Cover not available

Article published In: Cognitive Linguistic Studies
Vol. 12:1 (2025) ► pp.70–106

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 effect of the Embodied Scenes approach to preposition learning with PrepApp

ORCiD logo with link | Umeå University
ORCiD logo with link | Umeå University
Published online: 2 June 2025
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/cogls.22020.oko
Abstract
This paper presents a digital tool for teaching and learning the usage patterns of English prepositions using an Embodied Scenes approach. Building on corpus linguistic investigations and insights from Cognitive Linguistics, we present the usage patterns of prepositional constructions in line with how spatial relations are typically used to construe meaning. The tool is intended to empower students of English to increase confidence in their L2 skills through usage-based examples. In two studies, we test a set of sample lessons targeting the preposition into. Data were collected from ESL classes at Swedish High Schools. Students were randomly assigned to a control group exposed to traditional preposition materials or an experimental group exposed to the new lessons. Students then completed a pre-test, learning sessions, a post-test, and a delayed post-test. Results show that the Embodied Scenes approach led to proficiency in using into and this was maintained over time.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1The Embodied Scenes approach
    • 1.2Why a digital tool?
  • 2.Background literature
    • 2.1CL approaches in the ESL classroom
    • 2.2Language comprehension, embodied simulation, and prepositions
    • 2.3Digital preposition tools
    • 2.4The current study: Materials and design
      • Building Blocks
      • Category Mix and Match
      • Word Play
      • Affordances
        • Traditional lesson content: Mixed-preposition content
        • Pre- and post-tests
  • 3.Methodology
    • 3.1Research and analysis tools
    • 3.2Study 1: Advanced Swedish ESL students
      • 3.2.1Participants
      • 3.2.2Research process
    • 3.3Study 2: Ordinary Swedish ESL students
      • 3.3.1Participants
      • 3.3.2Research process
  • 4.Study 1 results and analysis: Advanced Swedish ESL students
    • 4.1Pre-test results
      • Equal playing field?
    • 4.2Post-test results
      • Did the embodied scenes group learn from the new tool?
      • Did the traditional group learn from the traditional tool?
      • Discussion
    • 4.3Delayed post-test results
      • Did the embodied scenes tool provide long-term growth for the Into preposition material?
      • Did the traditional tool provide long-term growth for the into preposition material?
    • 4.4Discussion
  • 5.Study 2 results and analysis: Ordinary Swedish ESL students
    • 5.1Pre-test results: Into items
      • Equal playing field?
    • 5.2Post-test results: Into items
      • Did the Embodied Scenes group learn from the new tool?
      • Did the traditional group learn from the traditional tool?
      • Discussion
    • 5.3Delayed post-test results: Into items
      • Did the embodied scenes tool provide long-term growth for the preposition material?
      • Did the traditional tool provide long-term growth for the preposition material?
    • 5.4Discussion
  • 6.Conclusions
  • Notes
  • References
References (50)
References
Ahlberg, D. K., Bischoff, H., Strozyk, J. V., Bryant, D., & Kaup, B. (2018a). How do German bilingual schoolchildren process German prepositions? – A study on language-motor interactions. PloS One, 13(3), Article e0193349. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ahlberg, D. K., Bischoff, H., Kaup, B., Bryant, D. & Strozyk, J. V. (2018b). Grounded cognition: Comparing language × space interactions in first language and second language. Applied Psycholinguistics, 39(2), 437–459. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bączkowska, A. (2011). Space, time & language: A cognitive analysis of English prepositions. Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Kazimireza Wielkiego.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Barsalou, L. W. (2008). Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 591, 617–645. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Beitel, D. A., Gibbs, Jr, R. W., & Sanders, P. (2001). The embodied approach to the polysemy of the spatial preposition on. In H. Cuyckens & B. E. Zawada (Eds.), Polysemy in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 241–260). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bergen, B. K. (2012). Louder than words: The new science of how the mind makes meaning. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Boers, F. (2000). Metaphor awareness and vocabulary retention. Applied Linguistics, 21(4), 553–571. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Boers, F., & Demecheleer, M. (1998). A cognitive semantic approach to teaching prepositions. ELT Journal, 52(3), 197–204. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cuyckens, H. (2002). Metonymy in prepositions. In H. Cuyckens & G. Radden (Eds.), Perspectives on prepositions (pp. 257–266). Berlin: Max Niemeyer Verlag. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Davies, M. (2008). The corpus of contemporary American English (COCA): 520 million words, 1990 – present. Available online at [URL]
Desai, R. H., Conant, L. L., Binder, J. R., Park, H., & Seidenberg, M. S. (2013). A piece of the action: Modulation of sensory-motor regions by action idioms and metaphors. NeuroImage, 831, 862–869. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Field, J. (2008). Bricks or mortar: Which parts of the input does a second language listener rely on?. TESOL quarterly, 42(3), 411–432. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gibbs, Jr, R. W. (2006a). Embodiment and cognitive science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2006b). Metaphor interpretation as embodied simulation. Mind & Language, 21(3), 434–458. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gibbs, Jr, R. W., & Matlock, T. (2008). Metaphor, imagination, and simulation. In R. W. Gibbs, Jr. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (pp. 161–176). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gibbs, Jr, R. W. & Cruz, M. J. S. (2012). Temporal unfolding of conceptual metaphoric experience. Metaphor and Symbol, 27(4), 299–311. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (2005). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gärdenfors, P. (2014). The geometry of meaning: Semantics based on conceptual spaces. Cambridge: The MIT Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Johansson Falck, M. (2012). Metaphor variation across L1 and L2 speakers of English: Do differences at the level of linguistic metaphor matter?. In F. MacArthur, J. L. Oncins-Martínez, M. Sánchez-García & A. M. Piquer-Píriz (Eds.), Metaphor in use: Context, culture, and communication (pp. 109–134). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2016). What trajectors reveal about TIME metaphors: Analysis of English and Swedish. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 21(1), 28–47. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2017). Embodied motivations for abstract in and on constructions. In F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, A. L. Oyón, & P. P. Sobrino (Eds.), Constructing families of constructions: Analytical perspectives and theoretical challenges (pp. 53–76). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Johansson Falck, M. (2018). Embodied experience and the teaching and learning of L2 prepositions: A case study of abstract in and on. In A. Tyler, L. Huang & H. Jan (Eds.), What is applied Cognitive Linguistics?: Answers from current SLA research (pp. 287–304). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Johansson Falck, M. (2023). Lexico-encyclopedic conceptual (LEC) metaphors. In F. T. Li (Ed.), Handbook of cognitive semantics (vol. 3) (pp. 291–313). Boston: Brill.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Johansson Falck, M., & Okonski, L. (2022). Procedure for identifying metaphorical scenes (PIMS): A Cognitive Linguistics approach to bridge theory and practice. Cognitive Semantics, 81, 294–322. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2023). Procedure for identifying metaphorical scenes (PIMS): The case of spatial and abstract relations. Metaphor and Symbol, 38(1), 1–22. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Johansson Falck, M., & Okonski, L. (2024). Metaphorical and non-metaphorical meaning from spatial relations. Review of Cognitive Linguistics. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kessler, K. & Rutherford, H. (2010). The two forms of visuo-spatial perspective taking are differently embodied and subserve different spatial prepositions. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, Article 213. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kissling, E. M., Tyler, A., Warren, L., & Negrete, L. (2018). Reexamining por and para in the Spanish foreign language intermediate classroom: A usage-based, Cognitive Linguistic approach. In A. Tyler, L. Huang & H. Jan (Eds.), What is applied Cognitive Linguistics?: Answers from current SLA research (pp. 229–256). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lany, J., & Saffran, J. R. (2010). From statistics to meaning: Infants’ acquisition of lexical categories. Psychological Science, 21(2), 284–291. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar: Vol 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University 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
Langacker, R. W. (2002). Concept, image, and symbol: The cognitive basis of grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lindstromberg, S. (2010). English prepositions explained. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Littlemore, J. (2009). Applying Cognitive Linguistics to second language learning and teaching. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (2017). A shared platform for studying second language acquisition. Language Learning, 67(S1), 254–275. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mueller, C. M. (2011). English learners’ knowledge of prepositions: Collocational knowledge or knowledge based on meaning?. System, 39(4), 480–490. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Presson, N., Davy, C., & MacWhinney, B. (2013). Experimentalized CALL for adult second language learners. In J. W. Schwieter (Ed.), Innovative research and practices in second language acquisition and bilingualism (pp. 139–164). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Roediger, H. L., & Karpicke, J. D. (2006). The power of testing memory: Basic research and implications for educational practice. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1(3), 181–210. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rohrer, D., & Pashler, H. (2007). Increasing retention without increasing study time. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16(4), 183–186. [URL].
Stroop, J. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18(6), 643–662. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Taraban, R., Maki, W. S., & Rynearson, K. (1999). Measuring study time distributions: Implications for designing computer-based courses. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments & Computers, 31(2), 263–269. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tyler, A., & Evans, V. (2003). The semantics of English prepositions: Spatial scenes, embodied meaning and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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, 81, 181–205.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tyler, A. (2012). Spatial language, polysemy, and cross-linguistic semantic mismatches: Cognitive linguistics insights into challenges for second language learners. Spatial Cognition & Computation, 12(4), 305–335. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vannestål, M. E. (2007). Establishing relations: Dealing with prepositions. In M. E. Vannestål (Ed.), A university grammar of English: With a Swedish perspective (pp. 359–383). Studentlitteratur.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wilson, N. L., & Gibbs, Jr, R. W. (2007). Real and imagined body movement primes metaphor comprehension. Cognitive Science, 31(4), 721–731. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wong, M. H. I., Zhao, H., & MacWhinney, B. (2018). A Cognitive Linguistics application for second language pedagogy: The English preposition tutor. Language Learning, 68(2), 438–468. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue