Article published In:
Cognitive Linguistic StudiesVol. 9:2 (2022) ► pp.223–242
The prototypical approach and the factors affecting the teaching and learning of prepositions
This article is a critical review of the approach based on a polysemy network model applied to teaching prepositions. The analysis brings forth the inherent limitations of this model in explaining less prototypical senses and in leading second language learners to discover a contextualized interpretation of a preposition that may vary subtly from the meaning represented in the model; the model also fails to take conceptual differences between metonym and metaphor into account and assumes that these concepts would be familiar to ESL learners. As will be discussed, methodological modifications could yield more effective results. It is also suggested that a micro-level analysis of each individual sense is required to identify the learning outcomes of the intervention to ascertain that this approach is resourceful in teaching a range of senses in the polysemy network model.
Keywords: prototypical approach, polysemy, teaching and learning of prepositional meaning, metonymic-metaphoric awareness
Article outline
- Introduction
- 1.Lack of semantic transparency and concordance
- 2.Schematic distance and prototypical asymmetry
- 3.Differences in metonymic and metaphoric awareness
- 4.Practical implications
- 4.1ESL pedagogy
- 4.1.1The problem of polysemy
- 4.1.2Asymmetrical prototypicality
- 4.1.3Input complexity and uptake
- 4.2Future research
- 4.1ESL pedagogy
- 5.Conclusion
- Acknowledgements
-
References
References
Bencini, G. M. L., & Goldberg, A. E.
(2000) The contribution of argument structure constructions to sentence meaning. Journal of Memory and Language,
43
(4), 640–651. 
Benczes, R., & Sagvari, B.
(2018) Where metaphors really come from: Social factors as contextual influence in Hungarian teenagers’ metaphorical conceptualizations of life. Cognitive Linguistics,
29
(1), 121–154.
Boers, F.
(2000) Metaphor awareness and vocabulary retention. Applied Lingusitics,
21
(4), 553–571.
Chaudron, C.
(1985) Intake: On models and methods for discovering learners’ processing of input. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,
7
(1), 1–14.
Corder, S. P.
(1967) The significance of learner’s errors. International Review of Applied Linguisitics,
5
(1–4), 161–170.
Cuyckens, H.
(2002) Metonymy in prepositions. In H. Chyckens & G. Radden (Eds.), Perspectives on Prepositions (pp. 257–266). Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.
Danesi, M.
(2003) Second Language Teaching: A View from the Right Side of the Brain. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
(2008) Conceptual errors in second-language learning. In S. De Knop & T. De Rycker (Eds.), Cognitive Approaches to Pedagogical Grammar: A Volume in Honour of Rene Dirven (pp. 231–256). Berlin/New York: Mouton De Gruyter.
Evans, V.
(2010) From the spatial to the non-spatial: The ‘state’ lecical concepts of in, on and at. In E. Vyvyan & P. Chilton (Eds.), Language, Cognition and Space: The State of the Art and the New Directions (pp. 215–248). London: Equinox.
Galantomos, I.
(2018) Gender and proficiency effects on metaphore use among Greek learners. International Journal of Applied Linguistics,
29
(1), 61–77.
Gries, S. T.
(2015) Polysemy. In E. Dąbrowska & D. S. Divjak, Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 472–490). Berlin/Bosten: De Gruyter Mouton.
Kemmer, S., & Barlow, M.
(2000) Introduction: A usage-based conception of language. In M. Barlow & S. Kemmer (Eds.), Usage-based Models of Language (pp. 7–25). Stanford, California: CSLI Publications.
Klepousniotou, E.
(2002) The processing of lexical ambiguity: Homonymy and polysemy in the mental lexicon. Brain and Language,
81
(1–3), 205–223.
Kövecses, Z.
(2005) Metaphor in Culture: Universality and Variation. New York/Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
(2015) Where Metaphors Come from: Reconsidering Context in Metaphor. New York: Oxford University Press.
Lakoff, G.
(1987) Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal About the Mind. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M.
(1980) Metaphore We Live By. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Lam, Y.
(2009) Applying Cognitive Linguistics to teaching the Spanish prepositions por and para. Language Awareness,
18
(1), 2–18.
Lindstromberg, S.
(1996) Prepositions: Meaning and method. ELT Journal,
50
(3), 225–236.
Littlemore, J.
(2001a) Metaphoric competence: A possible language learning strength of students with holistic cognitive style?. TESOL Quarterly,
35
(3), 459–491.
(2001b) The uses of metaphor in university lectures and the problems that it causes for overseas studetns. Teaching in Higher Education,
6
(3), 333–349.
(2010) Metaphoric competence in the first and second language: Similarities and differences. In M. Pütz & L. Sicola (Eds.), Cognitive Processing in Second Language Acquisition: Inside the Learner’s Mind (pp. 293–316). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Littlemore, J., & Low, G.
(2006) Metaphoric competence, second language learning, and communicative language ability. Applied Linguistics,
27
(2), 268–294.
Littlemore, J., Chen, P. T., Koester, A., & Barnden, J.
(2011) Difficulities in metaphore comprehension faced by international student whose first language is not English. Applied Linguistics,
32
(4), 408–429.
Lu, H., & Wei, X.
(2019) Structuring polysemy in English learners’ dictionaries: A prototype theory-based model. International Journal of Lexicography,
32
(1), 20–37.
Michl, D.
(2019) Metonymies are more literal than metaphors: Evidence from ratings of German idioms. Language and Cognition,
11
(1), 98–124.
Rice, S.
(1996) Prepositional prototypes. In M. Pütz & R. Dirven, The Construal of Space in Language and Thought (pp. 135–167). Berlin: Mounton de Gruyter.
Rosch, E., & Mervis, C. B.
(1975) Family resemblences: Studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology,
7
(4), 573–605.
Rundblad, G., & Annaz, D.
(2010) Development of metaphor and metonymy comprehension: Receptive vocabulary and conceptual knowledge. British Journal of Developmental Psychology,
28
(3), 547–563.
Swain, M.
(2006) Languaging, agency and collaboration in advanced language proficiency. In H. Byrnes (Ed.), Advanced Language Learning: The Contribution of Halliday and Vygotsky (pp. 95–108). London: Continuum.
Swan, M.
(1985) A critical look at the communicative approach II. ELTJ,
39
(2), 76–87.
Tomasello, M.
(2003) Constructing a language: A Usage-Based Theory of Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Tyler, A.
(2012) Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language learning: Theoretical Basics and Experimental Evidence. New York and London: Routledge.
Tyler, A., & Evans, V.
(2001) Reconsidering prepositional polysemy networks: The case of over. Language,
77
(4), 724–765.
(2003) The Semantics of English Prepositios: Spatial Senses, Embodied Meaning and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tyler, A., Muller, 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,
8
(1), 181–206.
Xu, H., & Lou, Y.
(2015) Treatment of the prepositions ‘to’ in English learners’ dictionaries: A cognitive approach. International Journal of Lexicography,
28
(2), 207–231.