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
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.
Biber, D., & Conrad, S. (2009). Register, genre, and style. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Reppen, R. (1998). Corpus linguistics: Investigating language structure and use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Boreux, J.-J., Parent, E., & Bernier, J. (2010). Pratique du calcul bayésien. Paris: Springer-Verlag France.
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.
“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.
DuBois, J. (2007). The stance triangle. In E. Engebretson (Ed.), Stancetaking in discourse: subjectivity, evaluation, interaction (pp. 139–182). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Gal’perin, P. Ya. (1989). Organization of mental activity and the effectiveness of learning. Soviet Psychology, 27(3), 45–65.
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.
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.
Haenen, J. (1996). Piotr Gal’perin: Psychologist in Vygotsky’s footsteps. New York, NY: Nova Science Publishers.
Haenen, J. (2000). Gal’perian instruction in the ZPD. Human Development, 43(2), 93–98.
Haenen, J. (2001). Outlining the teaching-learning process: Piotr Gal’perin’s contribution. Learning and Instruction, 11, 157–170.
Heilenman, L. K., Kaplan, I., & Toussaint Tournier, C. (2006). Voilà: An Introduction to French. Boston, MA: Thomson Heinle.
Homma, Y. (2011). Functioning principles of the French preposition ‘en’ and absence of article in its object. Langue Française, 171, 77–88.
Hopper, P., & Thompson, S. A. (1984). The discourse basis for lexical categories in universal grammar. Language, 60, 703–750.
Huffman, A. (1983). ‘Government of the dative’ in French. Lingua, 60(4), 283–309.
Hunston, S. (2002). Corpora in applied linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Langacker, R. (2000). Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Langacker, R. (2008a). Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
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.
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.
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.
Ochs, E., Schegloff, E., & Thompson, S. A. (Eds.). (1996). Interaction and grammar. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Robinson, P., & Ellis, N. C. (Eds.). (2008). Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition. New York, NY: Taylor and Francis.
Stillman, D., & Gordon, R. (1999). The ultimate French review and practice: Mastering French grammar for confident communication. Lincolnwood, IL: Passport Books.
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.
Strauss, S. (2002a). This, that, and it in spoken American English: A demonstrative system of gradient focus. Language Sciences, 24, 131–152.
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.
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.
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.
Strauss, S., Feiz, P., and Xiang, X. (2018). Grammar, meaning, and concepts: A discourse-based approach to English. New York and London: Routledge.
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.
Taylor, J. (2002). Cognitive grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
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.
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.
Tyler, A. E. (2012b). Cognitive linguistics and second language learning: Theoretical basics and experimental evidence. New York, NY: Routledge.
Tyler, A. E., & Evans, V. (2003). The semantics of English prepositions: Spatial scenes, embodied meaning, and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
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.
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.
Vandeloise, C. (1991). Spatial prepositions: A case study from French. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (2012). Thought and language. Revised and expanded by A. Kozulin. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Wolff, G. (2013). Quel role, à l’avenir, pour le FMI en Europe. Retrieved from <[URL]>
Cited by (4)
Cited by four other publications
Liu, Dilin & Jie Qin
2024. The effectiveness of cognitive linguistics‐inspired language pedagogies: A systematic review. The Modern Language Journal 108:4 ► pp. 794 ff.
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.
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.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 20 december 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.