Chapter published in:
Usage-inspired L2 Instruction: Researched pedagogy
Edited by Andrea E. Tyler, Lourdes Ortega, Mariko Uno and Hae In Park
[Language Learning & Language Teaching 49] 2018
► pp. 95–115

Chapter 5. Conceptual frameworks and L2 pedagogy

The case of French prepositions

| University of Massachusetts, Boston
| The Pennsylvania State University

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.

Published online: 13 February 2018
https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.49.05bue
References

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
Biber, D., & Conrad, S.
(2009) Register, genre, and style. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Reppen, R.
(1998) Corpus linguistics: Investigating language structure and use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Boreux, J.-J., Parent, E., & Bernier, J.
(2010) Pratique du calcul bayésien. Paris: Springer-Verlag France. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
“Carcassonne: bébé abandonné dans la voiture: vidéosurveillance utilisée.”
(2015, July) Retrieved from http://​www​.lindependant​.fr​/2015​/07​/25​/bebe​-abandonne​-dans​-la​-voiture​-la​-videosurveillance​-utilisee,2064202​.php
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
DuBois, J.
(2007) The stance triangle. In E. Engebretson (Ed.), Stancetaking in discourse: subjectivity, evaluation, interaction (pp. 139–182). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gal’perin, P. Ya
(1989) Organization of mental activity and the effectiveness of learning. Soviet Psychology, 27(3), 45–65.Google Scholar
(1992) Stage-by-stage formation as a method of psychological investigation. Journal of Russian and East European Psychology, 30(4), 60–80. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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
Haenen, J.
(1996) Piotr Gal’perin: Psychologist in Vygotsky’s footsteps. New York, NY: Nova Science Publishers.Google Scholar
(2000) Gal’perian instruction in the ZPD. Human Development, 43(2), 93–98. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2001) Outlining the teaching-learning process: Piotr Gal’perin’s contribution. Learning and Instruction, 11, 157–170. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Heilenman, L. K., Kaplan, I., & Toussaint Tournier, C.
(2006) Voilà: An Introduction to French. Boston, MA: Thomson Heinle.Google Scholar
Homma, Y.
(2011) Functioning principles of the French preposition ‘en’ and absence of article in its object. Langue Française, 171, 77–88. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, P., & Thompson, S. A.
(1984) The discourse basis for lexical categories in universal grammar. Language, 60, 703–750. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Huffman, A.
(1983) ‘Government of the dative’ in French. Lingua, 60(4), 283–309. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hunston, S.
(2002) Corpora in applied linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R.
(2000) Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2008a) Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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
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
Ochs, E., Schegloff, E., & Thompson, S. A.
(Eds.) (1996) Interaction and grammar. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P., & Ellis, N. C.
(Eds.) (2008) Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition. New York, NY: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
Stillman, D., & Gordon, R.
(1999) The ultimate French review and practice: Mastering French grammar for confident communication. Lincolnwood, IL: Passport Books.Google Scholar
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
(2002a) This, that, and it in spoken American English: A demonstrative system of gradient focus. Language Sciences, 24, 131–152. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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
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
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, J.
(2002) Cognitive grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
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
(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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2012b) Cognitive linguistics and second language learning: Theoretical basics and experimental evidence. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Tyler, A. E., & Evans, V.
(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 . In M. Achard, & S. Niemeier (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics, second language acquisition, and foreign language teaching (pp.165–194). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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
Vandeloise, C.
(1991) Spatial prepositions: A case study from French. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Vygotsky, L. S.
(2012) Thought and language. Revised and expanded by A. Kozulin. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by other publications

Strauss, Susan, Heesun Chang & Jungwan Yoon
2018.  In Language Learning, Discourse and Cognition [Human Cognitive Processing, 64], ► pp. 85 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 29 august 2020. 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.