Dạy giới từ tiếng anh theo quan điểm ngôn ngữ học tri nhận

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING
HUE UNIVERSITY
UNIVERSITY OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES

BÙI PHÚ HƯNG

TEACHING ENGLISH PREPOSITIONS:
A COGNITIVE LINGUISTIC APPROACH

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY THESIS IN THEORY
AND METHODOLOGY OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHING

HUE, 2019


MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING
HUE UNIVERSITY
UNIVERSITY OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES

BÙI PHÚ HƯNG

TEACHING ENGLISH PREPOSITIONS:
A COGNITIVE LINGUISTIC APPROACH

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY THESIS IN THEORY
AND METHODOLOGY OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHING
CODE: 9 14 01 11

SUPERVISORS:
Assoc. Prof. Trương Viên, PhD
Assoc. Prof. Nguyễn Ngọc Vũ, PhD

HUE, 2019


BỘ GIÁO DỤC VÀ ĐÀO TẠO
ĐẠI HỌC HUÊ
TRƯỜNG ĐẠI HỌC NGOẠI NGƯ

BÙI PHÚ HƯNG

TEACHING ENGLISH PREPOSITIONS:
A COGNITIVE LINGUISTIC APPROACH

LUẬN ÁN TIÊN SĨ CHUYÊN NGÀNH LÝ LUẬN
VÀ PHƯƠNG PHÁP DẠY HỌC BỘ MÔN TIÊNG ANH
MÃ NGÀNH: 9 14 01 11

NGƯỜI HƯỚNG DẪN:
PGS. TS. Trương Viên
PGS. TS. Nguyễn Ngọc Vũ

HUÊ, 2019


STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP

I certify my authorship of the PhD thesis submitted today entitled:
“TEACHING ENGLISH PREPOSITIONS: A COGNITIVE
LINGUISTIC APPROACH”
for the degree of Doctor of Education, is the result of my own research,

except where otherwise acknowledged, and that this thesis has not been submitted
for a higher degree at any other institution. To the best of my knowledge, the thesis
contains no material previously published or written by other people except where
the reference is made in the thesis itself.
Hue, ……………………………, 2019
Author’s signature

Bùi Phú Hưng

i


ABSTRACT

The present study aimed to investigate the effects of applying cognitive
linguistics (CL) to teaching the spatial and metaphorical senses of English
prepositions above, among, at, behind, beside, between, in, in front of, on and
under. It made attempts to apply the basic concepts in cognitive linguistics,
including embodiment theory, image schemas theory, conceptual metaphor theory
and domain mapping theory. Also, the integrated text and picture comprehension
(ITPC) model was applied to frame the instructions and practice tasks. A pretestposttest between-group research design was adopted. The results of the pretest and
pre-questionnaire were used to select student participants who were then divided
into two different groups: cognitive group and traditional group. The findings
revealed that the cognitive group (M=27.00) significantly outperformed the
traditional group (M=22.36) in the posttest in terms of both the spatial and
metaphorical meanings.
The cognitive group participants also responded that they appreciated the
CL-based teaching of the prepositions more than the pedagogical applications which
their former teachers had previously applied in terms of both the spatial and
metaphorical meanings. Six out of 25 cognitive members responded that the teacher

should have added something fun to make the class more interested in the lesson.
Most of the participants believed that CL-based teaching was appropriate and
admitted that CL-based teaching had more positive effects on their knowledge of
the spatial meanings than that of the metaphorical meanings.
The findings suggest that future studies and practices in ELT which would
like to apply cognitive linguistics in EFL (English as a foreign language) classroom
could include songs or games in the post-teaching stage to make the class more
interesting. Future research could also apply cognitive linguistics to teaching other
prepositions in other contexts and employ a delayed posttest to measure EFL
students’ retention of knowledge.
ii


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

To conduct this doctoral thesis, I received much guidance and assistance
from my supervisors, the academic panel at Hue University of Foreign Languages –
Hue University, friends and students.
First of all, my great sincere thanks would go to my supervisors, Assoc. Prof.
Dr. Truong Vien at Hue University and Assoc. Prof. Dr. Nguyen Ngoc Vu at Ho Chi
Minh City University of Education. They constantly motivated me to complete this
thesis punctually and gave me great advice on how to conduct this doctoral thesis. I
really appreciated their supervision with theoretical background in cognitive
linguistics.
I also owe thanks to Assoc. Prof. Dr. Tran Van Phuoc, Assoc. Prof. Dr. Le
Pham Hoai Huong, Assoc. Prof. Dr. Pham Thi Hong Nhung, Dr. Ton Nu Nhu
Huong, Dr. Truong Bach Le and other academic panelists at University of Foreign
Languages – Hue University for their advice on every single stage of conducting
this doctoral dissertation.
I am very grateful to all the teachers and student participants for their

assistance with participating in this study. Without them, there would have been no
chance for this PhD thesis to be completed.
My appreciation is extended to my family and friends for their support. They
recommended large resources of materials and shared my cheers and stress from
this thesis.

iii


ABBREVIATIONS
CL:

cognitive linguistics

CG:

cognitive group

EFL:

English as a foreign language

ELT:

English language teaching

GPA:

grade point average

ITPC model:

integrated text picture comprehension model

L1:

first language or native language

L2:

second language

LM:

landmark

OALD:

Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary

SD:

standard deviation

SLA:

second language acquisition

T:

total score

TG:

traditional group

TR:

trajectory

iv


TABLE OF CONTENTS
STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP.............................................................................i
ABSTRACT.............................................................................................................. ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.....................................................................................iii
ABBREVIATIONS..................................................................................................iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS..........................................................................................v
LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................. viii
LIST OF FIGURES……………………………………………………….......……ix
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION..............................................................................1
1.1. Rationale............................................................................................................1
1.2. Research Aims....................................................................................................4
1.3. Research Questions............................................................................................4
1.4. Research Scope..................................................................................................4
1.5. Significance of the Study....................................................................................5
1.6. Organization of the Thesis..................................................................................5
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW...................................................................7
2.1. Approaches in English Language Teaching........................................................7

2.1.1. Contemporary Perspectives in English Language Teaching and Learning......7
2.1.1.1 Interventionist Approach……………………………………………….....…7
2.1.1.2 Non-Interventionist Approach………………………………………………9
2.1.1.3 Integration of Interventionism and Non-Interventionism in EFL Context. .10
2.1.2. The Place of CL in the Contemporary Literature in ELT............................... 10
2.2. Theoretical Framework.................................................................................... 13
2.2.1. CL’s Views of English Prepositions............................................................... 13
2.2.1.1. Spatial Configurations of English Prepositions.......................................... 13
2.2.1.2. The Domain-Mapping Theory.................................................................... 15
2.2.1.3. Conceptual Metaphors of English Prepositions.......................................... 16
2.2.2. Image Schema Theory.................................................................................. 19

v


2.2.2.1. Foundations of Image Schemas.................................................................. 19
2.2.2.2. Demonstrating the Senses of Prepositions with Image Schemas................21
2.2.2.3. The Image Schemas Applied in this Study.................................................. 22
2.2.2.4. Incorporating CL into Teaching English Prepositions................................. 27
2.3. Previous Studies............................................................................................... 32
2.4. Summary......................................................................................................... 39
CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY..................................................... 41
3.1. Research Approach and Design....................................................................... 41
3.2. Participants...................................................................................................... 42
3.2.1. Description of Teachers................................................................................. 42
3.2.2. Student Participants....................................................................................... 43
3.3. Data Collection Instrumentation...................................................................... 46
3.3.1. Pretest and Posttest........................................................................................ 47
3.3.2. Questionnaires and Interviews....................................................................... 49
3.4. Pilot Study....................................................................................................... 51

3.5. Researcher’s Roles.......................................................................................... 53
3.6. Research Procedure and Treatments................................................................ 53
3.6.1. Traditional Treatment..................................................................................... 55
3.6.2. Cognitive Treatment...................................................................................... 56
3.7. Data Analysis................................................................................................... 58
3.8. Research Reliability and Validity..................................................................... 59
3.9. Research Ethics............................................................................................... 61
3.10. Summary........................................................................................................ 61
CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION...................................................... 62
4.1. Effects of CL-Based Teaching on Vietnamese EFL College Students’
Knowledge of Spatial and Metaphorical Meanings................................................. 62
4.1.1. Performances in the Pretest and Posttest........................................................ 63
4.1.2. Measures of the Test Scores across the Two Treatments................................65
4.1.3. Scores of Test Sections and Inter-Subject Variability..................................... 66
4.1.4. Investigating Other Variables with Potential Effects on the Experimental
Results..................................................................................................................... 76
vi


4.1.5. Discussion of the Effects of the CL-Based Treatment on the Participants’
Knowledge of Spatial and Metaphorical Meanings................................................. 81
4.1.5.1. Discussion of the Experimental Results...................................................... 81
4.1.5.2. Comparison of the Findings of this Study and Those from the Previous
Studies..................................................................................................................... 90
4.2. Students’ Evaluation of the Effects of the CL-Based Treatment......................93
4.2.1. Students’ Evaluation of the Effects of the CL-Based Treatment of the Spatial
Meanings of the Prepositions................................................................................... 95
4.2.2. Students’ Evaluation of the Effects of the CL-Based Treatment of the
Metaphorical Meanings of the Prepositions..........................................................106
4.2.3. Discussion of the Students’ Evaluation of the Effects of the CL-Based

Treatment..............................................................................................................115
4.3. Summary.......................................................................................................124
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS......................................125
5.1. General Conclusion.......................................................................................125
5.2. Implications...................................................................................................128
5.3. Limitations of the Study................................................................................130
5.4. Suggestions for Future Studies......................................................................131
AUTHOR'S WORKS…………………………………………………………………
REFERENCES..........................................................................................................
APPENDICES ...........................................................................................................
APPENDIX A1: PRETEST
APPENDIX A2: POSTTEST
APPENDIX A3: ANSWERS TO THE PRETEST AND POSTTEST
APPENDIX B1: LESSON ONE (TG)
APPENDIX B2: LESSON TWO (TG)
APPENDIX B3: LESSON THREE (TG)
APPENDIX B4: LESSON FOUR (TG)
APPENDIX C1: LESSON ONE (CG)
APPENDIX C2: LESSON TWO (CG)
APPENDIX C3: LESSON THREE (CG)
APPENDIX C4: LESSON FOUR (CG)
vii


APPENDIX D: ANSWERS TO THE HANDOUT TASKS
APPENDIX E1: PRE-QUESTIONNAIRE
APPENDIX E2: POST-QUESTIONNAIRE (FOR THE COGNITIVE GROUP)
APPENDIX E3: POST-QUESTIONNAIRE (FOR THE TRADITIONAL GROUP)
APPENDIX F: INTERVIEW PROTOCOL
APPENDIX G1: PAIR MATCHING PARTICIPANTS

APPENDIX G2: COMPARISON OF PAIRS’ SCORE IMPROVEMENTS FROM
PRETEST TO POSTTEST
APPENDIX H1: CODED INTERVIEW RESPONSES BY CG MEMBERS:
SPATIAL MEANINGS
APPENDIX H2: CODED INTERVIEW RESPONSES BY CG MEMBERS:
METAPHORICAL MEANINGS
APPENDIX I1: COMPARISON OF CG’S AND TG’S SCORE GAINS FROM
PRETEST TO POSTTEST BY SECTION
APPENDIX I2: CG’S AND TG’S EAGERNESS FOR JOINING THE STUDY
APPENDIX I3: COMPARING CG’S AND TG’S RESPONSES TO PART 2
OF THE PRE-QUESTIONNAIRE
APPENDIX I4: COMPARISON OF TG’S AND CG’S MEAN SCORES:
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS

LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1 Description of teachers...........................................................................41
Table 3.2 Student participants..................................................................................43
Table 3.3 Summary of data collection instruments..................................................45
Table 3.4 Item distribution in the pre -questionnaire............................................................ 49
Table 3.5 Examples of data coding............................................................................................. 57
Table 4.1 Total mean scores and standard deviations by CG and TG......................62
Table 4.2 Score gains in spatial meanings...............................................................63
Table 4.3 Score gains in metaphorical meanings.....................................................63
Table 4.4 Paired samples correlation.......................................................................64
viii


Table 4.5 Repeated measures of paired samples test...............................................64
Table 4.6 Comparison of mean scores of the test sections across the two treatments
66

Table 4.7 Independent samples t-test of two group’s scores across three sections 68
Table 4.8 Independent samples t-test of across the three sections in the pretest and
posttest between the two groups..............................................................................69
Table 4.9 Participants’ score improvements by track...............................................71
Table 4.10 CG’s responses to the pre-questionnaire and post-questionnaire...........93
Table 4.11 Interest and appropriateness of the teaching of the spatial meanings in
participants’ prior experiences.................................................................................94
Table 4.12 Interest and appropriateness of CL-based teaching of spatial meanings 95

Table 4.13 Effects of the teaching of spatial meanings in participants’ prior
experiences..............................................................................................................99
Table 4.14 Effects of CL-based teaching of the spatial meanings..........................100
Table 4.15 Interest and appropriateness of the teaching of the metaphorical
meanings in participants’ prior experiences...........................................................107
Table 4.16 Interest and appropriateness of CL-based teaching of metaphorical
meanings...............................................................................................................108
Table 4.17 Effects of the teaching of the metaphorical meanings in participants’
prior experiences...................................................................................................112
Table 4.18 Effects of CL-based teaching of metaphorical meanings.....................113
Table 4.19 Bartlette’s test............................................................................................................. 115

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1 Levels of representation.........................................................................12
Figure 2.2 Prepositions across domains...................................................................16
Figure 2.3 Integrated text and picture comprehension model (ITPC).....................20
Figure 2.4 Demonstration of the preposition over...................................................21
Figure 2.5 Image schema of preposition in (meaning: CONTAINMENT)..............22
Figure 2.6 Image schema of the preposition above by Gardenfors..........................22
Figure 2.7 Image schema of above applied in this study.........................................22
Figure 2.8 AROUND image schema (Adapted from Bacs, 2002)..........................23

Figure 2.9 Image schema of the preposition among applied in this study...............23
ix


Figure 2.10 ADJENCY image schema....................................................................23
Figure 2.11 Image schema of at applied in this study..............................................23
Figure 2.12 Image schema for BACK......................................................................24
Figure 2.13 Image schema of behind applied in this study......................................24
Figure 2.14 Image schema of beside (Dana and Mantey, 2006, p. 113)..................24
Figure 2.15 Image schema of beside applied in this study.......................................24
Figure 2.16 STATIC-RELATION image schema of between in this study..............25
Figure 2.17 DYNAMIC RELATION image schema of between in this study.........25
Figure 2.18 Image schema of in front of (Dana and Mantey, 2006, p. 113).............26
Figure 2.19 Image schema of in front of applied in this study.................................26
Figure 2.20 2-D image schema of on (Adapted from Gardenfors, 2000).................26
Figure 2.21 Image schema of the preposition on used in this study.........................26
Figure 2.22 Image schema of preposition under (Dana and Mantey, 2006)...........27
Figure 2.23 Image schema of preposition under applied in this study.....................27
Figure 4.1. CG individuals’ score growth................................................................70
Figure 4.2. TG individuals’ score growths...............................................................70

x


CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1. Rationale
In the past decades, large numbers of empirical studies have been contributed
to the teaching and learning of English as a second or foreign language. These
contributive efforts have been made in foreign language teaching, (e.g. Chen & Lin,

2018; Phạm Vũ Phi Hổ & Usaha, 2015) second language acquisition, and associated
areas, including cognitive science and linguistics (e.g.Vũ Thị Huyền & Nguyễn Văn
Trào, 2017; Kobayashi, 2018).
However, English prepositions expose some inherent difficulties to students
learning English as a foreign language (Fang, 2000). First, prepositions are
examples of polysemy; one preposition used in different contexts may have several
different meanings. Secondly, the meanings of one preposition may vary in different
contexts (Collins & Hollo, 2010; Hornby, 2015). Thirdly, there is sometimes
overlapping between prepositions in use; that is, one preposition can replace another
with a slight difference in meaning. For example, the expressions in Frankfurt and
at Frankfurt are both considered correct in different contexts. The former may be
used to refer to somebody’s home, but the latter may describe a point on a journey
(Swan, 2014). Another common characteristic of prepositions is that they are multifunctional. For instance, a prepositional phrase serves different functions, such as an
adjunct, a complement or a modifier in different contexts (Collins & Hollo, 2010).
Traditional pedagogical options for teaching English prepositions to adult
learners of English as a foreign language also expose problems. Nguyễn Thị Mai
Hoa (2009) discovered that Vietnamese teachers mainly exploited the pedagogical
suggestions in prescribed textbooks. Most textbooks applied in Vietnam (e.g.
Hopkins & Cullen, 2007; Murphy, 2013) provide instructions on prepositions with
classifications, such as prepositions of place, prepositions of time and prepositions
of direction. Accordingly, these sub-types of prepositions are taught independently,

1


and the combinations of verb-preposition are considered an arbitrary matter. Also,
Lê Văn Canh (2011) discovered that English language teaching (ELT) in Vietnam
was somehow based on translation. The application of translating prepositions in
ELT does not always work effectively. Recent studies on how prepositions are
presented to adult learners of English as a foreign language (EFL) have also shown

that these types of instruction do not help students of English as a foreign language
sucessfully learn and enhance their achievements in English prepositions (Cho,
2010; Song, 2013; Tyler, Mueller & Ho, 2011). Contemporary literature
demonstrates the pivotal role of knowledge of language in second language
acquisition (Ellis, 2008; Pawlak, 2006); however, a lack of emphasis on language
meaning does not help facilitate accumulating and retaining instructed language
items (Ausubel, 2000). Also, it has been argued by some researchers (Ausubel,
2000; Cho, 2010) that learning by heart or simple memorization cannot help
integrate new input with learners’ existing knowledge in order to form a related
cognitive structure. Recent studies with interests in exploring human abilities to
process and store language elements have provided empirical findings that teaching
vocabulary should be based on meaning and that teachers should help adult learners
form a cognitive structure of language items (Gebhard, Gunawan & Chen, 2014).
The emergence of cognitive linguistics gives implications for English
language teaching and learning as its foundation is based on how humans acquire
and learn language. In particular, its grounding in cognitive science suggests some
implications to help learners systemically organize language input in cognitive
processing. Taylor (2008, p. 37) asserts that “any innovation in linguistic theory is
bound, sooner or later, to have an impact on the language teaching profession.”
Cognitive linguistics has been motivating a number of pedagogical applications
which have been especially provided empirical evidence about several concerns in
English language teaching, including vocabulary (Boers, 2000a, 2000b, 2013),
collocations (Walker, 2008), phrasal verbs (Csábi, 2004). Regarding prepositions,
cognitive linguistics presents the image schema theory and domain mapping theory,
which believe that prepositions can be represented by image schemas (Evans &
2


Green, 2006) and the sub-types of prepositions are associated in meaning and can be
represented by image schemas (Bùi Phú Hưng, 2016a, 2016b). The application of

cognitive linguistics to teaching English prepositions may help students of English
as a foreign language improve in their learning of prepositions as they can form a
related cognitive structure (Ausubel, 2000). Tyler, et al. (2011) and Song (2013)
made efforts to explore the effectiveness of applying cognitive linguistics to English
language teaching.
However, the endeavors above were confined to a limited number of
prepositions and were conducted in European contexts. MacMillan and Schumacher
(2001, p. 178) believe that “treatment in an experiment is supposed to be repeated”.
Concerning cognitive linguistics, Langacker (2008, p. 66) suggests that there should
be more empirical findings to test the effectiveness of pedagogical applications of
cognitive linguistics and that “extensive pedagogical application of cognitive
linguistics remains a long-term goal”. Although considered successful, the
experimental studies by Tyler, et al. (2011) and Song (2013) recommend that the
further studies applying cognitive linguistics to teaching English prepositions
should be extended by including other prepositions and should be conducted in
other contexts because people of different native languages may construe spatial
configurations differently. In particular, linguistic and spatial construal of students’
first language is considered to have effects on how they perceive spatial coding in
English prepositions to a certain extent. The application of cognitive linguistics in
teaching prepositions may help students learning English as a foreign language
understand and use English prepositions effectively since cognitive linguistics can
illustrate the spatial configurations in English prepositions (Alonso, Cadierno &
Jarvis, 2016). Also, Krzeszowski (1990), Taylor (2002) and Tyler and Evans (2001)
assert that the spatial meanings of prepositions are related to their peripheral senses
(other senses of prepositions), which makes students find learning prepositions in
the target language problematic. The concerns arouse an interest in conducting a
study applying cognitive linguistics to teaching English prepositions to Vietnamese
students.
3

1.2. Research Aims
In general, this study aims to make an insight into an understanding of the
role of cognitive linguistics in instruction on English as a foreign language through
an investigation of how basic concepts in cognitive linguistics should be applied in
a classroom of English as a foreign language. Arguably, there remains a gap in
literature to explore students’ evaluation of pedagogical application based on
cognitive linguistics in order to have a comprehensive view of both how application
of cognitive linguistics helps improve students’ knowledge of the semantics of the
prepositions and how students think of pedagogy based on cognitive linguistics in
English language teaching (ELT). Therefore, the aims of this study are dual.
The primary purpose of this quasi-experimental study is to explore the effects
of applying cognitive linguistics to teaching English prepositions above, among, at,
behind, beside, between, in, in front of, on, and under. That is, it aims to investigate
the effects of CL-based teaching on Vietnamese EFL (English-as-a-foreignlanguage) students’ knowledge of the spatial and metaphorical meanings of the
aforementioned prepositions. Also, it aims to explore Vietnamese students’ opinions
of preposition teaching based on cognitive linguistics (CL) or how they appreciate
the treatment based on cognitive linguistic concepts.
1.3. Research Questions
This study seeks to answer the following research questions:
1. What are the effects of CL-based teaching on Vietnamese EFL college
students’ knowledge of spatial and metaphorical meanings of English
prepositions?
2. How do Vietnamese EFL college students evaluate the effects of CL-based
teaching of English prepositions?
1.4. Research Scope
This study did not attempt to teach all English prepositions, but it took a
cognitive linguistic approach to the teaching of the ten prepositions above, among,
at, behind, beside, between, in, in front of, on, and under to Vietnamese students at
4

a university in Ho Chi Minh City. Fifty first-year students, equally divided into a
cognitive group (CG) and a traditional group (TG), were involved in the present
study. These ten prepositions were chosen as a result of their high level of frequency
and difficulty (Lindstromberg, 2010).
1.5. Significance of the Study
The present study hopes to contribute to the literature on pedagogical
applications of cognitive linguistics in terms of both the spatial and metaphorical
meanings of English prepositions. More specifically, it introduces an approach to
the teaching of English prepositions based on basic concepts in cognitive linguistics.
Also, curriculum designing and textbook writing will be facilitated in terms of
providing appropriate lessons and tasks to assist students in mastering English
prepositions in general and the prepositions involved in this study in particular. For
a practical purpose, this study sheds light on effective teaching of English
prepositions and provides implications for research and practice in English language
teaching.
1.6. Organization of the Thesis
This doctoral dissertation consists of five main chapters. Following this
introduction, which presents the rationale for the present study as well as the
research objectives, questions, scope and significance, Chapter Two reviews extant
literature on cognitive linguistics and its applications in English language teaching,
which motivates and forms the foundation for the research questions addressed in
this thesis. It also takes into account the concerns as well as perspectives in English
language teaching in which cognitive linguistics is grounded. Gaps in previous
studies are then figured out. Chapter Three sketches research methods and design
employed in the study. To collect the participants’ opinions of the treatment based
on cognitive linguistics, both questionnaires and interviews were conducted in hope
to triangulate the data. Specifically, instruments, sample participants and treatments
in the pretest-posttest between-group model and research reliability and validity are

particularized. Results of the study and discussion are presented in Chapter Four.

5


These involve the results of the pretest and posttest from the experimental study as
an answer to Research Question 1, and students’ responses to the questionnaires and
interviews are also presented and discussed as an answer to research Question 2.
Additionally, it gives a detailed interpretation of results of the study, with reference
to findings of previous studies. Finally, Chapter Five summarizes the key findings
and gives implications for future research and practice in teaching English
prepositions, and indicates its limitations.

6


CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

This chapter first outlines the main perspectives in ELT and the place of CL in
ELT. Then, it presents the basic concepts in CL, including the foundation of CL,
image schema theory, domain mapping theory, conceptual metaphor theory and
ITPC model. CL-based approach has proposed three main models for ELT,
including gestalt learning theory, information processing and computer models, and
constructivism. This present study has a great interest in constructivism, in which
integrated text and picture comprehension model is grounded, since it is supposed to
improve students’ achievement by engaging them in the learning process.
2.1.

Approaches in English Language Teaching

2.1.1. Contemporary

Perspectives in English

Language Teaching

and

Learning
A review of contemporary literature shows that there are two main
approaches in English language teaching and acquisition. Interventionism supports a
belief that input of linguistic features provided by teacher instruction, or
pedagogical intervention, is indispensable and facilitative. Nevertheless, the other
end of the spectrum is non-interventionism, which views pedagogical intervention
as unnecessary. Learners should be exposed to communicative use of language
instead because it helps learners acquire language in particular contexts. These
perspectives both have implications for pedagogical research and practices (Bielak
& Pawlak, 2013).
2.1.1.1 Interventionist Approach
Interventionists propose a number of hyphotheses about second language
acquisition and learning. Firstly, it takes into consideration the importance of
cognitive processes (Pienemann, 2007). A pedagogical application inspired from
this theory is that language teaching should take into account learners’
developmental stages in that the target input should be one stage in advance of the

7


learners’ present stage. For example, simple words should be taught before
compound and complex words. Instruction is for nothing if learners are not able to

cognitively process the input. However, Nunan (1994) presents a concern that
humans may acquire language in a natural setting. People can also acquire authentic
language use in everyday life although it may be beyond their developmental stage.
Ellis (1997) argues that linguistic input through instruction develops explicit, not
implicit, knowledge. Explicit knowledge occurs as a result of consciousness raising
or explicit language teaching and learning of linguistic features, but implicit
knowledge, as a result of implicit language learning, is unconscious and facilitates
language use. Contemporary literature in second language acquisition and learning
shows that both implicit and explicit knowledge may be a result of instruction.
Pawlak (2006) claims that teacher instruction may enhance learners’ language use if
it is accompanied by productive tasks. Language learning is considered a process of
changing explicit knowledge of language elements into implicit knowledge. To
facilitate this process, practice must be applied. Also, people’s age has little or no
impact on their ability to accumulate explicit knowledge; nonetheless, there is a
decline in people’s ability to acquire implicit knowledge. Implicit unconscious
teaching may be best applied to young learners, but explicit conscious teaching may
be applicable to adult learners (Bialystok, 1994 & Ellis, 2005). Ellis (2008), Pawlak
(2006) and Williams (2005) further explain that explicit and implicit learning
normally aims at the corresponding types of knowledge, but implicit knowledge
may also be generated from explicit instruction in a long term. It can be inferred
from this argument that explicit instruction which requires learners’ attention plays a
crucial role in EFL classrooms of adults, and it also triggers language acquisition in
a long run (Ellis, 2009; Pawlak, 2006). Another concern is about how teacher’s
instruction is processed (VanPatten, 2002). Accordingly, teacher’s instruction is the
source of linguistic data which provides input through a process of conscious
learning (Lee, 2003). The input is first accumulated in working memory and then
processed further in appropriate conditions, such as practice. Therefore,
pedagogically, teacher instruction should focus on the problems diagnosed by the
8

teacher and help learners improve their processing strategies. As the input is
processed by learners, teacher’s instruction needs to draw learners’ attention as a
cognitive engagement.
2.1.1.2 Non-interventionist Approach
Arguments against the pedagogical intervention are also based on a number
of theories. First, Krashen (1985) hypothesizes that the first language (L1)
acquisition and second language (L2) acqusition are exactly the same. An emerging
problem here is that there are a vast number differences in acquisition of L1 and L2:
L1 intereference in L2 acquisition, level of proficiency as the outcome of L2
acquisition, and the number of factors that influence L2 acquisition. While
acquisition takes place unconsciously and implicitly in a naturalistic setting,
learning is a conscious and explicit process. Language learning tends to improve
learners’ explicit knowledge and does not help them use language in spontaneous
circusmtances. However, contemporary literature provides evidence that explicit
learning may also result in implicit knowledge (Ellis, 2008). Some pedagogical
practices have been developed in these theories. Audiolingualism, which places an
emphasis on repetition, does not regard conscious learning as important. However,
this practice is not widely applied due to its ignorance of meaning in language
learning (Pawlak, 2006). The second application is the introduction and
implementation of content-based instruction or immersion programs in which a
foreign language is a medium of instruction in the courses in academic disciplines.
It is obvious that such pedagogical applications in ELT are relatively successful.
Nonetheless, a problem is these applications have proved successful in contexts
where learners have opportunities to get exposed to English in daily life or in
contexts where English is used as a second language (Pawlak, 2006). Another
shortcoming of this approach is that learners’ language fluency rather than accuracy
is enhanced (Swain, 1992).

9

2.1.1.3 Integration of Interventionism and Non-interventionism in EFL
Contexts
The argument on whether pedagogical intervention or teacher instruction is
the best option in ELT may be inconclusive. In fact, it can be seen from the
aforementioned reviews of theories in SLA and language teaching in terms of
teacher instruction that interventionism has a vital role in EFL contexts. Some
pedagogical applications in ELT have been outlined by most language researchers
and practitioners. In the first place, in the context where out-of-class exposure to
English is not plentiful or in the context where English is used as a foreign
language, the teacher should provide learners with as much time for productive
skills as possible. In the second place, when teachers identify learners’ needs for
instruction, the instruction can be given explicitly in foreign language teaching
contexts. Finally, teachers’ instruction, in EFL classroom, should be short enough
and easy to understand to leave time for other class activities, such as drills and
production tasks (Harmer, 2015b; Thornbury, 2002; Ur, 2012).
2.1.2. The Place of CL in the Contemporary Literature in ELT
The past two decades have experienced a rapidly increasing number of
applications of CL as additions to both fields of linguistics and ELT (Taylor, 2008,
p. 37), which has improved and motivated the potential suitability of CL for
explaining linguistic phenomena and foreign language teaching from the view that
language categories are considered meaningful. The existence of such contributions
has bridged the gaps between CL and ELT in forms of publications of journal
articles (e.g. Sobrino, 2014; Tyler et al., 2011; Wijaya & Ong, 2018), research
articles published as chapters in books (e.g. Boers & Lindstromberg, 2008; Boers,
Rycker & Knop, 2010; Vallori, 2014) and books presenting results from single
studies applying CL to ELT or basic concepts in CL (e.g. Bielak & Pawlak, 2013;
Nguyễn Ngọc Vũ, 2016).
CL is grounded on a conglomerate of theories and empirical studies. It

explores the relationship between language and the human mind or cognition. It is
10


also based on the interconnections between language and human experiences of
society and interactions with the external world (Evans & Green, 2006; Geeraerts &
Cuyckens, 2010; Kardela, 2011; Langacker, 2008).
In one place, CL declares itself to be “cognitive” as it views language as a
non-autonomous inventory in that humans convey their thoughts in language. That
is, people’s memory and perceptions are formed by their experiences with the
external physical world and then their experiences help them shape their knowledge.
These interconnected aspects give rise to cognitive models. In a word, language and
cognition are inherently connected with human cognition.
It is also significant to address, at this point, that CL views language as an
integral part of social and communicative experiences. Another major claim of CL
is that social happenstances and human interactions with the physical world are
included in language (Croft & Cruise, 2004; Tyler, 2012). In fact, language reflects
what humans think of the social events which they have experienced on a daily
basis (Langacker, 1999a). Embodiment theory in CL shows the inherent linkages of
language with cognition as aspects of human life (Figure 2. 1).
Regarding prepositions, one of the first and foremost cognitive structure
which children achieve is an object in relation with other physical objects in the
physical surroundings. These conceptions, which are then represented by
prepositions, form mental images of the corresponding objects in the external
physical world and “spatial physical relationships are the fundamental that we use
space as a domain for structuring other less concrete aspects of our experience”
(Lee, 2001). This can be seen that cognitive abilities play an important role in
language learning. Langacker (1999b), Croft (2000) and Littlemore (2009) assert
that humans experiences in a vast number of language elements in life and all such
language elements, commonly called usage events in CL, are accumulated as an

inventory of linguistic units in the mind in cognitive processing. With repetition of
human interactions with events in society, language learning take place and humans
form linguistic knowledge and image schemas, which gives implications for L2
11


instruction (Arnett & Jernigan, 2014). As a result, “form-meaning pairings” are
established (Holmes, 2012).

Perception

Conception

Linguistic
meaning

The
physical
world

Form

Figure 2.1. Levels of representation
(Adapted from Evans and Green, 2006, p. 7)
It may be pivotal here to conceal the difference in the view of “cognition”
between generativism and CL. In particular, generativism claims to be “cognitive”
from its inferences on the working of the human mind. In other words, it ignores the
crucial role of humans’ embodied experience, which in turn shapes human
perceptions of the social events in their interactions. In other words, generativism
views language as autonomous, but CL hypothesizes that language reflects human

general cognitive processes (Taylor, 2002; Tyler, 2012).
A review of literature in second language acquisition and basic concepts in
cognitive linguistics shows that the learning of a second language requires
“cognitive processes that are used by second language learners to turn L2 input into
acquisition (Ellis, 2006a), which requires learners’ attention to input from the
teacher (Ellis, 2006b). Doughty (2003) also posits that mere exposure to the use of
second language may be ineffective to those who do not notice the language input,
but teacher instruction usually focuses on particular aspects of language, which
should be explicit (Williams, 2005).
Some language educators and educational psychologists (e.g. Beréndi, Csábi
& Kovecses, 2008; Boers, 2000; Condon & Kelly, 2002; Nguyễn Thu Hương, 2005;
12