Applying cognitive linguistics to instructed L2 learning

Abstract

This paper reports the results of a quasi-experimental effects-of-instruction study examining the efficacy of applying a Cognitive Linguistic (CL) approach to L2 learning of the semantics of English modals. In spite of their frequency in typical input, modal verbs present L2 learners with difficulties, party due to their inherent complexity — modals typically have two divergent senses — a root1 sense and an epistemic sense. ELT textbooks and most grammar books aimed at L2 teachers present the two meanings as homophones, failing to address any systematic semantic patterning in the modal system as a whole. Additionally, ELT texts tend to present modals from a speech act perspective. In contrast, CL analyses (e. g., Langacker 1991; Nuyts 2001; Sweetser 1990; Talmy 1988) offer both a systematic, motivated representation of the relationship between the root and epistemic meanings and a rather precise representation of the semantics of each modal. To test the pedagogical effectiveness of a CL account of modals, an effects-of-instruction study was conducted with three groups of adult, high-intermediate ESL learners: a Cognitive treatment group, a Speech Acts2 treatment group, and a Control group. Results of an ANCOVA indicated that the Cognitive treatment group demonstrated significantly more improvement than the Speech Acts treatment group. The experiment thus lends empirical support for the position that CL, in addition to offering a compelling analytical account of language, may also provide the basis for more effective grammar instruction than that found in most current ELT teaching materials.

Exploring the effects of proximal–distal metaphor on the development of EFL learners’ knowledge of the degree of certainty

“…The results of the present study demonstrated that the metaphor awareness-raising approach group outperformed the non-cognitive approach and control groups in the writing, comparison, and categorization tests, and the self- and teacher-directed approach groups performed similarly within either the cognitive (the SC and TC) or the non-cognitive (the SN and TN) approach domains on the online computer program. These results revealed that the proximal–distal metaphor awareness-raising approach helps to remember expressions of certainty, thereby lending support to findings in previous studies (Berendi et al, 2008; Boers, 2000; Tyler et al, 2010, 2012) on the effects of the metaphor awareness-raising approach. All of the previous studies utilized metaphors embedded in target expressions or included in the concrete meanings of the target expressions.…”

“…Comparing the teacher-directed metaphor awareness-raising approach with the traditional teaching approach, Tyler, Mueller, and Ho (2010) explored the efficacy of the teacher-directed metaphor awareness-raising approach in teaching English modals to learners of English as a foreign language (EFL) in a US university, and found more improvement for the metaphor awareness-raising approach group than for the traditional group. Furthermore, Tyler, Mueller, and Ho (2012) also demonstrated that the teacher-directed metaphor awareness-raising approach proved better than the traditional approach for teaching the semantics of the English prepositions to, for , and at to Vietnamese EFL learners.…”

Schematic Diagrams in Second Language Learning of English Prepositions

“…They produced detailed theoretical CL descriptions of English prepositions (Tyler & Evans, 2003), phrasal verbs (Mahpeykar & Tyler, 2015), and modality (Tyler & Jan, 2017). They also applied their CL descriptive materials in empirical studies of L2 instruction on English prepositions (Tyler et al, 2011), modal verbs (Tyler et al, 2010), and conditionals (Jacobsen, 2018). These studies tended to adopt task-based language teaching (TBLT) as the instructional framework.…”

Cognitive Linguistic approaches to teaching vocabulary: Assessment and integration

“…Li 2009, study 5) or where the CL group devoted more time to the lexical items that would be the object of the post-test (e.g. Tyler, Mueller & Ho 2010).…”

“…While the CL groups outperformed the comparison groups to a statistically significant degree, this was probably due to the poor performance of the latter. For example, in Tyler et al's (2010) study (on modal verbs), the students who had received the CL-inspired instruction gained on average just 2.6 out of 32 test items between pre- and post-test. The comparison group made no progress.…”