Cover not available
Article published In:
Pedagogical Linguistics
Vol. 5:1 (2024) ► pp.1–30

More evidence that a usage-based, applied cognitive linguistics approach is effective for teaching the Spanish prepositions por and para

ORCID logo | University of Richmond
While applying cognitive linguistics (CL) to language teaching has been proven effective for teaching polysemous prepositions in English, it has demonstrated less success with the difficult-to-acquire Spanish prepositions por and para. This points to the need for more practical research investigating if and how CL might be effective for this particular target, especially given that conventional instruction has been found to be lacking. The current study compared three instructional conditions in intact intermediate Spanish classes. The first was a traditional approach to teaching por and para that presented learners with lists of disconnected uses in one lesson (n = 32). The second was an applied CL approach that presented Principled Polysemy Networks gradually over time (n = 34), an incremental approach that is usage-based and is a best practice for cognitively demanding instruction. The third was a traditional approach that presented lists of disconnected uses but incrementally over time (n = 26). The usage-based CL approach was found to confer the most advantage for learners on a multiple-choice test, but not a fill-in-the-blank test. The findings are discussed in relation to their pedagogical applications, future directions for applied CL research, and limitations of the study.
Keywords: applied cognitive linguistics, prepositions, polysemy, por and para , usage-based language teaching
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1Applied cognitive linguistics
      • 1.1.1Usage-based language learning
      • 1.1.2Applied CL for prepositions
    • 1.2Spanish por and para: The learning problem for L1 English speakers
    • 1.3Applied CL for por and para
    • 1.4Research questions
  • 2.Methods
    • 2.1Participants
    • 2.2Instructional materials and procedures
      • 2.2.1Traditional instruction
      • 2.2.2Usage-based but traditional instruction
      • 2.2.3Cognitive linguistics and usage-based instruction
    • 2.3Testing materials and procedures
    • 2.4Analysis
  • 3.Results
    • 3.1Multiple-choice test
    • 3.2Fill-in-the-blank test
    • 3.3Questionnaire
  • 4.Discussion
    • 4.1Pedagogical implications
    • 4.2Future directions
    • 4.3Limitations
  • Acknowledgements
  • Note
  • References
Published online: 8 September 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/pl.22005.kis
References (48)
References
Alonso Raya, R., Castañeda Castro, A., Martínez Gila, P., Miquel López, L., Ortega Olivares, J., & Ruiz Campillo, J. P. (2011). Gramática básica del estudiante de español. Edición revisada y ampliada. Barcelona: Difusión.Google Scholar
Achard, M., & Niemeier, S. (2004). Introduction: Cognitive linguistics, language acquisition, and pedagogy. In M. Achard & S. Niemeier (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics, second language acquisition, and foreign language teaching (pp. 1–11). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baayen, H. (2008). Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baayen, H., Davidson, D., & Bates, D. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory & Language, 59 1, 390–412. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using eigen and S4. R Package Version 1.1-9. Available online at: [URL]
Bielak, J. (2011). Cognitive linguistics and foreign language pedagogy: An overview of recent trends and developments. In M. Pawlak (Ed.), Extending the boundaries of research on second language learning and teaching (pp. 241–262). Berlin: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blanco, José A. (2015). Imagina: español sin barreras, 3rd edition. Boston: Vista Higher Learning.Google Scholar
Brown, H. D. (2014). Principles of language learning and teaching, 6th edition. White Plains, NY: Pearson.Google Scholar
Cadierno, T., & Eskildsen, S. W. (2015). Usage-based perspectives on second language learning. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cho, K. (2010). Fostering the acquisition of English prepositions by Japanese learners with networks and prototypes. In S. De Knop, F. Boers & A. De Rycker (Eds.), Fostering language teaching efficiency through cognitive linguistics (pp. 259–92). Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Comajoan Colomé, L. (2014). Tense and aspect in second language Spanish. In K. L. Geeslin (Ed.), The handbook of Spanish second language acquisition (pp. 235–252). Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar
Curry, K. (2010). ¿Pero Para? ¿Por Qué? The application of the principled polysemy model to por and para. (Unpublished Master’s thesis). Georgetown University, Washington, DC.
Dolgova, N., & Tyler, A. (2019). Applications of usage-based approaches to language teaching. In X. Gao (Ed.), Second handbook of English language teaching. Springer International Handbooks of Education. New York: Springer, Cham. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dornyëi, Z., & Ryan, S. (2015). The psychology of the language learner revisited. New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Drożdż, G., & Taraszka-Drożdż, B. (2020). Foreign language pedagogy in the light of cognitive linguistics research. Berlin: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (2005). At the interface: Dynamic interactions of explicit and implicit language knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27 (2), 305–352. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015). Cognitive and social aspects of learning from usage. In T. Cadierno & S. W. Eskildsen (Eds.), Usage-based perspectives on second language learning (pp. 49–73). Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C., & Wulff, S. (2015). Second language acquisition. In E. Dabrowska & D. Divjak (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 4091–431). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fox, F. (2003). Effect displays in R for generalised linear models. Journal of Statistical Software, 8 (15), 1–27. [URL]
Guntermann, G. (1992). An analysis of interlanguage development over time: Part 1, por and para . Hispania, 75 (1), 177–187. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hijazo-Gascón, A., & Llopis-García, R. (2019). Applied cognitive linguistics and foreign language learning. Introduction to the special issue. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language teaching, 57 (1), 1–20. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kilimci, A. (2017). Integrating cognitive linguistics insights into data-driven learning: Teaching vertical prepositions. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 13 (2), 681–719.Google Scholar
Kissling, E. M., Negrete, L., Warren, L., & Tyler, A. (2018). Reexamining por and para in the Spanish foreign language intermediate classroom: A usage-based, cognitive linguistic approach. In A. Tyler, L. Huang, & H. Jan (Eds.), What is Applied Cognitive Linguistics? Answers from Current SLA Research (pp. 229–256). Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lafford, B., & Ryan, J. (1995). The acquisition of lexical meaning in a study abroad context: The Spanish prepositions por and para . Hispania, 78 (3), 528–547. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lam, Y. (2009). Applying cognitive linguistics to teaching Spanish prepositions por and para . Language Awareness, 18 (1), 2–18. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Volume I. Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
(2008). Cognitive grammar as a basis for language instruction. In P. Robinson & N. C. Ellis (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition (pp. 66–88). New York/London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Linck, J. A., & Cunnings, I. (2015). The utility and application of mixed-effects models in second language research. Language Learning, 65 1, 185–207. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Littlemore, J. (2009). Applying cognitive linguistics to second language learning and teaching. New York: Palgrave MacMillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Liu, D., & Tsai, T. (2021). Cognitive linguistics and language pedagogy. In H. Luo (Ed.), Routledge handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 543–555). New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Llopis-García, R. (2015). Las preposiciones y la metáfora del espacio: aportaciones y potencial de la lingüística cognitiva para su enseñanza. Journal of Spanish Language Teaching, 2 (1), 51–68. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Long, M. H. (2007). Problems in SLA. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Luo, H. (2021). Cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition. In H. Luo (Ed.), Routledge handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 556–567). New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mendo Murillo, S. (2019). El significado de las preposiciones en la enseñanza del español LE/L2. In I. Ibarretxe-Antuñano, T. Cadierno & A. Castañeda Castro (Eds.), Lingüística cognitiva y español LE/L2 (pp. 220–234). New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ortega, L., Tyler, A., Park, H., & Uno, M. (2016). The usage-based study of language learning and multilingualism. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Queller, K. (2001). A usage-based approach to modeling and teaching the phrasal lexicon. In M. Pütz, S. Niemeier & R. Dirven (Eds.), Applied cognitive linguistics II: Language pedagogy (pp. 55–83). Berlin: Mouton de Grutyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pinto, D., & Rex, S. (2006). The acquisition of the Spanish prepositions por and para in a classroom setting. Hispania, 89 (3), 611–622. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
R Core Team (2015). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Available online at: [URL]
Robinson, P., & Ellis, N. C. (2008). Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition. New York/London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Suzuki, Y. & DeKeyser, R. (2017). The interface of explicit and implicite knowledge in a second language: Insights from individual differences in cognitive aptitudes. Language Learning, 67 (4), 747–790. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tyler, A. (2008). Cognitive linguistics and second language instruction. In P. Robinson & N. C. Ellis (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition (pp. 456–488). New York/London: Routledge.Google Scholar
(2012). Cognitive linguistics and second language learning: Theoretical basics and experimental evidence. New York/London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tyler, A., & Evans, V. (2001). Reconsidering prepositional polysemy networks: The case of over . Language, 77 (4), 724–765. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tyler, A., & Huang, L. (2018). What is applied cognitive linguistics? Answers from current SLA research. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tyler, A., Mueller, C., & Ho, V. (2010). Applying cognitive linguistics to learning the semantics of English to, for, and at: An experimental investigation. Vigo International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 8 1, 181–206.Google Scholar
Vázquez, G. (1991). Análisis de errores y aprendizaje de español/lengua extranjera. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Verspoor, M. H., & Hong, N. T. P. (2013). A dynamic usage-based approach to communicative language teaching. European Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1 (1), 22–54. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Kissling, Elizabeth Maria & Taylor Arnold
2022. Preliminary evidence that applied cognitive linguistics is effective for novice learners regardless of their individual differences. Language Teaching Research DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 28 october 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.