Abstract
The current study examines the effectiveness of a CL-based force dynamic (FD) lesson relative to a more conventional approach that seeks to convey the target semantics through corresponding L1 forms. Exp. 1 (N=67) examined Japanese EFL students’ acquisition of the English verbs force, get, have, help, let, make, and prevent, comparing the effectiveness of force dynamic explanations with dynamic diagrams and a translation-based approach. Both groups showed significant learning on both the posttest and delayed posttest, but the FD group’s greater gains over the conventional instruction on both the posttest and delayed posttest did not reach significance. Exp. 2 (N=97) replicated most of the Exp. 1 conditions but with a slightly altered instructional format to ensure participant’s focus on force dynamic relationships. The FD group’s greater gains on a posttest given three weeks following instruction fell short of statistical significance. Exp. 3 (N=54) compared the effectiveness of a FD lesson using dynamic images with a lesson without such images and found no significant differences between the groups. The three experiments demonstrate that CL-based instruction on force dynamics provides a viable alternative to conventional instruction in which target semantics are conveyed through translation.
References
Altenberg, Bengt & Sylvia S. Granger. 2001. The grammatical and lexical patterning of MAKE in native and non-native student writing. Applied Linguistics 22(2). 173–195.10.1093/applin/22.2.173Search in Google Scholar
Baddeley, Alan D. 1986. Working memory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Boers, Frank. 2000. Metaphor awareness and vocabulary retention. Applied Linguistics 21(4). 553–571.10.1093/applin/21.4.553Search in Google Scholar
Boers, Frank. 2013. Cognitive linguistic approaches to teaching vocabulary: Assessment and integration. Language Teaching 46(2). 208–224.10.1017/S0261444811000450Search in Google Scholar
Cho, Kanako. 2010. Fostering the acquisition of English prepositions by Japanese learners with networks and prototypes. In Sabine De Knop, Frank Boers & Antoon De Rycker (eds.), Fostering language teaching efficiency through cognitive linguistics, 259–275. Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9783110245837.257Search in Google Scholar
Clark, Jame M. & Allan Paivio. 1991. Dual coding theory and education. Educational Psychology Review 3(3). 149–170.10.1007/BF01320076Search in Google Scholar
Csábi, Szilvia. 2004. A cognitive linguistic view of polysemy in English and its implications for teaching. In Michel Achard & Susanne Niemeier (eds.), Cognitive linguistics, second language acquisition, and foreign language teaching, 233–256. Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110199857.233Search in Google Scholar
Davies, Mark. 2008. The corpus of contemporary American English: 450 million words, 1990–Present. Available online at http://corpus.byu.edu/coca/.Search in Google Scholar
DeKeyser, Robert M. 2015. Skill acquisition theory. In Bill VanPatten & Jessica Williams (eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction, 94–112. New York, NY: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
Ellis, Nick C. 2015a. Implicit and explicit language learning: Their dynamic interface and complexity. In Patrick Rebuschat (ed.), Investigating implicit and explicit language learning, 3–24. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.10.1075/sibil.48.01ellSearch in Google Scholar
Ellis, Nick C. & Fernando Ferreira-Junior. 2009. Construction learning as a function of frequency, frequency distribution, and function. The Modern Language Journal 93(3). 370–385.10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00896.xSearch in Google Scholar
Ellis, Rod. 2015b. Form-focused instruction and the measurement of implicit and explicit knowledge. In Patrick Rebuschat (ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of languages, 417–441. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.10.1075/sibil.48.17ellSearch in Google Scholar
Englund, Donald L. 2015. A blended cognitive, linguistic, and Vygotskian approach for teaching and learning the prepositions in, on, and of in the advanced ESL classroom. Lawrence, Kansas: University of Kansas, PhD dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Gilquin, Gaëtanelle. 2003. Causative get and have: So close, so different. Journal of English Linguistics 31(2). 125–148.10.1177/0075424203031002002Search in Google Scholar
Gilquin, Gaëtanelle & Éric Lecoutre. 2004. (How) can causative constructions be predicted? Paper presented at the JADT 2004, Paris, France.Search in Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1980. The binding hierarchy and the typology of complements. Studies in Language 4(3). 333–377.10.1075/sl.4.3.03givSearch in Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 2006. Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Goo, Jaemyung, Gisela Granena, Yucel Yilmaz & Miguel Novella. 2015. Implicit and explicit instruction in L2 learning: Norris and Ortega (2000) revisited and updated. In Patrick Rebuschat (ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of languages, 443–482. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.10.1075/sibil.48.18gooSearch in Google Scholar
Helms-Park, Rena. 2001. Evidence of lexical transfer in learner syntax. The acquisition of English causatives by speakers of Hindi-Urdu and Vietnamese. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 23(1). 71–102.10.1017/S0272263101001036Search in Google Scholar
Ijaz, Helene. 1986. Linguistic and cognitive determinants of lexical acquisition in a second language. Language Learning 36(4). 401–451.10.1111/j.1467-1770.1986.tb01034.xSearch in Google Scholar
Ikegami, Yoshihiko. 2000. The schemata for motion and action: A typological consideration. In David G. Lockwood, Peter H. Fries & Jame E. Copeland (eds.), Functional approaches to language, culture and cognition: Papers in honor of Sydney M. Lamb, 185–197. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.10.1075/cilt.163.18ikeSearch in Google Scholar
Izumi, Kiwamu. 1995. Translation-aided approach in second language acquisition. JALT Journal 17(2). 225–237.Search in Google Scholar
Jiang, Nan. 2000. Lexical development and representation in a second language. Applied Linguistics 21(1). 47–77.10.1093/applin/21.1.47Search in Google Scholar
Jiang, Nan. 2004. Semantic transfer and its implications for vocabulary teaching in a second language. The Modern Language Journal 88(3). 416–432.10.1111/j.0026-7902.2004.00238.xSearch in Google Scholar
Johnson, Mark. 1987. The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago.10.7208/chicago/9780226177847.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Kaiser, Stefan, Yasuko Ichikawa, Noriko Kobayashi & Hilofumi Yamamoto. 2013. Japanese: A comprehensive grammar, 2nd edn. London, UK: Routledge.10.4324/9780203085196Search in Google Scholar
Kövecses, Zoltán. 2010. Metaphor: A practical introduction, 2nd edn. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Kroll, Judith F. & Erika Stewart. 1994. Category interference in translation and picture naming: Evidence for assymetric connections between bilingual memory representations. Journal of Memory and Language 33(2). 149–174.10.1006/jmla.1994.1008Search in Google Scholar
Kudrnáčová, Naděžda. 2014. Explicitation of causality in periphrastic constructions with human causes: The case of make and cause. In Michaela Martinková, Markéta Janebová & Jaroslav Macháček (eds.), Categories and categorial changes: The third syntactical plan and beyond, 47–57. Olomouc, Czech Republic: Palacký University.Search in Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago.10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Lam, Yvonne. 2009. Applying cognitive linguistics to teaching the Spanish prepositions por and. Para. Language Awareness 18(1). 2–18.10.1080/09658410802147345Search in Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. 1, Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University.Search in Google Scholar
Larson-Hall, Jenifer. 2016. A guide to doing statistics in second language research using SPSS and R, 2nd edn. New York, NY: Taylor and Francis.10.4324/9781315775661Search in Google Scholar
Laufer, Batia & Karen Shmueli. 1997. Memorizing new words: Does teaching have anything to do with it? RELC Journal 28(1). 89–108.10.1177/003368829702800106Search in Google Scholar
Leaver, Betty L. & Sabine Atwell. 2002. Preliminary qualitative findings from a study of the processes leading to the advanced professional proficiency level (ILR 4). In Betty L. Leaver & Boris Shekhtman (eds.), Developing professional-level language proficiency, 260–279. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511606465.014Search in Google Scholar
Leow, Ronald P. 2015. Explicit learning in the L2 classroom: A student-centered approach. New York, NY: Routledge.10.4324/9781315887074Search in Google Scholar
Liu, Eric T.K. & Philip M. Shaw. 2001. Investigating learner vocabulary: A possible approach to looking at EFL/ESL learners’ qualitative knowledge of the word. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 39(3). 171–194.10.1515/iral.2001.001Search in Google Scholar
Lotto, Lorella & Annette M.B. De Groot. 1998. Effects of learning method and word type on acquiring vocabulary in an unfamiliar language. Language Learning 48(1). 31–69.10.1111/1467-9922.00032Search in Google Scholar
MacWhinney, Brian. 2008. A unified model. In Peter Robinson & Nick C. Ellis (eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition, 341–371. New York, NY: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
Martinková, Michaela. 2014. Cause and concern: The have construction with the infinitive seen through its Czech translation equivalents. In Michaela Martinková, Markéta Janebová & Jaroslav Macháček (eds.), Categories and categorial changes: The third syntactical plan and beyond, 21–46. Olomouc, Czech Republic: Palacký University.Search in Google Scholar
Masuda, Kyoko & Angela Labarca. 2015. Schematic diagram use and languaging quality in learning Japanese polysemous particles ni and de. In Kyoko Masuda, Carlee Arnett & Angela Labarca (eds.), Cognitive linguistics and sociocultural theory, 203–232. Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter.10.1515/9781614514442-011Search in Google Scholar
Mayer, Richard E. 2011. Instruction based on visualizations. In Richard E. Mayer & Patricia A. Alexander (eds.), Handbook of research on learning and instruction, 427–445. New York, NY: Routledge.10.4324/9780203839089Search in Google Scholar
Mayer, Richard E. & Roxana Moreno. 1998. A split-attention effect in multimedia learning: Evidence for dual processing systems in working memory. Journal of Educational Psychology 90(2). 312–320.10.1037/0022-0663.90.2.312Search in Google Scholar
Mueller, Charles M. 2011. English learners’ knowledge of prepositions: Collocational knowledge or knowledge based on meaning? System 39(4). 480–490.10.1016/j.system.2011.10.012Search in Google Scholar
Norris, John M. & Lourdes Ortega. 2000. Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning 50(3). 417–528.10.1111/0023-8333.00136Search in Google Scholar
Paivio, Allan. 2007. Mind and its evolution: A dual coding theoretical approach. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Search in Google Scholar
Paivio, Allan. 2010. Dual coding theory and the mental lexicon. Mental Lexicon 5(2). 205–230.10.1075/ml.5.2.04paiSearch in Google Scholar
Ramachandran, Sharimllah D. & Hajar A. Rahim. 2004. Meaning recall and retention: The impact of the translation method on elementary level learners’ vocabulary learning. RELC Journal 35(2). 161–178.10.1177/003368820403500205Search in Google Scholar
Schmidt, Richard W. 2001. Attention. In Peter Robinson (ed.), Cognition and second language instruction, 3–32. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139524780.003Search in Google Scholar
Spada, Nina & Yasuyo Tomita. 2010. Interactions between type of instruction and type of language feature: A meta-analysis. Language Learning 60(2). 263–308.10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00562.xSearch in Google Scholar
Suzuki, Yuichi & Robert M. DeKeyser. 2017. The interface of explicit and implicit knowledge in second language: Insights from individual differences in cognitive aptitudes. Language Learning 67(4). 747–790.10.1111/lang.12241Search in Google Scholar
Talmy, Leonard. 1988. Force dynamics in language and cognition. Cognitive Science 12(1). 49–100.10.1207/s15516709cog1201_2Search in Google Scholar
Talmy, Leonard. 2000. Toward a cognitive semantics, vol. I. Cambridge, MA: MIT.10.7551/mitpress/6847.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Tyler, Andrea. 2012. Cognitive linguistics and second language learning: Theoretical basics and experimental evidence. New York, NY: Routledge.10.4324/9780203876039Search in Google Scholar
Tyler, Andrea. 2017. Second language acquisition. In Barbara Dancygier (ed.), The Cambridge handbook of cognitive linguistics, 73–90. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University.10.1017/9781316339732.006Search in Google Scholar
Tyler, Andrea, Charles M. Mueller & Vu Ho. 2010. Applying cognitive linguistics to instructed L2 learning: The English modals. AILA Review 23(1). 30–49.10.1075/aila.23.03tylSearch in Google Scholar
Tyler, Andrea, Charles M. Mueller & Vu Ho. 2011. Applying cognitive linguistics to learning the semantics of English TO, FOR, and AT: An experimental investigation. Vigo International Journal of Applied Linguistics 8. 122–140.Search in Google Scholar
Wong, Sau-ling C. 1983. Overproduction, underlexicalisation, and unidiomatic usage in the ‘make’ causatives of Chinese speakers: A case for flexibility in interlanguage analysis. Language Learning and Communication 2(2). 151–163.Search in Google Scholar
Yasuda, Sachiko. 2010. Learning phrasal verbs through conceptual metaphors: A case of Japanese EFL learners. TESOL Quarterly 44(2). 250–273.10.5054/tq.2010.219945Search in Google Scholar
© 2019 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
