1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Review of Cognitive Linguistics. Published under the auspices of the Spanish Cognitive Linguistics Association
  4. Volume 13, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 13, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1877-9751
  • E-ISSN: 1877-976X
GBP
Buy:£15.00 + Taxes

Abstract

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.

© 2015 John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.13.1.07kno
2015-06-23
2024-04-16

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/rcl.13.1.07kno
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aldenhoff, J
    (1994) Allemand: Grammaire progressive avec exercices. Bruxelles: De Boeck.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. 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]
  3. Barcelona, A. , & Ruiz de Mendoza, F.J
    (Eds.) (2011) Bibliography of metaphor and metonymy. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. (Eds.) (2014) Bibliography of metaphor and metonymy. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. 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: 10.1515/9783110821611.73
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110821611.73 [Google Scholar]
  6. (2007) Erfahrung, Imagination und Sprache: Die Bedeutung der Metaphern der Alltagsprache für das Fremdsprachenlernen am Beispiel der deutschen Präpositionen. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. 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]
  8. Boers, F
    (2003) Applied linguistics perspectives on cross-cultural variation in conceptual metaphor. Metaphor and Symbol,18(4), 231–238. doi: 10.1207/S15327868MS1804_1
     https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327868MS1804_1 [Google Scholar]
  9. (2011) Cognitive semantic ways of teaching figurative phrases. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 9(1), 227–261. doi: 10.1075/rcl.9.1.11boe
     https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.9.1.11boe [Google Scholar]
  10. (2013) Cognitive linguistic approaches to second language vocabulary: Assessment and integration. Language Teaching: Surveys and Studies, 46(2), 208–224. doi: 10.1017/S0261444811000450
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444811000450 [Google Scholar]
  11. 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: 10.1515/9783110245837
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110245837 [Google Scholar]
  12. Boers, F. , & Demecheleer, M
    (1998) A cognitive semantic approach to teaching prepositions. English Language Teaching Journal,53, 197–204. doi: 10.1093/elt/52.3.197
     https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/52.3.197 [Google Scholar]
  13. Boers, F. , & Lindstromberg, S
    (Eds.) (2008) Cognitive approaches to teaching vocabulary. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Bouillon, H
    (2001) Grammaire pratique de l’allemand. Brussels: De Boeck.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Brüning, L. , & Saum, T
    (2007) Erfolgreich unterrichten durch Visualisieren. Grafisches Strukturieren mit Strategien des kooperativen Lernens. Essen, Germany: Neue Deutsche Schule Verlagsgesellschaft.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Buchowski, M
    (1996) Metaphor, metonymy, and cross-cultural translation. Semiotica, 110(3–4), 301–310. doi: 10.1515/semi.1996.110.3‑4.301
     https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.1996.110.3-4.301 [Google Scholar]
  17. Cameron, L
    (Ed.) (2003) Metaphor in educational discourse. London: Continuum.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. 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: 10.1017/CBO9781139086677.006
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139086677.006 [Google Scholar]
  19. Cienki, A. , & Müller, C
    (Eds.) (2008) Metaphor and gesture. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/gs.3
     https://doi.org/10.1075/gs.3 [Google Scholar]
  20. 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: 10.1017/CBO9781139524704.011
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524704.011 [Google Scholar]
  21. Danesi, M
    (2007) A conceptual metaphor framework for the teaching of mathematics. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 26(3), 225–236. doi: 10.1007/s11217‑007‑9035‑5
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-007-9035-5 [Google Scholar]
  22. (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]
  23. 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: 10.1093/elt/51.4.352
     https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/51.4.352 [Google Scholar]
  24. 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]
  25. De Knop, S. , Boers, F. , & De Rycker, A
    (Eds.) (2010) Fostering language teaching efficiency through Cognitive Linguistics. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110245837
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110245837 [Google Scholar]
  26. Di Meola, C
    (1998) Semantisch relevante und semantisch irrelevante Kasusalternation am Beispiel von ‘entlang.’Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft,26, 204–235.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. 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: 10.1075/cagral.2.09dra
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cagral.2.09dra [Google Scholar]
  28. 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: 10.1590/S1984‑63982005000200002
     https://doi.org/10.1590/S1984-63982005000200002 [Google Scholar]
  29. Gibbs, R.W
    (1990) Psycholinguistic studies on the conceptual basis of idiomaticity. Cognitive Linguistics, 1, 417–451. doi: 10.1515/cogl.1990.1.4.417
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1990.1.4.417 [Google Scholar]
  30. (Ed.) (2008a) Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511816802
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511816802 [Google Scholar]
  31. (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: 10.1558/lhs.v4i3.321
     https://doi.org/10.1558/lhs.v4i3.321 [Google Scholar]
  32. 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]
  33. Glucksberg, S
    (1998) Understanding metaphors. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 7, 39–43. doi: 10.1111/1467‑8721.ep13175582
     https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.ep13175582 [Google Scholar]
  34. (2003) The psycholinguistics of metaphor. Trends in Cognitive Science,7, 92–96. doi: 10.1016/S1364‑6613(02)00040‑2
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(02)00040-2 [Google Scholar]
  35. 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: 10.1017/S0272263113000119
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263113000119 [Google Scholar]
  36. Holme, R
    (2003) Mind, metaphor and language teaching. Basingstoke, U.K.: Palgrave Macmillan. doi: 10.1057/9780230503007
     https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230503007 [Google Scholar]
  37. (2009) Cognitive Linguistics and language teaching. Basingstoke, U.K.: Palgrave Macmillan. doi: 10.1057/9780230233676
     https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230233676 [Google Scholar]
  38. Huette, S. , Winter, B. , Matlock, T. , & Spivey, M
    (2012) Processing motion implied in language: Eye-movement differences during aspect comprehension. Cognitive Processing, 13, 193–197. doi: 10.1007/s10339‑012‑0476‑6
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-012-0476-6 [Google Scholar]
  39. Johnson, M
    (2007) The meaning of the body: Aesthetics of human understanding. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. doi: 10.7208/chicago/9780226026992.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226026992.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  40. Juchem, C
    (2006) Let’s save time: Raising metaphor awareness in German business English course. LAUD A663, 1–22. Essen: Universität Duisburg-Essen.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Jüttner, M
    (2003) Visuelles Lernen. Oberhaching/Munich: Dustri.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Katz, A.N
    (1996) Experimental psycholinguistics and figurative language: Circa 1995. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity,11(1), 17–37. doi: 10.1207/s15327868ms1101_2
     https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327868ms1101_2 [Google Scholar]
  43. 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: 10.1075/tsl.66.06kop
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.66.06kop [Google Scholar]
  44. Lakoff, G. , & Johnson, M
    (1980) Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Langacker, R.W
    (1987) Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 1. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. 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: 10.1515/COGL.2010.012
     https://doi.org/10.1515/COGL.2010.012 [Google Scholar]
  47. Leys, O
    (1989) Aspekt und Rektion räumlicher Präpositionen. Deutsche Sprache, 17, 97–113.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. (1995) Dativ und Akkusativ in der deutschen Sprache der Gegenwart. Leuvense Bij-dragen,84: 39–62.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Littlemore, J
    (2009) Applying Cognitive Linguistics to second language learning and teaching. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. doi: 10.1057/9780230245259
     https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230245259 [Google Scholar]
  50. (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: 10.1075/celcr.13.20lit
     https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.13.20lit [Google Scholar]
  51. Littlemore, J. , & Low, G
    (2006) Figurative thinking and foreign language learning. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. doi: 10.1057/9780230627567
     https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230627567 [Google Scholar]
  52. Low, G
    (2003) Validating metaphoric models in applied linguistics. Metaphor and Symbol,18(4), 239–254. doi: 10.1207/S15327868MS1804_2
     https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327868MS1804_2 [Google Scholar]
  53. MacArthur, F
    (2010) Metaphorical competence in EFL: Where we are and where we should be going? A view from the classroom. AILA Review, 23, 155–173. doi: 10.1075/aila.23.09mac
     https://doi.org/10.1075/aila.23.09mac [Google Scholar]
  54. 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: 10.1515/iral.1994.32.2.97
     https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.1994.32.2.97 [Google Scholar]
  55. 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]
  56. (2004b) Fictive motion as cognitive simulation. Memory and Cognition, 32(8), 1389–1400. doi: 10.3758/BF03206329
     https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03206329 [Google Scholar]
  57. Meex, B
    (2002) Die Wegpräposition ‘über’. In H. Cuyckens & G. Radden (Eds.), Perspectives on prepositions (pp. 157–176). Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. doi: 10.1515/9783110924787.157
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110924787.157 [Google Scholar]
  58. (2004) Motion, path, and aspect. The case of the German path adpositions über and durch . Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 18, 299–322. doi: 10.1075/bjl.18.15mee
     https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.18.15mee [Google Scholar]
  59. Meex, B. , & Mortelmans, T
    (2002) Grammatik und Kognition. Germanistische Mitteilungen,56, 48–66.
     [Google Scholar]
  60. 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: 10.1075/cilt.29.14new
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.29.14new [Google Scholar]
  61. Ortony, A
    (Ed.) (1993) Metaphor and thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139173865
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173865 [Google Scholar]
  62. Özçaliskan, S
    (2003) Metaphorical motion in crosslinguistic perspective: A comparison of English and Turkish. Metaphor and Symbol,18(3), 189–228. doi: 10.1207/S15327868MS1803_05
     https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327868MS1803_05 [Google Scholar]
  63. Paivio, A
    (2001) Mental representations: A dual coding approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  64. Pourcel, S
    (2004) What makes path of motion salient?Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of Berkeley Linguistics Society,30(1), 1–12. doi: 10.3765/bls.v30i1.963
     https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v30i1.963 [Google Scholar]
  65. (2005) Linguistic relativity in cognitive processes. Manuscript presented at 1st UK Cognitive Linguistics Conference: New Directions in Cognitive Linguistics , University of Sussex, October 2005.
     [Google Scholar]
  66. Pourcel, S. , & Kopecka, A
    (2005) Motion expression in French: Typological diversity. Durham and Newcastle Working Papers in Linguistics,11, 139–153.
     [Google Scholar]
  67. Schäffner, C
    (2004) Metaphor and translation: Some implications of a cognitive approach. Journal of Pragmatics, 36(7), 1253–1269. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2003.10.012
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2003.10.012 [Google Scholar]
  68. Schmitt, R
    (2001) Metaphern in der Psychologie: Eine Skizze. Journal für Psychologie,9(4), 3–15.
     [Google Scholar]
  69. 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: 10.1075/cilt.150.15ser
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.150.15ser [Google Scholar]
  70. Shires Golon, A
    (2008) Visual-spatial learners: Differentiation strategies for creating a successful classroom. Austin, Texas: Prufrock Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  71. 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]
  72. (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: 10.1075/cilt.198.10slo
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.198.10slo [Google Scholar]
  73. 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.
     [Google Scholar]
  74. (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: 10.1515/9783110857108.531
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110857108.531 [Google Scholar]
  75. (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: 10.1515/9783110810868.293
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110810868.293 [Google Scholar]
  76. 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]
  77. (1991) Path to realization: A typology of event conflation. Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 480–519. doi: 10.3765/bls.v17i0.1620
     https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v17i0.1620 [Google Scholar]
  78. (2000) A typology of event integration. In L. Talmy (Ed.), Toward a cognitive semantics, Vol. 2 (pp. 213–288). Cambridge: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  79. van Noppen, J.-P. , De Knop, S. , & Jongen, R
    (1985) Metaphor: A bibliography of post-1970 publications. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/lisl.17
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lisl.17 [Google Scholar]
  80. van Noppen, J.-P. , & Hols, E
    (1990) Metaphor II. A classified bibliography of publications from 1985 to 1990. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/lisl.20
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lisl.20 [Google Scholar]
  81. Verspoor, M. , & Boers, F
    (2012) Cognitive linguistics of second language acquisition. In A. Chapelle (Ed.), The encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics. Chichester: Wiley Blackwell. doi: 10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal0148
     https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal0148 [Google Scholar]
  82. 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]
  83. Woodward, T
    (2001) Working with metaphors in teaching and teacher training. The Teacher Trainer,15(3), 10–11.
     [Google Scholar]
  84. Zachara, E
    (2004) Visualisieren im Englischunterricht: Effektiv und lebendig unterrichten. Buxtehude: Aol-Verlag.
     [Google Scholar]
  85. Zelinsky-Wibbelt, C
    (Ed.) (2003) Text transfer: Metonymy and metaphor, translation and expert-lay communication. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.13.1.07kno
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): case alternation; dative/accusative; dual coding; foreign language learners; French; German; language typology; metaphor; morpho-syntax; motion event; visualization

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error