Advertisement

Cognitive Linguistics and Foreign Language Pedagogy: An Overview of Recent Trends and Developments

  • Jakub BielakEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Second Language Learning and Teaching book series (SLLT)

Abstract

This paper attempts to provide a state-of-the-art overview of research concerning the application of Cognitive Linguistics (CL) to foreign language pedagogy. The quantitative and qualitative growth of research on such applications has been so extensive as to give rise to the emergence of a subfield of Applied Cognitive Linguistics (ACL). This has been possible perhaps due to the existence of large areas of common ground between CL on the one hand and Applied Linguistics (AL) and Foreign Language Teaching (FLT) on the other, which are duly reviewed. Also surveyed are the numerous claims that CL is able to provide solutions to certain problems and dilemmas encountered in AL and FLT. This gives an idea of what CL might contribute to language teaching. Further contributions of this sort emerge from the review of the manifold recent theoretical proposals and empirical studies concerning the application in FLT of such central notions of CL as radial categories, prototype effects, metaphor, metonymy, embodiment, constructions and encyclopedic semantics. These applications have to do with teaching such essential L2 features as vocabulary, including phraseology and figurative language, grammar, phonology, reading, writing and speech acts. The advantages and problems of the applications are considered. Also, numerous samples of teaching practice inspired by CL are presented. Rather than being a totally new methodology, ACL seems to support and stimulate certain established aspects of FLT, lending them its own idiosyncratic turn. Previous ACL research needs to be complemented by further efforts according to an emerging research agenda.

Keywords

Conceptual Metaphor Foreign Language Teaching Cognitive Linguistic Embody Cognition Phrasal Verb 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Abbuhl, R. J. 2005. The effect of feedback and instruction on writing quality: Legal writing and advanced L2 learners. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Georgetown University, Washington DC.Google Scholar
  2. Achard, M. 2004. Grammatical instruction in the natural approach: A cognitive grammar view. In Cognitive linguistics, second language acquisition, and foreign language teaching, eds. M. Achard and S. Niemeier, 165–194. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Achard, M. 2008. Teaching construal: Cognitive pedagogical grammar. In Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition, eds. P. Robinson and N. C. Ellis, 432-455. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  4. Alejo, R. 2008. The acquisition of English phrasal verbs by L2 learners: A cognitive linguistic account. Paper presented at the LAUD Symposium on Cognitive Approaches to Second/Foreign Language Processing: Theory and Pedagogy. Landau, Germany, March 2008.Google Scholar
  5. Allbritton, D. W., G. McKoon and R. Gerrig. 1995. Metaphor-based schemas and text representations: Making connections through conceptual metaphors. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 21: 612-625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Asher, J. 1979. Learning another language through actions: The complete teacher’s guide book. Sam Jose, CA: AccuPrint.Google Scholar
  7. Barcelona, A. ed. 2003. Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  8. Barcelona, A. 2010. Metonymic inferencing and second language acquisition. In Applied cognitive linguistics in second language learning and teaching (AILA Review 23), eds. J. Littlemore and C. Juchem-Grundmann, 134-154. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  9. Benson, P. 2001. Teaching and researching autonomy in language learning. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.Google Scholar
  10. Benson P. and P. Voller, eds. 1997. Autonomy and independence in language learning. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  11. Bielak, J. 2007. Applying cognitive grammar in the classroom: Teaching English possessives. In Exploring focus on form in language teaching (Special issue of Studies in Pedagogy and Fine Arts), ed. M. Pawlak, 113-134. Poznań: Wydział Pedagogiczno-Artystyczny UAM.Google Scholar
  12. Boers, F. 2000. Metaphor awareness and vocabulary retention. Applied Linguistics 21: 553-571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Boers, F. 2001. Remembering figurative idioms by hypothesizing about their origins. Prospect 16: 35–43.Google Scholar
  14. Boers, F. and S. Lindstromberg. 2006. Cognitive linguistic applications in second or foreign language instruction: Rationale, proposals and evaluation. In Cognitive linguistics: Current applications and future perspectives, eds. G. Kristiansen, M. Achard, R. Dirven and F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, 305-355. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  15. Boers, F., J. Eyckmans, J. Kappel, H. Stengers and M. Demecheleer. 2006. Formulaic sequences and perceived oral proficiency: Putting a lexical approach to the test. Language Teaching Research 10: 245–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Broccias, C. 2008. Cognitive linguistic theories of grammar and grammar teaching. In Cognitive approaches to pedagogical grammar, eds. S. De Knop and T. De Rycker, 67-90. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  17. Cadierno, T. 2008. Motion events in Danish and Spanish: A focus on form pedagogical approach. In Cognitive approaches to pedagogical grammar, eds. S. De Knop and T. De Rycker, 259-294. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  18. Chen, L. and J. W. Oller. 2008. The use of passives and alternatives in English by Chinese speakers. In Cognitive approaches to pedagogical grammar, eds. S. De Knop and T. De Rycker, 385-415. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  19. Channell, J. 1994. Vague language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Condon, N. 2008. How cognitive linguistic motivations influence the learning of phrasal verbs. In Cognitive linguistic approaches to teaching vocabulary and phraseology, eds. F. Boers and S. Lindstromberg, 133-158. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  21. Csábi, S. 2004. A cognitive linguistic view of polysemy in English and its implications for teaching. In Cognitive linguistics, second language acquisition, and foreign language teaching, eds. M. Achard and S. Niemeier, 233-256. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Dirven, R. 1989. Cognitive linguistics and pedagogical grammar. In Linguistic theorizing and grammar writing, eds. G. Leitner and G. Graustein, 56-75. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar
  23. Dirven, R. 2005. Major strands in cognitive linguistics. In Cognitive linguistics: Internal dynamics and interdisciplinary interaction, eds. F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez and M. S. Peña Cervel, 17-68. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  24. Ellis, N. 1998. Emergentism, connectionism and language learning. Language Learning 48: 631-664.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Fillmore, C. 1977. Scenes-and-frames semantics. In Linguistic structures processing, ed. A. Zampolli, 55-82. Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
  26. Goddard, C. 2004. “Cultural scripts”: A new medium for ethnographic instruction. In Cognitive linguistics, second language acquisition, and foreign language teaching, eds. M. Achard and S. Niemeier, 143-163. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Goldberg, A. E. 1995. Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  28. Hama, M. 2005. The effects of the minilesson on advanced learners’ acquisition of English modals: A case study. Unpublished manuscript, Georgetown University, Washington DC.Google Scholar
  29. Holme, R. 2004. Mind, metaphor and language teaching. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  30. Holme, R. 2009. Cognitive linguistics and language teaching. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Holme, R. 2010. Construction grammars: Towards a pedagogical model. In Applied cognitive linguistics in second language learning and teaching (AILA Review 23), eds. J. Littlemore and C. Juchem-Grundmann, 115-133. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  32. Holme, R. and J. King. 2000. Teaching through metaphor: Towards a learner-friendly language. In Patterns and perspectives: Insights into EAP writing practice, eds. P. Robinson and P. Thompson, 117-130. Reading: Reading University CALS.Google Scholar
  33. Huong, Nguyen Thu. 2005. Vietnamese learners mastering English articles. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Groningen. (http://dissertations.ub.rug.nl/FILES/faculties/ppsw/2005/h.n.thu/thesis.pdf. Accessed 15 June 2010).
  34. Jaquez-Dalcroze E. [1919] 1988. Rhythm, music and education. Salem, NH: Ayer Company Publishers.Google Scholar
  35. James, C. and P. Garret (eds.). 1995. Language awareness in the classroom. London: Longman.Google Scholar
  36. Kasper, G. and C. Roever. 2005. Pragmatics in second language learning. In Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning, ed. E. Hinkel, 317-334. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  37. Kirsh, D. 1995. The intelligent use of space. Artificial Intelligence 73: 31-68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kövecses, Z. and P. Szabó. 1996. Idioms: A view from cognitive semantics. Applied Linguistics 17: 326-355. Google Scholar
  39. Krashen, S. D. and T. Terrel. 1983. The natural approach: Language acquisition in the classroom. San Francisco: Alemany Press.Google Scholar
  40. Król-Markefka, A. 2006. The effects of applying cognitive grammar to the teaching of English articles to Polish learners. In Language and identity: English and American studies in the age of globalization. Volume 2: Language and culture, eds. E. Witalisz and J. Leśniewska, 100-115. Kraków: Jagiellonian University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Król-Markefka, A. 2007. How do Polish learners use English articles? A diagnostic study. In Exploring focus on form in language teaching (Special issue of Studies in Pedagogy and Fine Arts), ed. M. Pawlak, 135-153. Poznań: Wydział Pedagogiczno-Artystyczny UAM.Google Scholar
  42. Lakoff, G. 1987. Women, fire and dangerous things. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  43. Lakoff, G. and M. Johnson. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  44. Lakoff G. and M. Johnson. 1999. Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to western thought. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  45. Langacker, R. W. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar. Volume 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Langacker, R. W. 1991. Foundations of cognitive grammar. Volume 2: Descriptive applications. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Langacker, R. W. 1999. Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Langacker, R. W. 2001. Cognitive linguistics, language pedagogy, and the English present tense. In Applied cognitive linguistics I: Theory and language acquisition, eds. M. Pütz, S. Niemeier and R. Dirven, 3-39. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  49. Lazar, G. 2003. Meaning and metaphor: Activities to practice figurative language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Lewis, M. 1993. The lexical approach. Hove: Language Teaching Publications.Google Scholar
  51. Lewis, M. 1997. Implementing the lexical approach. Hove: Language Teaching Publications.Google Scholar
  52. Lewis, M. ed. 2000. Teaching collocation: Further developments in the lexical approach. Hove: Language Teaching Publications.Google Scholar
  53. Lindstromberg S. and F. Boers. 2005. From movement to metaphor with manner-of-movement verbs. Applied Linguistics 26: 241-261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Littlemore, J. 2009. Applying cognitive linguistics to second language learning and teaching. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Littlemore, J. and G. Low. 2006. Figurative thinking and foreign language learning. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Littlemore, J. and F. MacArthur. Forthcoming. Figurative extensions of word meaning: How do corpus data and intuition match up? In Corpus and cognition: Converging and diverging evidence, eds. D. Divjak and S. Gries. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  57. Llopis-García, R. 2010. Why cognitive grammar works in the L2 classroom: A case study of mood selection in Spanish. In Applied cognitive linguistics in second language learning and teaching (AILA Review 23), eds. J. Littlemore and C. Juchem-Grundmann, 72-94. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  58. Mahpeykar, N. 2008. An analysis of native and non-native speakers’ use of the word out in MICASE. Unpublished MA dissertation, University of Birmingham.Google Scholar
  59. Maldonado, R. 2008. Spanish middle syntax: A usage-based proposal for grammar teaching. In Cognitive approaches to pedagogical grammar, eds. S. De Knop and T. De Rycker, 155-196. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  60. Matsumoto, N. 2008. Bridges between cognitive linguistics and second language pedagogy: The case of corpora and their potential. SKY Journal of Linguistics 21: 125-153.Google Scholar
  61. Mukhopadhyay, M. and M. Parhar. 2001. Instructional design in multi-channel learning system. British Journal of Educational Technology 32: 543-556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Niemeier, S. 2004. Linguistic and cultural relativity – reconsidered for the foreign language classroom. In Cognitive linguistics, second language acquisition, and foreign language teaching, eds. M. Achard and S. Niemeier, 95-118. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Niemeier, S. 2008. The notion of boundedness/unboundedness in the foreign language classroom. In Cognitive linguistic approaches to teaching vocabulary and phraseology, eds. F. Boers and S. Lindstromberg, 309-328. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  64. Niemeier, S. and M. Reif. 2008. Making progress simpler? Applying cognitive grammar to tense-aspect teaching in the German EFL classroom. In Cognitive approaches to pedagogical grammar, eds. S. De Knop and T. De Rycker, 325-356. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  65. Núñez, R. E., L. D. Edwards and J. F. Matos. 1999. Embodied cognition as grounding for situatedness and context in mathematics education. Educational Studies in Mathematics 39, 1: 45:64.Google Scholar
  66. Piątkowska, K. 2007. Applying cognitive linguistics in glottodidactic practice: On the basis of teaching English prepositions to adult English language learners. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Nicolaus Copernicus University, Toruń.Google Scholar
  67. Piquer Píriz, A. M. 2008. Reasoning figuratively in early EFL: Some implications for the development of vocabulary. In Cognitive linguistic approaches to teaching vocabulary and phraseology, eds. F. Boers and S. Lindstromberg, 219-240. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  68. Pütz, M., S. Niemeier and R. Dirven. eds. 2001a. Applied cognitive linguistics I: Theory and language acquisition. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  69. Pütz, M., S. Niemeier and R. Dirven. eds. 2001b. Applied cognitive linguistics II: Language pedagogy. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  70. Read, J. 2004. Plumbing the depths: How should the construct of vocabulary knowledge be defined? In Vocabulary in a second language: Selection, acquisition and testing, eds. P. Bogaards and B. Laufer, 209-228. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
  71. Rudzka-Ostyn, B. 2003. Word power: Phrasal verbs and compounds. A cognitive approach. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J. 2008. Cross-linguistic analysis, second language teaching and cognitive semantics: The case of Spanish diminutives and reflexive constructions. In Cognitive approaches to pedagogical grammar, eds. S. De Knop and T. De Rycker, 121-154. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  73. Schmitt, N, ed. 2004. Formulaic sequences: Acquisition, processing and use. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
  74. Skehan, P. 1998. A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  75. Stevick, E. 1986. Images and options in the language classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  76. Sweetser, E. 1990. From etymology to pragmatics: Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Talmy, L. 1988. Force dynamics in language and cognition. Cognitive Science 12: 49-100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Talmy, L. 2003a. Toward a cognitive semantics. Volume 1: Concept structuring systems. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  79. Talmy, L. 2003b. Toward a cognitive semantics. Volume 2: Typology and process in concept structuring. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  80. Taylor, J. R. [1993] 2008. Some pedagogical implications of cognitive linguistics. In Cognitive approaches to pedagogical grammar, eds. S. De Knop and T. De Rycker, 37-66. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  81. Turewicz, K. 2000. Applicability of cognitive grammar as a foundation of pedagogical/reference grammar. Łódź: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego.Google Scholar
  82. Tyler, A. 2008. Cognitive linguistics and second language instruction. In Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition, eds. P. Robinson and N. C. Ellis, 456-488. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  83. Tyler, A. and V. Evans. 2001. The relation between experience, conceptual structure and meaning: Non-temporal uses of tense and language teaching. In Applied cognitive linguistics II: Language pedagogy, eds. M. Pütz, S. Niemeier and R. Dirven, 63-105. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  84. Tyler, A. and V. Evans. 2004. Applying cognitive linguistics to pedagogical grammar: The case of over. In Cognitive linguistics, second language acquisition, and foreign language teaching, eds. M. Achard and S. Niemeier, 257-280. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  85. Tyler, A., C. M. Mueller and V. Ho. 2010. Applying cognitive linguistics to instructed L2 learning: The English modals. In Applied cognitive linguistics in second language learning and teaching (AILA Review 23), eds. J. Littlemore and C. Juchem-Grundmann, 31–49. Amsterdam: John BenjaminsGoogle Scholar
  86. Verspoor, M. H. 2008. What bilingual word associations can tell us. In Cognitive linguistic approaches to teaching vocabulary and phraseology, eds. F. Boers and S. Lindstromberg, 261-290. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  87. Verspoor, M. H. and W. Lowie. 2003. Making sense of polysemous words. Language Learning 53: 547-586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Walker, C. 2008. Factors which influence the process of collocation. In Cognitive linguistic approaches to teaching vocabulary and phraseology, eds. F. Boers and S. Lindstromberg, 291-308. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  89. Widdowson, H. G. 1979. Explorations in applied linguistics 2. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  90. Wierzbicka, A. 1997. Understanding cultures through their keywords. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  91. Wierzbicka, A. 2006. English: Meaning and culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  92. Willis, D. 1990. The lexical syllabus. Glasgow: Collins Cobuild.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Adam Mickiewicz UniversityKaliszPoland

Personalised recommendations