Students’ Responses to CL-Based Teaching of English Prepositions

Year 2018, Volume: 18 Issue: 73, 41 - 58, 20.01.2018

Bui Phu Hung Vien Truong Ngoc Vu Nguyen

Abstract

Purpose: Most EFL textbooks suggest the use of vivid pictures and verbal explanations in teaching English prepositions. However, this word class appears in collocations, and rote-learning does not really help learners retain and use this word class successfully. Cognitive linguistics (CL) has implications for English language teaching as it rests against the relationship between the human mind and language. Several experimental studies have aimed to investigate the effects of CL-based treatment on learners’ retention of target foreign or second language. However, most of these studies have not placed an emphasis on the learners’ opinions of CL-based teaching. This current study aimed to collect college students’ responses to CL-based teaching of English prepositions. Research Methods: The study was conducted for four weeks, with a 90-minute session each time per week. The students learned the spatial meanings and then the metaphorical meanings of the ten prepositions above, among, at, behind, beside, between, in, in front of, on, and under. Questionnaires were administered before the study to collect the participants’ opinions of the traditional teaching (primarily based on vivid pictures and verbal explanations) and after the study to collect the participants’ opinions of the CL-based teaching of the prepositions. The participants’ responses to the questionnaires were subject to comparison. Their responses in the interview after the study provided an in-depth qualitative analysis of the quantitative findings from the questionnaires. Results: All students generally showed positive opinions of the treatment and believed that the instructions were appropriate and positively affected their memories of the prepositions. They especially appreciated the use of image schemas to teach the semantics of the prepositions. Implications for Research and Practice: Most participants became more confident in both understanding and using the prepositions under CL-based teaching

Keywords

cognitive linguistics, English prepositions, spatial meanings, conceptual metaphors, domain mapping

References

• Beréndi, M. (2005). Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
• Bielak, J. & Pawlak, M. (2013). Applying cognitive grammar in the foreign language classroom: Teaching English tense and aspect. Kalisz: Springer.
• Boers, F. (2000). Enhancing metaphoric awareness in specialized reading. English for Specific Purposes, 19, 137-147.
• Boers, F. (2011). Cognitive semantic ways of teaching figurative phrases: An assessment. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 9 (1), 227-261.
• Cho, K. (2010). Fostering the acquisition of English prepositions by Japanese learners with networks and prototypes. In S. D. Knop, F.
• Boers, & A. D. Rycker (Eds.), Fostering Language Teaching Efficiency through Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 259-275). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
• Ellis, R. (2008). Investigating grammatical difficulty in second language learning: Implications for second language acquisition research and language testing. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 18, 4-22.
• Evans, V. 2007. A glossary of cognitive linguistics. Utah: University of Utah Press.
• Harmer, J. (2009). The practice of English language teaching. Essex: Pearson Education.
• Hung, B. P. (2017). Vietnamese students learning the semantics of English prepositions. GEMA Online@ Journal of Language Studies, 17(4), 146-158.
• Huong, N. T. (2005). Vietnamese learners mastering English articles. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Groningen. Retrieved from http://www.rug.nl/research/portal/files/2925155/thesis.pdf.
• Kemmerer, D. (2005). The spatial and temporal meanings of English prepositions can be independently impaired. Neuropsychologia, 43(5), 797-806.
• Kroll, J. F., Dussias, P. E., Bice, K. & Perrotti, L. (2015). Bilingualism, mind and brain. Annual Review of Linguistics, 1, 377-394.
• Langacker, R. W. (2001). Discourse in cognitive grammar. Cognitive Linguistics, 12, 143-188.
• Langacker, R. W. (2008). Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Lee, D. (2001). Cognitive linguistics: An introduction. New York: Oxford University Press.
• Norris, J. M. & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50 (3), 417-528.
• Skrzypek, A. & Singleton, D. (2013). Productive knowledge of English collocations in adult Polish learners: The role of short-term memory. Vigo International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 10, 105-129.
• 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 (Eds), Multidisciplinary Research on Teaching and Learning (pp.109-128). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Thornbury, S. (2002). How to teach vocabulary. England: Pearson Education.
• Ticio, E. & Avram, L. (2015). The acquisition of differential object marking in Spanish and Romanian: semantic scales or semantic features? Revue Romaine de Linguistique, 4, 383-402.
• 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, 181-205.
• Tyler, A. & Evans, V. (2003). The semantics of English prepositions: Spatial scenes, embodied meaning and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Ur, P. (2009). A course in language teaching: Practice and theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Zhao, Y. F. (2000). An introduction to Cognitive Linguistics. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.