Cover not available

Article published In: Journal of Second Language Studies
Vol. 3:1 (2020) ► pp.141–154

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

Complications in the L2 acquisition of the simple spatial prepositions in and on

Crosslinguistic differences in image schema and family resemblance

 | Hiroshima University
 | Hiroshima University
Published online: 10 April 2020
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/jsls.18015.taf
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Methods
    • 2.1Participants
    • 2.2Materials
    • 2.3Procedure
  • 3.Results
  • 4.Discussion
  • 5.Conclusions
  • References
References (33)
References
Boers, F. (2013). Cognitive linguistic approaches to teaching vocabulary: Assessment and integration. Language Teaching, 46(2), 208–224. 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
Chilton, P. (2014). Language, space, and mind: The conceptual geometry of linguistic meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Correa-Beningfield, M., Kristiansen, G., Navarro-Ferrando, I., & Vandeloise, C. (2005). Image schemas vs. “complex primitives” in cross-cultural spatial cognition. In B. Hampe & J. E. Grady (Eds.), From perception to meaning: Image schemas in cognitive linguistics (pp. 343–376). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cronbach, L. J. (1977). Educational psychology (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Deane, P. D. (2005). Multimodal spatial representation: On the semantic unity of over. In B. Hampe & J. E. Grady (Eds.), From perception to meaning: Image schemas in cognitive linguistics (pp. 235–282). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dodge, E., & Lakoff, G. (2005). Image schemas: From linguistic analysis to neural grounding. In B. Hampe & J. E. Grady (Eds.), From perception to meaning: Image schemas in cognitive linguistics (pp. 57–91). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Evans, V., & Tyler, A. (2005). Applying cognitive linguistics to pedagogical grammar: The English prepositions of verticality. Rev. Brasileira de Linguistica Applicada, 5(2), 11–42. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Feist, M. I., & Gentner, D. (2012). Multiple influences on the use of English spatial prepositions: The case of “in” and “on”. In C. Boonthum-Denecke, P. M. McCarthy, & T. A. Lamkin (Eds.), Cross-disciplinary advances in applied natural language processing: Issues and approaches (pp. 305–323). Hersey, PA: IGI Global. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Garrod, S., Ferrier, G., & Campbell, S. (1999). In and on: Investigating the functional geometry of spatial prepositions. Cognition, 72(2), 167–189. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gentner, D., & Bowerman, M. (2009). Why some spatial semantic categories are harder to learn than others: The typological prevalence hypothesis. In J. Guo, E. Lieven, S. Ervin-Tripp, N. Budwig, S. Özçaliskan, & K. Nakamura (Eds.), Crosslinguistic approaches to the psychology of language: Research in the tradition of Dan Isaac Slobin (pp. 465–480). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Association.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grady, J. E. (2005). Image schemas and perception: Refining a definition. In B. Hampe & J. E. Grady (Eds.), From perception to meaning: Image schemas in cognitive linguistics (pp. 35–55). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hart, C. (2014). Discourse, grammar and ideology: Functional and cognitive perspectives. London: Bloomsbury Academic.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Johnson, M. (1987). The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2005). The philosophical significance of image schemas. In B. Hampe & J. E. Grady (Eds.), From perception to meaning: Image schemas in cognitive linguistics (pp. 15–33). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kosslyn, S. M. (1980). Image and mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard 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, IL: The University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Landau, B., & Jackendoff, R. (1993). “What” and “where” in spatial language and spatial cognition. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 16(2), 217–265. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1991). Concept, image, and symbol: The cognitive basis of grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.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
Machin, D. (2009). Multimodality and theories of the visual. In C. Jewitt (Ed.), Handbook of multimodality (pp. 181–190). London: Sage.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mandler, J. M., & Pagan-Canovas, C. (2014). On defining image schemas. Language and Cognition, 6(4), 510–523. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McDonough, L., Choi, S., & Mandler, J. M. (2003). Understanding spatial relations: Flexible infants, lexical adults. Cognitive Psychology, 46(3), 229–259. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Odlin, T. (2005). Crosslinguistic influence and conceptual transfer: What are the concepts? Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 251, 3–25. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pinker, S. (1999). Words and rules: The ingredients of language. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Quirk, R., & Greenbaum, S. (1973). A university grammar of English. London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rosch, E., & Mervis, C. B. (1975). Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology, 7(4), 573–605. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Shintani, M., Mori, K., & Ohmori, T. (2016). Image schema-based instruction in English grammar. In P. Clements, A. Krause, & H. Brown (Eds.), Focus on the learner (pp. 285–296). Tokyo: JALT.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a cognitive semantics, Vol. 1: Concept structuring systems. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2005). The fundamental system of spatial schemas in language. In B. Hampe & J. E. Grady (Eds.), From perception to meaning: Image schemas in cognitive linguistics (pp. 199–234). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tyler, A., & Evans, V. (2003). Lexical meaning and experience: The semantics of English prepositions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zlatev, J. (2005). What’s in a schema? Bodily mimesis and the grounding of language. In B. Hampe & J. E. Grady (Eds.), From perception to meaning: Image schemas in cognitive linguistics (pp. 314–341). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Taferner, Robert Horst & Jun Yamada
2020. Complications in the L2 acquisition of the simple spatial prepositions in and on . Journal of Second Language Studies 3:1 ► pp. 141 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 13 november 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue