Chapter 5
Conceptual frameworks and L2 pedagogy
The case of French prepositions
Prepositions have historically posed challenges to second language (L2) learners, due largely to the fact that prepositions in the first language (L1) typically do not overlap in meaning, function, or use with L2 prepositions. Three prepositions in French, à, dans, and en, reflect this very issue. This chapter presents results from three instructional workshops involving students and teachers of French at a large public university in the northeastern U.S. We introduced our conceptualization-based framework for the target prepositions, based on discourse analysis of a corpus and designed to provide L2 learners and teachers with a unified and systematic conceptual mapping of the trajector and landmark relationships for each preposition, together with other symbols that graphically illustrate the meanings for each form. The combined Cognitive Linguistic (CL) (Langacker, 2008a, 2008b; Taylor, 2002; Tyler, 2012b) and Sociocultural Theoretical (SCT) (Vygotsky, 2012) Concept-Based Instructional (CBI) (see Haenen, 2001) approach helped early intermediate French L2 learners/teachers better understand these three French prepositions and be able to use them appropriately.
Article outline
- Introduction
- The knottiness of à, dans, and en from an L1 “equivalency” perspective
- Challenges from the trenches
- Cognitive linguistics and discourse analysis
- Sociocultural theory and cognitive linguistics
- Our pedagogy
- Instructor workshops
- Results
- À
- Dans
- En
- Preposition use, comparing pre-test to post-test
- Instructor feedback
- Discussion and implications
-
References
References (47)
References
Biber, D. (1994). An analytic framework for register studies. In D. Biber & E. Finegan (Eds.), Sociolinguistic perspectives on register (pp. 31–58). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Biber, D., & Conrad, S. (2009). Register, genre, and style. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Reppen, R. (1998). Corpus linguistics: Investigating language structure and use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Boreux, J.-J., Parent, E., & Bernier, J. (2010). Pratique du calcul bayésien. Paris: Springer-Verlag France. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Buescher, K., & 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: Applications to foreign and second language teaching (pp. 155–181). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
“Carcassonne: bébé abandonné dans la voiture: vidéosurveillance utilisée.” (2015, July). Retrieved from <[URL]>
“Choix d’investissement dans un avenir certain.” (2012, March). Retrieved from <[URL]>
Cole, M. (2009). The perils of translation: A first step in reconsidering Vygotsky’s theory of development in relation to formal education. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 16, 291–295. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
DuBois, J. (2007). The stance triangle. In E. Engebretson (Ed.), Stancetaking in discourse: subjectivity, evaluation, interaction (pp. 139–182). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Gal’perin, P. Ya. (1989). Organization of mental activity and the effectiveness of learning. Soviet Psychology, 27(3), 45–65.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Gal’perin, P. Ya (1992). Stage-by-stage formation as a method of psychological investigation. Journal of Russian and East European Psychology, 30(4), 60–80. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Guiga, A. (2010). Reflexions sur la function et le signifie de quelques prepositions françaises et italiennes [Reflections on the function and meaning of some French and Italian prepositions.] Studia Universitatis Babes-Bolyai, Philologia, 55(4), 219–229.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Haenen, J. (1996). Piotr Gal’perin: Psychologist in Vygotsky’s footsteps. New York, NY: Nova Science Publishers.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Haenen, J. (2000). Gal’perian instruction in the ZPD. Human Development, 43(2), 93–98. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Haenen, J. (2001). Outlining the teaching-learning process: Piotr Gal’perin’s contribution. Learning and Instruction, 11, 157–170. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Heilenman, L. K., Kaplan, I., & Toussaint Tournier, C. (2006). Voilà: An Introduction to French. Boston, MA: Thomson Heinle.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Homma, Y. (2011). Functioning principles of the French preposition ‘en’ and absence of article in its object. Langue Française, 171, 77–88. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hopper, P., & Thompson, S. A. (1984). The discourse basis for lexical categories in universal grammar. Language, 60, 703–750. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Huffman, A. (1983). ‘Government of the dative’ in French. Lingua, 60(4), 283–309. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hunston, S. (2002). Corpora in applied linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Langacker, R. (2000). Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Langacker, R. (2008a). Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Langacker, R. (2008b). The relevance of cognitive grammar for language pedagogy. In S. De Knop & T. DeRycker (Eds.), Cognitive approaches to pedagogical grammar (pp. 7–35). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lantolf, J. P. (2011). Integrating sociocultural theory and cognitive linguistics in the second language classroom. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (Volume II, pp. 303–318). New York, NY: Routledge.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lantolf, J. P., & Poehner, M. E. (2014). Sociocultural theory and the pedagogical imperative in L2 education. Vygotskian praxis and the research/practice divide. New York, NY: Routledge.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ochs, E., Schegloff, E., & Thompson, S. A. (Eds.). (1996). Interaction and grammar. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Robinson, P., & Ellis, N. C. (Eds.). (2008). Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition. New York, NY: Taylor and Francis.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Stillman, D., & Gordon, R. (1999). The ultimate French review and practice: Mastering French grammar for confident communication. Lincolnwood, IL: Passport Books.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Strauss, S. (2006). Learning and teaching grammar through patterns of conceptualization: The case of (advanced) Korean. In H. Byrnes, K. Sprang, & H. Wether-Guntharp (Eds.), Georgetown University Round Table (pp. 87–104). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Strauss, S. (2002a). This, that, and it in spoken American English: A demonstrative system of gradient focus. Language Sciences, 24, 131–152. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Strauss, S. (2002b). Distinctions in completives: The relevance of resistance in Korean V-a/e pelita and V-ko malta and Japanese V-te shimau. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 143–166. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Strauss, S. (2003) Completive aspect, emotion, and the dynamic eventive: Korean V-a/e pelita, Japanese V-te shimau, and Spanish se
. Linguistics, 41(4), 653–679. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Strauss, S., & Buescher, K. (in preparation). The power of à: A cognitive linguistic analysis of French preposition à in discourse.
Strauss, S., Chang, H.-S., and Yoon, J. (in preparation). The speech went on (and on) as Kerry dozed off (*and off): A Conceptual Grammar approach to on and off
.
Strauss, S., & Feiz, P. (2014). Discourse analysis: Putting our worlds into words. New York, NY: Routledge.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Strauss, S., Feiz, P., and Xiang, X. (2018). Grammar, meaning, and concepts: A discourse-based approach to English. New York and London: Routledge.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Strauss, S., Lee, J., & Ahn, K. (2006). Applying conceptual grammar to advanced level teaching: The case of two completive aspect markers in Korean. Modern Language Journal, 90, 185–209. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Taylor, J. (2002). Cognitive grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Tyler, A. E. (2008). Cognitive linguistics and second language instruction. In P. Robinson & N. Ellis (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition, (pp. 456–488). New York, NY: Routledge.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Tyler, A. E. (2012a). Spatial language, polysemy, and cross-linguistic semantic mismatches: Cognitive Linguistics insights into challenges for second language learners. Spatial Cognition and Computation, 12(4), 305–335. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Tyler, A. E. (2012b). Cognitive linguistics and second language learning: Theoretical basics and experimental evidence. New York, NY: Routledge.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Tyler, A. E., & Evans, V. (2003). The semantics of English prepositions: Spatial scenes, embodied meaning, and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Tyler, A. E., & Evans, V. (2004). Applying cognitive linguistics to pedagogical grammar: The case of over
. In M. Achard, & S. Niemeier (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics, second language acquisition, and foreign language teaching (pp.165–194). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Tyler, A. E., Mueller, 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, 181–206.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Vandeloise, C. (1991). Spatial prepositions: A case study from French. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Vygotsky, L. S. (2012). Thought and language. Revised and expanded by A. Kozulin. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Wolff, G. (2013). Quel role, à l’avenir, pour le FMI en Europe. Retrieved from <[URL]>
Cited by (3)
Cited by three other publications
Qin, Jie, Zhangxin Wu & Shuneng Zhong
2023.
When concept-based language instruction meets cognitive linguistics: teaching English phrasal verbs with up and out
.
International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 61:4
► pp. 1455 ff.
![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
White, Benjamin J., Gabriela Adela Gánem-Gutiérrez & Mathias Schulze
2021.
Conceptualization and Orientation in Concept-based Language Instruction.
Language and Sociocultural Theory 8:1
► pp. 1 ff.
![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
Strauss, Susan, Heesun Chang & Jungwan Yoon
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 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.