Cover not available

In:Language Learning, Discourse and Cognition: Studies in the tradition of Andrea Tyler
Edited by Lucy Pickering and Vyvyan Evans
[Human Cognitive Processing 64] 2018
► pp. 85–110

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

Chapter 4
The speech went on (and on) as Kerry dozed off (*and off)

A conceptual grammar approach to on and off

Published online: 20 December 2018
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.64.05sta
Abstract
This chapter provides an encapsulated segment of a larger, on-going study centering on a complex set of prepositions and their corresponding phrasal verb particles and adverbs viewed from the methodological and analytic perspective of Conceptual Grammar. Conceptual Grammar is an approach to the analysis and teaching of grammar that combines three paradigms: corpus, discourse analysis, and cognitive linguistics to reveal systematically patterned grammatical meanings. The visual conceptual system is intended to dually represent various gradations of spatial/temporal/metaphorical/abstract meanings in graphic terms, using simple shapes as a mnemonic to aid in the apprehension of conceptual meaning. The system is intended to be generalizable across all uses and meanings of the target lexemes and thus to facilitate productivity of use, serving as a new type of “grammatical rule”.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Literature review: Prepositions, phrasal verbs and adverbs
    • 2.1Prepositions: From space to time and more abstract concepts
    • 2.2Phrasal verbs and adverbs
    • 2.3The case of on and off
  • 3.Challenges for L2 teachers and learners
  • 4.Alternate analytic perspectives: Corpus, discourse analysis, and cognitive linguistics: Prepositions, phrasal verbs, adverbs on and off
    • 4.1Procedures
  • 5.The graphic/conceptual system
    • 5.1The primary components of the conceptual system, in graphics
      • 5.1.1Entries 1–5 for ONs
      • 5.1.2Entries 1 – 4 for OFF
  • 6.Conclusion and pedagogical implications
  • References
References (53)
References
Bloomfield, L. (1933). Language. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brinton, L. (1985). Verb particles in English: Aspect or aktionsart? Studia Linguistica, 39(2), 157–168. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brugman, C. (1988). The story of over: Polysemy, semantics and the structure of the lexicon. New York: Garland Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Buescher, K. and Strauss, S. (2015). A cognitive linguistic analysis of French prepositions à, dans, and en and a sociocultural theoretical approach to teaching them. In K. Masuda, C. Arnett, & A. Labarca (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics and Sociocultural Theory (pp. 155–181). Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2018). Conceptual frameworks and L2 pedagogy: The case of French prepositions. In A. Tyler, L. Ortega, M. Uno, & H. Park, (Eds.), Usage inspired L2 instruction (pp. 95–116). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Celce-Murcia, M. and Larsen-Freeman, D. (1999). The grammar book: An ESL/EFL teacher’s course 2nd edition. Boston: Heinle and Heinle.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1995). The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Davies, M. (2008). The corpus of contemporary American English: 520 million words, 1990-present. Available online at http://corpus.byu.edu/coca/.
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 prepositions: From mental processing to natural language processing (pp. 73–97). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2001). English phrasal verbs: theory and didactic application. In M. Pütz, S. Niemeier, & R. Dirven (Eds.), Applied Cognitive Linguistics II: Language Pedagogy, 3–27.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Evans, V. & Tyler, A. (2004). Spatial experience, lexical structure and motivation: The case of in . In G. Radden & K. Panther (Eds.), Studies in linguistic motivation (pp. 157–192). Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2005). Applying cognitive linguistics to pedagogical grammar: The English prepositions of verticality. Revista Brasileira de Lingüistica Aplicada 5(2), 11–42. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Frank, M. (1972). Modern English: A practical reference guide. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grady, J. E. (1997). THEORIES ARE BUILDINGS revisited. Cognitive Linguistics, 8(4), 267–290. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kang, Y. (2012). Cognitive linguistics approach to semantics of spatial relations in Korean. Doctoral dissertation, Georgetown University.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ke, Y. (2017). A bi-Axis model for profiling English phrasal verbs for pedagogic purposes. TESOL Quarterly, 51(4), 972–984. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kövecses, Z. & Szabó, P. (1996). Idioms: A view of cognitive semantic. Applied Linguistics, 17(3), 326–355. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lam, Y. (2009). Applying cognitive linguistics to the teaching of the Spanish prepositions por and para . Language Awareness, 18(1), 2–18. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Langacker, R. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar. Volume 1. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1991a). Concept, image, and symbol. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1991b). Foundations of cognitive grammar. Volume 2. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lee, K. (2012). Yeong-eo jeonchisa yeongu (Research into English prepositions). Paju, Kyounggido: Kyomoonsa.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levinson, S. (2003). Space in language and cognition: Explorations in cognitive diversity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lim, B. (2004). Jeonchisa honnaejugi (Conquering prepositions). Pusan: Doseochulpanaajak.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lindstromberg, S. (1996). Prepositions: meaning and method. ELT Journal, 50, 225–236. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2010). English prepositions explained (Rev. ed.). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Masuda, K. (2003). Japanese postpositions ni and de: A cognitive linguistic approach. In A. Franklin, J. Chiral, D. Kaiser (Eds.), Proceedings from the 39th Annual Meeting of The Chicago Linguistic Society. No. 2/2000, 19–31.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Radden, G. (1985). Spatial metaphors underlying prepositions of causality. In W. Paprotté, & R. Dirven (Eds.), The ubiquity of metaphor: Metaphor in language and thought (pp. 177–205). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Radden, G. & Dirven, R. (2007). Cognitive English grammar. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rice, S. (1996). Prepositional prototypes. In M. Pütz and R. Dirven (Eds.), The construal of space in language and thought (pp. 135–165). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ruhl, C. (1989). On monosemy: A study in linguistic semantics. New York: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Saint-Dizier, P. (2006). Introduction to the syntax and semantics of prepositions. In P. Saint-Dizier (Ed.), Syntax and semantics of prepositions (pp. 1–25). Dordrecht: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Side, R. (1990). Phrasal verbs: Sorting them out. ELT Journal. 44(2), 144–152. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Strauss, S. (2007). Learning and teaching through patterns of conceptualization: The case of (advanced) Korean. In H. Byrnes, H. Weger-Guntharp, & K. Sprang (Eds.), Educating for advanced foreign language capacities: Constructs, curriculum, instruction, assessment (pp. 87–104). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(in preparation). Prepositions, phrasal verbs, and adverbs – which are which and why does it matter?
Strauss, S., Feiz, P., and Xiang, X. (2018). Grammar, meaning, and concepts: A discourse-based approach to English grammar. New York: Routledge Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Strauss, S., Lee, H., & Ahn, H. (2006). Applying conceptual grammar to advanced-level language teaching: The case of two completive constructions in Korean. Modern Language Journal, 90, 185–206. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Strauss, S. (in preparation a). “He knew she could pull it off. She knew she could pull it off” Is it a band-aid, a bike helmet, or the Seattle to Portland bike race?
(in preparation b). On on.
Swan, M. (2003). Practical English usage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Talmy, L. (2000a). Toward a cognitive semantics. Volume 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2000b). Toward a cognitive semantics. Volume 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Taylor, J. (1993). Prepositions: Patterns of polysemization and strategies of disambiguation. In C. Zelinski-Wibbelt (Ed.), The semantics of prepositions: From mental processing to natural language processing (pp. 151–175). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tyler, A. (2012a). Cognitive linguistics and second language learning: Theoretical basics and experimental evidence. NY: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2012b). 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
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 prepositions: Spatial scenes, embodied meaning, and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2004). Applying cognitive linguistics to pedagogical grammar: The case of over . Cognitive Linguistics, Second language acquisition, and Foreign Language Teaching, 18, 259–282.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Walková, M. (2017). Particle verbs in English: Telicity or scalarity? Linguistics, 55(3), 589–616. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
White, B. (2012). A conceptual approach to the instruction of phrasal verbs. The Modern Language Journal, 96(3), 419–438. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Yule, G. (2010). Explaining English grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue