Integrating cognitive linguistics insights into data-driven learning: Teaching vertical prepositions

Abdurrahman Kilimci

Abstract


The present study investigates the impact of the integration of the Cognitive Linguistics (CL) pedagogy into Data-driven learning (DDL) on the learners’ acquisition of two sets of English spatial prepositions of verticality, over/under and above/below. The study followed a quasi-experimental design with a control and an experimental group including a pre-test, two instructional treatments, and a post and a delayed post-test for each group. A total of 52 students participated in a two-week instruction on the vertical prepositions. The treatment group (N=26) received a DDL-based CL-inspired instruction, which employed cognitive explanations based on the Principled Polysemy model and concordance activities. The control group (N=26), on the other hand, received traditional instruction (i.e. dictionaries, either electronic or print, as being the only resource). The groups were later compared with respect to their performance on pre-test, post-test and delayed post-test. The statistical analyses revealed that the two teaching methods, the traditional and the DDL-based CL-inspired instruction, helped the students significantly improve their knowledge of the vertical prepositions, yet the latter led to greater learning gains and better retention of knowledge.   The findings suggest that the combination of the two instructional pedagogies with the meaningful presentation of the senses of prepositions and the rich context provided for their uses, can be quite effective to teach spatial prepositions.


Keywords


data-driven learning; cognitive linguistics; principled polysemy model; vertical prepositions; concordance

Full Text:

PDF

References


Altenberg, B., & Granger, S. (2002). Recent trends in cross-linguistic lexical studies. In B. Altenberg & S. Granger (Eds.), Lexis in contrast: Corpus-based approaches (3-48). Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Balkan, A. (2016). A polysemy account of Turkish spatial noun ‘üst’ in dative case marker. In C. Periñán Pascual & E. M. Mestre-Mestre (Eds.). Understanding meaning and knowledge representation: from theoretical and cognitive linguistics to natural language processing (pp. 109-161). New Castle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

Beréndi, M., Csábi, S., & Kövecses, Z. (2008). Using conceptual metaphors and metonymies in vocabulary teaching. In G. Kristiansen, M. Achard, R. Dirven, & F. J. R. de M. Ibanez (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistic Approaches to Teaching Vocabulary and Phraseology (pp. 65-99). Berlin; New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow: Longman.

Boers, F., & Demecheleer, M. (1998). A cognitive semantic approach to teaching prepositions. ELT Journal, 52(3), 197–204.

Boers, F., & Lindstromberg, S. (2008). From empirical findings to pedagogical practice. In F. Boers & S. Lindstromberg (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistic Approaches to Teaching Vocabulary and Phraseology ( 375-393). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Boers, F. (2013). Cognitive semantic ways of teaching figurative phrases: an assessment. In F. Gonzalvez-Garcia, M. S. P. Cervel & L. P. Hernandez (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy revisited beyond the contemporary theory of metaphor: Recent developments and applications (pp. 229-263). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Boulton, A. (2010). Data-driven learning: On paper, in practice. Corpus Linguistics in Language Teaching, (2009), 17–52.

Bratož, S. (2014). Teaching English locative prepositions: a cognitive perspective. Linguistica, 54(1), 325-337.

Brugman, C. (1981). The story of over. MA thesis, Department of Linguistics, University of California, Berkeley.

Brugman, C. & Lakoff, G. (1988). Cognitive topology and lexical networks. In: Steven Small, Garrison Cottrell and Michael Tanenhaus (Eds.), Lexical Ambiguity Resolution (477–507). Palo Alto, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.

Celce-Murcia, M., & Larsen-Freeman, D. (1999). The grammar book: An ESL/EFL teacher’s course (2nd ed). Boston: Heinle and Heinle.

Cuyckens, H., & Zwada, B. (2001). Introduction. In Hubert C., & Britta Z. (Eds.), Polysemy in Cognitive Linguistics (ix-xxvii). Amsterdam; Philadelphia: Benjamins.

Dirven, R. (1993). Dividing up physical and mental space into conceptual categories by means of English prepositions. In C. Zelinski-Wibbelt (Ed.), The semantics of English prepositions: From mental processing to natural language processing (pp. 73–97). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Divjak, D., & Th. Gries, S. (2009). Corpus-based cognitive semantics: a contrastive study of phrasal verbs in English and Russian. In B. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk & K. Dziwirek (Eds.), Łódź studies in language: Vol. 18. Studies in cognitive corpus linguistics (pp. 273–296). Frankfurt am Main, New York: P. Lang.

Dodge, E., & Lakoff, G. (2005). Image schemas: From linguistic analysis to neural grounding. In B. Hampe & J. E. Grady (Eds.), From perception to meaning: Image schemas in Cognitive Linguistics (57-91). Berlin ; New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Evans, V., & Tyler, A. (2004). Rethinking English ‘Prepositions of Movement’: The Case of To and Through. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 18(1), 247–270.

Evans, V., & Tyler, A. (2005). Applying Cognitive Linguistics to pedagogical grammar: the English prepositions of verticality. Revista Brasileira de Linguistica Aplicada, 5(2), 11–42.

Evans, V., & Tyler, A. (2005). Applying Cognitive Linguistics to pedagogical grammar: the English prepositions of verticality. Revista Brasileira de Linguistica Aplicada, 5(2), 11–42.

Felice, R. De, & Pulman, S. G. (2008). A classifier-based approach to preposition and determiner error correction in L2 English. Computational Linguistics, (August), 169–176.

Gavioli, L. (2005). Exploring corpora for ESP learning. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Gethin, A. & E.V. Gunnemark. (1996) The Art and Science of Learning Languages. Oxford: Intellect.

Gilquin, G., & Granger, S. (2011). From EFL to ESL: Evidence from the International Corpus of Learner English. In Joybrato M. & Marianne H. (Eds.), Exploring Second-Language Varieties of English and Learner Englishes (55-78). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Gilquin, G. (2017). Applied cognitive linguistics and second/foreign language varieties: Towards an explanatory account. In: Jacqueline E. & Elena T. (Eds.), Usage-based Approaches to Language Acquisition and Language Teaching (47-71). Berlin: De Gruyter.

Givón, T. (1991). Markedness in grammar: Distributional, communicative and cognitive correlates of syntactic structure. Studies in Language, 15, 335–70.

Göksel, A., & Kerslake, C. (2005). Turkish: a comprehensive grammar. London: Routledge.

Geeraerts, D. (2006) Methodology in cognitive linguistics. In: G. Kristiansen, M.Achard, R. Driven, & F. J. R. de M. Ibanez (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics: current applications and future perspectives (21-49). Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Haladyna, T. M., & Rogriguez, M. C. (2013). Developing and validating test items. New York; London: Routledge.

House, J. (2008). Investigating Pragmatics in Foreign Language Learning, Teaching and Testing. In E. A. Soler & A. Martínez-Flor (Eds.), Investigating Pragmatics in Foreign Language Learning, Teaching and Testing (pp. 135-152). Bristol ; Buffalo ; Toronto: Multilingual Matters.

Hayward, W. G., & Tarr, M. J. (1995). Spatial language and spatial representation. Cognition, 55(1), 39–84.

Hermet, M., & Désilets, A. Using first and second language models to correct preposition errors in second language authoring. In J. Tetreault, J. Burstein, & C. Leacock (Eds.), the Fourth Workshop (pp. 64–72).

Herskovits, A. (1985). Semantics and Pragmatics of Locative Expressions. Cognitive Science, 9, 341–378.

Holme, R. (2009). Cognitive linguistics and language teaching. Basingstoke [England], New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Huang, Z. (2014). The effects of paper-based DDL on the acquisition of lexico-grammatical patterns in L2 writing. ReCALL, 26(02), 163–183.

Hunston, S. (2002). Corpora in applied linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Jarvis, S., & Pavlenko, A. (2008). Crosslinguistic Influence in Language and Cognition. New York; London: Routledge.

Johns, T. (1991). Should you be persuaded.: Two samples of data-driven learning materials. Classroom Concordancing: ELR Journal. (4), 1–16.

Johns,T. (1994). From printout to handout: grammar and vocabulary teaching in the context of Data-driven Learning. In T. Odlin (Ed.), Perspectives on Pedagogical Grammar (293–313). Cambridge: University Press.

J

ohnson, R. K. (1982). Prototype Theory, Cognitive Linguistics and Pedagogical Grammar. Working Papers in Linguistics and Language Training, 8, 12–24.

Kennedy, G. D. (2003). Structure and meaning in English: a guide for teachers. Harlow: Pearson Longman.

Kornfilt, J. (1997). Turkish. Routledge: London.

Lam, Y. (2009). Applying cognitive linguistics to teaching the Spanish prepositions por and para. Language Awareness, 18(1), 2–18.

Langacker, R. W. (2008). Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Leńko-Szymańska, A., & Boulton, A. (2015). Data-driven learning in language pedagogy. In Leńko-Szymańska, A., & Boulton (Eds.). Multiple Affordances of Language Corpora for Data-driven Learning (pp. 2-14). Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, Fire and Dangerous Things. What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Leech, G. (1992). Corpora and theories of linguistic performance. In J. Svartvik (Ed.), Directions in Corpus Linguistics. Proceedings of Nobel Symposium 82, Stockholm, 4–8 August 1991 (pp. 105–122). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Leung, M.W.K. (1991). Prototype Theory and Teaching English Prepositions, Perspectives (City University of Hong Kong) 3, 89–97.

Lindstromberg, S. (1996). Prepositions: meaning and method. ELT Journal, 50(3), 225–236.

Lindstromberg, S. (2001). Preposition entries in UK monolingual learner’s dictionar- ies: Problems and possible solutions. Applied Linguistics, 22 (1), 79-103.

Littlemore, J. (2009). Applying Cognitive Linguistics to Second

Language Learning and Teaching. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK.

Littlemore, J. (2006). Metaphoric Competence, Second Language Learning, and Communicative Language Ability. Applied Linguistics, 27(2), 268–294.

Liu, Dilin. (2013). Describing and explaining grammar and vocabulary in ELT: Key theories and effective practices. London/New York: Routledge.

Mahpeykar, N., & Tyler, A. (2011). The semantics of Farsi be: applying the principled polysemy model. Spatial Information Theory, 413-433.

MacArthur, F., & Littlemore, J. (2008). A discovery approach to figurative language learning with the use of corpora. In F. Boers & S. Lindstromberg (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistic Approaches to Teaching Vocabulary and Phraseology (pp. 159–88). Berlin; New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Meyer, C. F. (2002). English corpus linguistics an introduction. Cambridge, UK; New York: Cambridge University Press.

Mueller, C. M. (2011). English learners’ knowledge of prepositions: Collocational knowledge or knowledge based on meaning? System, 39(4), 480–490.

Mukherjee, J. (2004). Corpus data in a usage-based cognitive grammar. Language and Computers, 49(1), 85–100.

Mukherjee, J. (2006) Corpus linguistics and language pedagogy: The state of the art and beyond. In: Braun, S., Kohn, K. and Mukherjee, J. (Eds.), Corpus technology and language pedagogy: New resources, new tools, new methods (pp. 5-24). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.

Quirk, R. (1985). A Comprehensive grammar of the English language. London; New York: Longman.

Rauh, G. (1993). On the grammar of lexical and non-lexical prepositions in English. In C. Zelinsky-Wibbelt (Ed.). The Semantics of Prepositions: From Mental Processing to Natural Language Processing (pp. 99-150). Berlin · New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Richards, J. C., & Schmidt, R. (2010). Longman dictionary of language teaching and applied linguistics. Harlow: Longman.

Rosch, E. and Mervis, C.B. (1975). Cognitive representations of semantic categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 104, 192–233.

Rosch, Eleanor (1975) Cognitive representations of semantic categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 104: 192–233.

Römer, U. (2011). Corpus Research Applications in Second Language Teaching. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 205–225.

Sinclair, J. (2003) Reading concordances: an introduction. Harlow: Pearson Longman.

Sonbul, S., & Schmitt, N. (2010). Direct teaching of vocabulary after reading: is it worth the effort? ELT Journal, 64(3), 253–260.

Song, X., Schnotz, W., & Juchem-Grundmann, C. (2015) . A Cognitive Linguistic Approach to Teaching English Prepositions. In W. Schnotz, A. Kauertz, H. Ludwig, A. Müller & J. Pretsch, Multidisciplinary Research on Teaching and Learning (109-128). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Sovran, T. (2008) The logic of addition: Changes in the meaning of the Hebrew preposition ‘im’ (“with”). In D. Kurzon & S. Adler (Eds.), Adpositions: Pragmatic, semantic and syntactic perspectives (257-271). Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Taylor, J. R. (1988). Contrasting prepositional categories: English and Italian. In B. Rudzka-Ostyn (Ed.), Topics in cognitive linguistics (pp. 299–326). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Tobin, Y. (2008). A monosemic view of polysemic prepositions. In D. Kurzon & S. Adler (Eds.), Adpositions: Pragmatic, semantic and syntactic perspectives (257-271). Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Tribble, C. (2010). What are concordances and how are they used? In Anne O’Keeffe and Michael McCarthy (Eds.) The Routledge handbook of corpus linguistics (pp. 167-183). London; New York, NY: Routledge.

Tyler, A. & Evans, V. (2003). The semantics of English prepositions: Spatial scenes, embodied meaning and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Tyler, A., & Evans, V. (2004). Applying Cognitive Linguistics to Pedagogical Grammar: The Case of Over. In M. Achard & S. Niemeier (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics, Second Language Acquisition, and Foreign Language Teaching (pp. 257–280). Berlin, Boston: Mouton de Gruyter.

Tyler, A. (2011). Applying cognitive linguistics to learning the semantics of English to, for and at: An experimental investigation. Vigo International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 8(Special Issue), 181–205.

Tyler, A., Mueller, C., & Ho, V. (2011). Applying cognitive linguistics to learning the semantics of English to, for and at: An experimental investigation. Vigo International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 8(1), 181–205.

Tyler, A. (2010). Usage-based approaches to language and their applications to second language learning. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 30, 270-291.


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


  Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies
ISSN 1305-578X (Online)
Copyright © 2005-2017 by Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies