Chapter published 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

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

A conceptual grammar approach to on and off

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”.
Keywords: grammar teaching, prepositions, visual conceptual system
Published online: 20 December 2018
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.64.05sta
References

References

Bloomfield, L.
(1933) Language. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Brinton, L.
(1985) Verb particles in English: Aspect or aktionsart? Studia Linguistica, 39(2), 157–168.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Brugman, C.
(1988) The story of over: Polysemy, semantics and the structure of the lexicon. New York: Garland Press.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.CrossrefGoogle 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.CrossrefGoogle 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
Chomsky, N.
(1995) The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.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.CrossrefGoogle 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
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
(2005) Applying cognitive linguistics to pedagogical grammar: The English prepositions of verticality. Revista Brasileira de Lingüistica Aplicada 5(2), 11–42.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Frank, M.
(1972) Modern English: A practical reference guide. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Grady, J. E.
(1997) THEORIES ARE BUILDINGS revisited. Cognitive Linguistics, 8(4), 267–290.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kang, Y.
(2012) Cognitive linguistics approach to semantics of spatial relations in Korean. Doctoral dissertation, Georgetown University.Google Scholar
Ke, Y.
(2017) A bi-Axis model for profiling English phrasal verbs for pedagogic purposes. TESOL Quarterly, 51(4), 972–984.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kövecses, Z. & Szabó, P.
(1996) Idioms: A view of cognitive semantic. Applied Linguistics, 17(3), 326–355.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G.
(1987) Women, fire and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lam, Y.
(2009) Applying cognitive linguistics to the teaching of the Spanish prepositions por and para . Language Awareness, 18(1), 2–18.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R.
(1987) Foundations of cognitive grammar. Volume 1. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
(1991a) Concept, image, and symbol. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1991b) Foundations of cognitive grammar. Volume 2. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Lee, K.
(2012) Yeong-eo jeonchisa yeongu (Research into English prepositions). Paju, Kyounggido: Kyomoonsa.Google Scholar
Levin, M. and Lindquist, H.
(2013) Like I said again and again and over and over: On the ADV1 and ADV1 construction with adverbs of direction in English. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 118(1), 7–33.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, S.
(2003) Space in language and cognition: Explorations in cognitive diversity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lim, B.
(2004) Jeonchisa honnaejugi (Conquering prepositions). Pusan: Doseochulpanaajak.Google Scholar
Lindstromberg, S.
(1996) Prepositions: meaning and method. ELT Journal, 50, 225–236.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2010) English prepositions explained (Rev. ed.). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle 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
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.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Radden, G. & Dirven, R.
(2007) Cognitive English grammar. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle 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.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ruhl, C.
(1989) On monosemy: A study in linguistic semantics. New York: State University of New York Press.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.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Side, R.
(1990) Phrasal verbs: Sorting them out. ELT Journal. 44(2), 144–152.CrossrefGoogle 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
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 CrossrefGoogle 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.CrossrefGoogle 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
Talmy, L.
(2000a) Toward a cognitive semantics. Volume 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(2000b) Toward a cognitive semantics. Volume 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.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.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tyler, A.
(2012a) Cognitive linguistics and second language learning: Theoretical basics and experimental evidence. NY: Routledge. CrossrefGoogle 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.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tyler, A., & Evans, V.
(2001) Reconsidering prepositional polysemy networks: The case of over . Language, 77(4), 724–765.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2003) The semantics of English prepositions: Spatial scenes, embodied meaning, and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossrefGoogle 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
Walková, M.
(2017) Particle verbs in English: Telicity or scalarity? Linguistics, 55(3), 589–616.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
White, B.
(2012) A conceptual approach to the instruction of phrasal verbs. The Modern Language Journal, 96(3), 419–438.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Yule, G.
(2010) Explaining English grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar