted for which proportion correct, category type, exposure status (true or deviant), canonicity (canonical or reverse) and participant group (motion or object description) were entered as variables. The results showed that while there was no difference between the groups, there were differences between the put over/under category and the hook category, the put on loose support and the put through category, the put on tight attachment and put through, and the put through and hook category, and whether the videos were true or deviant. I conclude that these factors influence the amount of correct judgments the participants make and discuss what the implications for these conclusions might be in the context of the influence of language on cognition.Show less

Leiden University Student Repository

Documents

In Collections

Descriptions of figure-ground relationships by native Dutch speakers: influences of language and attention