Cover not available
Article published In:
Review of Cognitive Linguistics
Vol. 13:1 (2015) ► pp.167–190

Visualization and conceptual metaphor as tools for the teaching of abstract motion in German

The case study explores German examples of metaphorical motion events as in (1) einen Text ins Deutsche übersetzen (‘to translate a text into German’) or (2) Er war bei uns über die Feiertage (‘He was with us over (during) the holidays’) in the wider context of verb-framed and satellite-framed languages (Slobin, 1996, 2000; Talmy, 1985). Starting from a general description of the components of motion events (Talmy, 1985) the examples help illustrate the German preferences in the lexicalization of such motion events and also concretize the challenges for the learning tasks of foreign language learners related to the German case-marking. Traditionally, German case-marking constitutes one of the major difficulties for foreign learners, especially in expressions of abstract motion events in which so-called “two-way prepositions” (Smith, 1995) can be used. The learner has to make a decision of whether to use an accusative (for the expression of a dynamic motion event with a path and a goal) or a dative (for the expression of a location) according to the meaning conveyed. The empirical study conducted with intermediate French-speaking students of German shows that the teaching of German motion events with their case-alternation can be facilitated by a methodology which deals with language-specific concepts (Boers & Lindstromberg, 2008), visualization (Paivio, 2001) and metaphor (Littlemore & Low, 2006). The visual support may offer the basis for a potential link with underlying conceptual metaphors (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980), e.g. abstract is concrete or knowing is seeing. Spatial distinctions such as those between containers and surfaces are extended to more abstract areas of experience, especially in the context of situations describing abstract changes. Here one of the main issues for the learner is to find out whether the abstract goal is conceptualized as a container, a surface or still another basic spatial relation.
Keywords: dual coding, case alternation, visualization, metaphor, French, German, language typology, motion event, foreign language learners, morpho-syntax, dative/accusative
Published online: 23 June 2015
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.13.1.07kno
References (85)
Aldenhoff, J. (1994). Allemand: Grammaire progressive avec exercices. Bruxelles: De Boeck.Google Scholar
Bamberg, M. (2005). The role of language in the construction of emotions. Palmerston North, New Zealand: Dept of Psychology, Massey University, New Zealand.Google Scholar
Barcelona, A., & Ruiz de Mendoza, F.J. (Eds.). (2011). Bibliography of metaphor and metonymy. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
. (Eds.). (2014). Bibliography of metaphor and metonymy. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bellavia, E. (1996). The German ‘über’. In M. Pütz & R. Dirven (Eds.), The construal of space in language and thought (pp. 73–107). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2007). Erfahrung, Imagination und Sprache: Die Bedeutung der Metaphern der Alltagsprache für das Fremdsprachenlernen am Beispiel der deutschen Präpositionen. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Beréndi, M., Csábi, S., & Kövecses, Z. (2007). Using conceptual metaphors and metonymies in vocabulary teaching. In F. Boers & S. Lindstromberg (Eds.), Not so arbitrary: Cognitive linguistic approaches to teaching vocabulary and phraseology (pp. 65–100). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Boers, F. (2003). Applied linguistics perspectives on cross-cultural variation in conceptual metaphor. Metaphor and Symbol, 18(4), 231–238. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2011). Cognitive semantic ways of teaching figurative phrases. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 9(1), 227–261. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2013). Cognitive linguistic approaches to second language vocabulary: Assessment and integration. Language Teaching: Surveys and Studies, 46(2), 208–224. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boers, F., Deconinck, J., & Lindstromberg, S. (2010). Choosing motivated chunks for teaching. In S. De Knop, F. Boers, & A. De Rycker (Eds.), Fostering language teaching efficiency through Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 239–256). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boers, F., & Demecheleer, M. (1998). A cognitive semantic approach to teaching prepositions. English Language Teaching Journal, 531, 197–204. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boers, F., & Lindstromberg, S. (Eds.). (2008). Cognitive approaches to teaching vocabulary. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Bouillon, H. (2001). Grammaire pratique de l’allemand. Brussels: De Boeck.Google Scholar
Brüning, L., & Saum, T. (2007). Erfolgreich unterrichten durch Visualisieren. Grafisches Strukturieren mit Strategien des kooperativen Lernens. Essen, Germany: Neue Deutsche Schule Verlagsgesellschaft.Google Scholar
Buchowski, M. (1996). Metaphor, metonymy, and cross-cultural translation. Semiotica, 110(3–4), 301–310. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cameron, L. (Ed.). (2003). Metaphor in educational discourse. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Carroll, M. (1997). Changing place in English and German: Language-specific preferences in the conceptualization of spatial relations. In J. Nuyts & E. Pederson (Eds.), Language and conceptualization (pp. 137–161). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cienki, A., & Müller, C. (Eds.). (2008). Metaphor and gesture. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cortazzi M., & Jin, L. (1999). Bridges to learning: Metaphors of teaching, learning and language. In L. Cameron & G. Low (Eds.), Researching and applying metaphor (pp. 149–176). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Danesi, M. (2007). A conceptual metaphor framework for the teaching of mathematics. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 26(3), 225–236. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2008). Conceptual errors in second-language learning. In S. De Knop & T. De Rycker (Eds.), Cognitive approaches to pedagogical grammar: A volume in honour of René Dirven (pp. 223–248). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Deignan, A., Gabrys, D., & Solska, A. (1997). Teaching English metaphors using cross-linguistic awareness-raising activities. English Language Teaching Journal, 51(4), 352–360. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Knop, S., Dirven, R., & Smieja, B. (Eds.). (2008). Bibliography of metaphor and metonymy (METBIB): The interdisciplinary resource on figurative language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
De Knop, S., Boers, F., & De Rycker, A. (Eds.). (2010). Fostering language teaching efficiency through Cognitive Linguistics. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Di Meola, C. (1998). Semantisch relevante und semantisch irrelevante Kasusalternation am Beispiel von ‘entlang.’ Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft, 261, 204–235.Google Scholar
Draye, L. (1996). The German dative. In W. Van Belle & W. Van Langendonck (Eds.), The dative: Descriptive studies (pp. 155–215). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Evans, V., & Tyler, A. (2005). Applying cognitive linguistics to pedagogical grammar: The English prepositions of verticality. Revista Brasileira de Lingüistica Aplicada, 5(2), 11–42. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, R.W. (1990). Psycholinguistic studies on the conceptual basis of idiomaticity. Cognitive Linguistics, 11, 417–451. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (Ed.). (2008a). Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2008b). Metaphor and gesture: Some implications for psychology. In A. Cienki & C. Müller (Eds.), Metaphor and gesture (pp. 291–301). Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, R.W., & Perlman, M. (2006). The contested impact of cognitive linguistics research on the psycholinguistics of metaphor understanding. In G. Kristiansen, M. Achard, R. Dirven, & F.J. Ruiz de Mendoza (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics: Current applications, future orientations (pp. 211–228). Berlin; New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Glucksberg, S. (1998). Understanding metaphors. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 71, 39–43. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2003). The psycholinguistics of metaphor. Trends in Cognitive Science, 71, 92–96. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Godfroid, A., Boers, F., & Housen, A. (2013). An eye for words: Gauging the role of attention in L2 vocabulary acquisition by means of eye-tracking. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35(3), 483–517. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Holme, R. (2003). Mind, metaphor and language teaching. Basingstoke, U.K.: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2009). Cognitive Linguistics and language teaching. Basingstoke, U.K.: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huette, S., Winter, B., Matlock, T., & Spivey, M. (2012). Processing motion implied in language: Eye-movement differences during aspect comprehension. Cognitive Processing, 131, 193–197. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johnson, M. (2007). The meaning of the body: Aesthetics of human understanding. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Juchem, C. (2006). Let’s save time: Raising metaphor awareness in German business English course. LAUD A 6631, 1–22. Essen: Universität Duisburg-Essen.Google Scholar
Jüttner, M. (2003). Visuelles Lernen. Oberhaching/Munich: Dustri.Google Scholar
Katz, A.N. (1996). Experimental psycholinguistics and figurative language: Circa 1995. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 11(1), 17–37. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kopecka, A. (2006). The semantic structure of motion verbs in French: Typological perspectives. In M. Hickmann & S. Robert (Eds.), Space in languages: Linguistic systems and cognitive categories (pp. 83–101). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, R.W. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 11. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Lemmens, M., & Perrez, J. (2010). On the use of posture verbs by French-speaking learners of Dutch: A corpus-based study. Cognitive Linguistics, 21(2), 315–347. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leys, O. (1989). Aspekt und Rektion räumlicher Präpositionen. Deutsche Sprache, 171, 97–113.Google Scholar
. (1995). Dativ und Akkusativ in der deutschen Sprache der Gegenwart. Leuvense Bij-dragen, 841: 39–62.Google Scholar
Littlemore, J. (2009). Applying Cognitive Linguistics to second language learning and teaching. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2010). Metaphoric competence in the first and second language: Similarities and differences. In M. Pütz & L. Sicola (Eds.), Cognitive processing in second language acquisition (pp. 293–315). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Littlemore, J., & Low, G. (2006). Figurative thinking and foreign language learning. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Low, G. (2003). Validating metaphoric models in applied linguistics. Metaphor and Symbol, 18(4), 239–254. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
MacLennan, C. (1994). Metaphors and prototypes in the learning and teaching of grammar and vocabulary. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 32(1), 97–110. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matlock, T. (2004a). The conceptual motivation of fictive motion. In G. Radden & K.-U. Panther (Eds.), Studies in linguistic motivation (pp. 221–248). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
. (2004b). Fictive motion as cognitive simulation. Memory and Cognition, 32(8), 1389–1400. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meex, B. (2002). Die Wegpräposition ‘über’. In H. Cuyckens & G. Radden (Eds.), Perspectives on prepositions (pp. 157–176). Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2004). Motion, path, and aspect. The case of the German path adpositions über and durch . Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 181, 299–322. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meex, B., & Mortelmans, T. (2002). Grammatik und Kognition. Germanistische Mitteilungen, 561, 48–66.Google Scholar
Newmark, P. (1985). The translation of metaphor. In W. Paprotté & R. Dirven (Eds.), The ubiquity of metaphor: Metaphor in language and thought (pp. 295–316). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ortony, A. (Ed.). (1993). Metaphor and thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Özçaliskan, S. (2003). Metaphorical motion in crosslinguistic perspective: A comparison of English and Turkish. Metaphor and Symbol, 18(3), 189–228. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Paivio, A. (2001). Mental representations: A dual coding approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pourcel, S. (2004). What makes path of motion salient? Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of Berkeley Linguistics Society, 30(1), 1–12. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2005). Linguistic relativity in cognitive processes. Manuscript presented at 1st UK Cognitive Linguistics Conference: New Directions in Cognitive Linguistics , University of Sussex, October 2005.
Pourcel, S., & Kopecka, A. (2005). Motion expression in French: Typological diversity. Durham and Newcastle Working Papers in Linguistics, 111, 139–153.Google Scholar
Schäffner, C. (2004). Metaphor and translation: Some implications of a cognitive approach. Journal of Pragmatics, 36(7), 1253–1269. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmitt, R. (2001). Metaphern in der Psychologie: Eine Skizze. Journal für Psychologie, 9(4), 3–15.Google Scholar
Serra-Borneto, C. (1997). Two-way prepositions in German: Image and constraints. In M. Verspoor, K.D. Lee, & E. Sweetser (Eds.), Lexical and syntactical constructions and the construction of meaning (pp. 187–204). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shires Golon, A. (2008). Visual-spatial learners: Differentiation strategies for creating a successful classroom. Austin, Texas: Prufrock Press.Google Scholar
Slobin, D.I. (1996). Two ways to travel: Verbs of motion in English and Spanish. In M. Shibatani & S.A. Thompson (Eds.), Grammatical constructions: Their form and meaning (pp. 195–220). Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
. (2000). Verbalized events: A dynamic approach to linguistic relativity and determinism. In S. Niemeier & R. Dirven (Eds.), Evidence for linguistic relativity (pp. 107–138). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Smith, M.B. (1987). The semantics of dative and accusative in German: An investigation in cognitive grammar. Ph.D. diss., Department of Linguistics, University of California at San Diego.
. (1993). Cases as conceptual categories: Evidence from German. In R.A. Geiger & B. Rudzka-Ostyn (Eds.), Conceptualizations and mental processing in language: A selection of papers from the First International Cognitive Linguistics Conference in Duisburg, 1989 (pp. 531–565). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (1995). Semantic motivation vs. arbitrariness in grammar: Toward a more general account of the DAT/ACC contrast with two-way prepositions. In I. Rauch & G.F. Carr (Eds.), Insights in Germanic linguistics: Methodology and transition (pp. 293–323). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Talmy, L. (1985). Lexicalization patterns: Semantic structure in lexical forms. In T. Shopen (Ed.), Language typology and syntactic description. Vol. 3: Grammatical categories and the lexicon (pp. 57–149). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
. (1991). Path to realization: A typology of event conflation. Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 480–519. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2000). A typology of event integration. In L. Talmy (Ed.), Toward a cognitive semantics, Vol. 21 (pp. 213–288). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
van Noppen, J.-P., De Knop, S., & Jongen, R. (1985). Metaphor: A bibliography of post-1970 publications. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Noppen, J.-P., & Hols, E. (1990). Metaphor II. A classified bibliography of publications from 1985 to 1990. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verspoor, M., & Boers, F. (2012). Cognitive linguistics of second language acquisition. In A. Chapelle (Ed.), The encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics. Chichester: Wiley Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vester, F. (1978/1992). Denken, Lernen, Vergessen: Was geht in unserem Kopf vor, wie lernt das Gehirn, und wann lässt es uns im Stich? Stuttgart: Deutscher Taschenbuchverlag.Google Scholar
Woodward, T. (2001). Working with metaphors in teaching and teacher training. The Teacher Trainer, 15(3), 10–11.Google Scholar
Zachara, E. (2004). Visualisieren im Englischunterricht: Effektiv und lebendig unterrichten. Buxtehude: Aol-Verlag.Google Scholar
Zelinsky-Wibbelt, C. (Ed.). (2003). Text transfer: Metonymy and metaphor, translation and expert-lay communication. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Jach, Daniel
2024. What foreign language learners make of grammatical descriptions depends on description type, proficiency, and context. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 22:1 ► pp. 36 ff. DOI logo
Prange, Jakob & Nathan Schneider
2021. Draw mir a Sheep: A Supersense-based Analysis of German Case and Adposition Semantics. KI - Künstliche Intelligenz 35:3-4 ► pp. 291 ff. DOI logo
Yang, Wenhui
2020. News Discourse and Cognitive Studies. In A Cross-Cultural Study of Commercial Media Discourses, ► pp. 9 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 16 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.