Cover not available

Article published In: Cognitive Linguistic Studies
Vol. 9:2 (2022) ► pp.223–242

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload EPUB
authorization required

The prototypical approach and the factors affecting the teaching and learning of prepositions

ORCiD logo with link | Temple University
Published online: 6 December 2022
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/cogls.20013.kaw
Abstract
This article is a critical review of the approach based on a polysemy network model applied to teaching prepositions. The analysis brings forth the inherent limitations of this model in explaining less prototypical senses and in leading second language learners to discover a contextualized interpretation of a preposition that may vary subtly from the meaning represented in the model; the model also fails to take conceptual differences between metonym and metaphor into account and assumes that these concepts would be familiar to ESL learners. As will be discussed, methodological modifications could yield more effective results. It is also suggested that a micro-level analysis of each individual sense is required to identify the learning outcomes of the intervention to ascertain that this approach is resourceful in teaching a range of senses in the polysemy network model.
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • 1.Lack of semantic transparency and concordance
  • 2.Schematic distance and prototypical asymmetry
  • 3.Differences in metonymic and metaphoric awareness
  • 4.Practical implications
    • 4.1ESL pedagogy
      • 4.1.1The problem of polysemy
      • 4.1.2Asymmetrical prototypicality
      • 4.1.3Input complexity and uptake
    • 4.2Future research
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • References
References (37)
References
Bencini, G. M. L., & Goldberg, A. E. (2000). The contribution of argument structure constructions to sentence meaning. Journal of Memory and Language, 43(4), 640–651. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Benczes, R., & Sagvari, B. (2018). Where metaphors really come from: Social factors as contextual influence in Hungarian teenagers’ metaphorical conceptualizations of life. Cognitive Linguistics, 29(1), 121–154. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Boers, F. (2000). Metaphor awareness and vocabulary retention. Applied Lingusitics, 21(4), 553–571. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chaudron, C. (1985). Intake: On models and methods for discovering learners’ processing of input. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 7(1), 1–14. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Corder, S. P. (1967). The significance of learner’s errors. International Review of Applied Linguisitics, 5(1–4), 161–170. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cuyckens, H. (2002). Metonymy in prepositions. In H. Chyckens & G. Radden (Eds.), Perspectives on Prepositions (pp. 257–266). Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Danesi, M. (2003). Second Language Teaching: A View from the Right Side of the Brain. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2008). Conceptual errors in second-language learning. In S. De Knop & T. De Rycker (Eds.), Cognitive Approaches to Pedagogical Grammar: A Volume in Honour of Rene Dirven (pp. 231–256). Berlin/New York: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Evans, V. (2010). From the spatial to the non-spatial: The ‘state’ lecical concepts of in, on and at. In E. Vyvyan & P. Chilton (Eds.), Language, Cognition and Space: The State of the Art and the New Directions (pp. 215–248). London: Equinox.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Galantomos, I. (2018). Gender and proficiency effects on metaphore use among Greek learners. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 29(1), 61–77. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gries, S. T. (2015). Polysemy. In E. Dąbrowska & D. S. Divjak, Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 472–490). Berlin/Bosten: De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kemmer, S., & Barlow, M. (2000). Introduction: A usage-based conception of language. In M. Barlow & S. Kemmer (Eds.), Usage-based Models of Language (pp. 7–25). Stanford, California: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Klepousniotou, E. (2002). The processing of lexical ambiguity: Homonymy and polysemy in the mental lexicon. Brain and Language, 81(1–3), 205–223. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kövecses, Z. (2005). Metaphor in Culture: Universality and Variation. New York/Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2015). Where Metaphors Come from: Reconsidering Context in Metaphor. New York: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal About the Mind. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphore We Live By. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lam, Y. (2009). Applying Cognitive Linguistics to teaching the Spanish prepositions por and para. Language Awareness, 18(1), 2–18. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lindstromberg, S. (1996). Prepositions: Meaning and method. ELT Journal, 50(3), 225–236. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Littlemore, J. (2001a). Metaphoric competence: A possible language learning strength of students with holistic cognitive style?. TESOL Quarterly, 35(3), 459–491. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2001b). The uses of metaphor in university lectures and the problems that it causes for overseas studetns. Teaching in Higher Education, 6(3), 333–349. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2010). Metaphoric competence in the first and second language: Similarities and differences. In M. Pütz & L. Sicola (Eds.), Cognitive Processing in Second Language Acquisition: Inside the Learner’s Mind (pp. 293–316). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Littlemore, J., & Low, G. (2006). Metaphoric competence, second language learning, and communicative language ability. Applied Linguistics, 27(2), 268–294. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Littlemore, J., Chen, P. T., Koester, A., & Barnden, J. (2011). Difficulities in metaphore comprehension faced by international student whose first language is not English. Applied Linguistics, 32(4), 408–429. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lu, H., & Wei, X. (2019). Structuring polysemy in English learners’ dictionaries: A prototype theory-based model. International Journal of Lexicography, 32(1), 20–37. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Michl, D. (2019). Metonymies are more literal than metaphors: Evidence from ratings of German idioms. Language and Cognition, 11(1), 98–124. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rice, S. (1996). Prepositional prototypes. In M. Pütz & R. Dirven, The Construal of Space in Language and Thought (pp. 135–167). Berlin: Mounton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rosch, E., & Mervis, C. B. (1975). Family resemblences: Studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology, 7(4), 573–605. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rundblad, G., & Annaz, D. (2010). Development of metaphor and metonymy comprehension: Receptive vocabulary and conceptual knowledge. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 28(3), 547–563. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Swain, M. (2006). Languaging, agency and collaboration in advanced language proficiency. In H. Byrnes (Ed.), Advanced Language Learning: The Contribution of Halliday and Vygotsky (pp. 95–108). London: Continuum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Swan, M. (1985). A critical look at the communicative approach II. ELTJ, 39(2), 76–87. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language: A Usage-Based Theory of Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tyler, A. (2012). Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language learning: Theoretical Basics and Experimental Evidence. New York and London: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tyler, A., & Evans, V. (2001). Reconsidering prepositional polysemy networks: The case of over. Language, 77(4), 724–765. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2003). The Semantics of English Prepositios: Spatial Senses, Embodied Meaning and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tyler, A., Muller, 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), 181–206.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Xu, H., & Lou, Y. (2015). Treatment of the prepositions ‘to’ in English learners’ dictionaries: A cognitive approach. International Journal of Lexicography, 28(2), 207–231. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue