Complications in the L2 acquisition of the simple spatial prepositions in and on
Crosslinguistic differences in image schema and family resemblance
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.
Boers, F., & Demecheleer, M. (1998). A cognitive semantic approach to teaching prepositions. ELT Journal, 52(3), 197–204.
Chilton, P. (2014). Language, space, and mind: The conceptual geometry of linguistic meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
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.
Cronbach, L. J. (1977). Educational psychology (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Garrod, S., Ferrier, G., & Campbell, S. (1999).
In and on: Investigating the functional geometry of spatial prepositions. Cognition, 72(2), 167–189.
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.
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.
Hart, C. (2014). Discourse, grammar and ideology: Functional and cognitive perspectives. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
Johnson, M. (1987). The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.
Johnson, M. (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.
Kosslyn, S. M. (1980). Image and mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
Landau, B., & Jackendoff, R. (1993). “What” and “where” in spatial language and spatial cognition. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 16(2), 217–265.
Langacker, R. W. (1991). Concept, image, and symbol: The cognitive basis of grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Lindstromberg, S. (1996). Prepositions: Meaning and method. ELT Journal, 50(3), 225–236.
Machin, D. (2009). Multimodality and theories of the visual. In C. Jewitt (Ed.), Handbook of multimodality (pp. 181–190). London: Sage.
Mandler, J. M., & Pagan-Canovas, C. (2014). On defining image schemas. Language and Cognition, 6(4), 510–523.
McDonough, L., Choi, S., & Mandler, J. M. (2003). Understanding spatial relations: Flexible infants, lexical adults. Cognitive Psychology, 46(3), 229–259.
Odlin, T. (2005). Crosslinguistic influence and conceptual transfer: What are the concepts? Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 251, 3–25.
Pinker, S. (1999). Words and rules: The ingredients of language. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.
Quirk, R., & Greenbaum, S. (1973). A university grammar of English. London: Longman.
Rosch, E., & Mervis, C. B. (1975). Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology, 7(4), 573–605.
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.
Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a cognitive semantics, Vol. 1: Concept structuring systems. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Talmy, L. (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.
Tyler, A., & Evans, V. (2003). Lexical meaning and experience: The semantics of English prepositions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
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.
Cited by (1)
Cited by one other publication
Taferner, Robert Horst & Jun Yamada
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 july 2024. 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.