Volume 9, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2213-8722
  • E-ISSN: 2213-8730
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



This article is a critical review of the approach based on a polysemy network model applied to teaching prepositions. The analysis brings forth the inherent limitations of this model in explaining less prototypical senses and in leading second language learners to discover a contextualized interpretation of a preposition that may vary subtly from the meaning represented in the model; the model also fails to take conceptual differences between metonym and metaphor into account and assumes that these concepts would be familiar to ESL learners. As will be discussed, methodological modifications could yield more effective results. It is also suggested that a micro-level analysis of each individual sense is required to identify the learning outcomes of the intervention to ascertain that this approach is resourceful in teaching a range of senses in the polysemy network model.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Bencini, G. M. L., & Goldberg, A. E.
    (2000) The contribution of argument structure constructions to sentence meaning. Journal of Memory and Language, 43(4), 640–651. 10.1006/jmla.2000.2757
    https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.2000.2757 [Google Scholar]
  2. Benczes, R., & Sagvari, B.
    (2018) Where metaphors really come from: Social factors as contextual influence in Hungarian teenagers’ metaphorical conceptualizations of life. Cognitive Linguistics, 29(1), 121–154. 10.1515/cog‑2016‑0139
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2016-0139 [Google Scholar]
  3. Boers, F.
    (2000) Metaphor awareness and vocabulary retention. Applied Lingusitics, 21(4), 553–571. 10.1093/applin/21.4.553
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/21.4.553 [Google Scholar]
  4. Chaudron, C.
    (1985) Intake: On models and methods for discovering learners’ processing of input. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 7(1), 1–14. 10.1017/S027226310000512X
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S027226310000512X [Google Scholar]
  5. Corder, S. P.
    (1967) The significance of learner’s errors. International Review of Applied Linguisitics, 5(1–4), 161–170. 10.1515/iral.1967.5.1‑4.161
    https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.1967.5.1-4.161 [Google Scholar]
  6. Cuyckens, H.
    (2002) Metonymy in prepositions. InH. Chyckens & G. Radden (Eds.), Perspectives on Prepositions (pp. 257–266). Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag. 10.1515/9783110924787.257
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110924787.257 [Google Scholar]
  7. Danesi, M.
    (2003) Second Language Teaching: A View from the Right Side of the Brain. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. 10.1007/978‑94‑010‑0187‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-0187-8 [Google Scholar]
  8. (2008) Conceptual errors in second-language learning. InS. De Knop & T. De Rycker (Eds.), Cognitive Approaches to Pedagogical Grammar: A Volume in Honour of Rene Dirven (pp. 231–256). Berlin/New York: Mouton De Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Evans, V.
    (2010) From the spatial to the non-spatial: The ‘state’ lecical concepts of in, on and at. InE. Vyvyan & P. Chilton (Eds.), Language, Cognition and Space: The State of the Art and the New Directions (pp. 215–248). London: Equinox.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Galantomos, I.
    (2018) Gender and proficiency effects on metaphore use among Greek learners. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 29(1), 61–77. 10.1111/ijal.12238
    https://doi.org/10.1111/ijal.12238 [Google Scholar]
  11. Gries, S. T.
    (2015) Polysemy. InE. Dąbrowska & D. S. Divjak, Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 472–490). Berlin/Bosten: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110292022‑023
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110292022-023 [Google Scholar]
  12. Kemmer, S., & Barlow, M.
    (2000) Introduction: A usage-based conception of language. InM. Barlow & S. Kemmer (Eds.), Usage-based Models of Language (pp. 7–25). Stanford, California: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Klepousniotou, E.
    (2002) The processing of lexical ambiguity: Homonymy and polysemy in the mental lexicon. Brain and Language, 81(1–3), 205–223. 10.1006/brln.2001.2518
    https://doi.org/10.1006/brln.2001.2518 [Google Scholar]
  14. Kövecses, Z.
    (2005) Metaphor in Culture: Universality and Variation. New York/Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511614408
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511614408 [Google Scholar]
  15. (2015) Where Metaphors Come from: Reconsidering Context in Metaphor. New York: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190224868.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190224868.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  16. Lakoff, G.
    (1987) Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal About the Mind. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  17. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M.
    (1980) Metaphore We Live By. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Lam, Y.
    (2009) Applying Cognitive Linguistics to teaching the Spanish prepositions por and para. Language Awareness, 18(1), 2–18. 10.1080/09658410802147345
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09658410802147345 [Google Scholar]
  19. Lindstromberg, S.
    (1996) Prepositions: Meaning and method. ELT Journal, 50(3), 225–236. 10.1093/elt/50.3.225
    https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/50.3.225 [Google Scholar]
  20. Littlemore, J.
    (2001a) Metaphoric competence: A possible language learning strength of students with holistic cognitive style?. TESOL Quarterly, 35(3), 459–491. 10.2307/3588031
    https://doi.org/10.2307/3588031 [Google Scholar]
  21. (2001b) The uses of metaphor in university lectures and the problems that it causes for overseas studetns. Teaching in Higher Education, 6(3), 333–349. 10.1080/13562510120061205
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13562510120061205 [Google Scholar]
  22. (2010) Metaphoric competence in the first and second language: Similarities and differences. InM. Pütz & L. Sicola (Eds.), Cognitive Processing in Second Language Acquisition: Inside the Learner’s Mind (pp. 293–316). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/celcr.13.20lit
    https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.13.20lit [Google Scholar]
  23. Littlemore, J., & Low, G.
    (2006) Metaphoric competence, second language learning, and communicative language ability. Applied Linguistics, 27(2), 268–294. 10.1093/applin/aml004
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/aml004 [Google Scholar]
  24. Littlemore, J., Chen, P. T., Koester, A., & Barnden, J.
    (2011) Difficulities in metaphore comprehension faced by international student whose first language is not English. Applied Linguistics, 32(4), 408–429. 10.1093/applin/amr009
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amr009 [Google Scholar]
  25. Lu, H., & Wei, X.
    (2019) Structuring polysemy in English learners’ dictionaries: A prototype theory-based model. International Journal of Lexicography, 32(1), 20–37. 10.1093/ijl/ecy018
    https://doi.org/10.1093/ijl/ecy018 [Google Scholar]
  26. Michl, D.
    (2019) Metonymies are more literal than metaphors: Evidence from ratings of German idioms. Language and Cognition, 11(1), 98–124. 10.1017/langcog.2019.7
    https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2019.7 [Google Scholar]
  27. Rice, S.
    (1996) Prepositional prototypes. InM. Pütz & R. Dirven, The Construal of Space in Language and Thought (pp. 135–167). Berlin: Mounton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110821611.135
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110821611.135 [Google Scholar]
  28. Rosch, E., & Mervis, C. B.
    (1975) Family resemblences: Studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology, 7(4), 573–605. 10.1016/0010‑0285(75)90024‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(75)90024-9 [Google Scholar]
  29. Rundblad, G., & Annaz, D.
    (2010) Development of metaphor and metonymy comprehension: Receptive vocabulary and conceptual knowledge. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 28(3), 547–563. 10.1348/026151009X454373
    https://doi.org/10.1348/026151009X454373 [Google Scholar]
  30. Swain, M.
    (2006) Languaging, agency and collaboration in advanced language proficiency. InH. Byrnes (Ed.), Advanced Language Learning: The Contribution of Halliday and Vygotsky (pp. 95–108). London: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Swan, M.
    (1985) A critical look at the communicative approach II. ELTJ, 39(2), 76–87. 10.1093/elt/39.2.76
    https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/39.2.76 [Google Scholar]
  32. Tomasello, M.
    (2003) Constructing a language: A Usage-Based Theory of Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Tyler, A.
    (2012) Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language learning: Theoretical Basics and Experimental Evidence. New York and London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203876039
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203876039 [Google Scholar]
  34. Tyler, A., & Evans, V.
    (2001) Reconsidering prepositional polysemy networks: The case of over. Language, 77(4), 724–765. 10.1353/lan.2001.0250
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2001.0250 [Google Scholar]
  35. (2003) The Semantics of English Prepositios: Spatial Senses, Embodied Meaning and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511486517
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486517 [Google Scholar]
  36. Tyler, A., Muller, C., & Ho, V.
    (2011) Applying Cognitive Linguistics to learning the semantics of English to, for and at: An experimental investigation. Vigo International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 8(1), 181–206.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Xu, H., & Lou, Y.
    (2015) Treatment of the prepositions ‘to’ in English learners’ dictionaries: A cognitive approach. International Journal of Lexicography, 28(2), 207–231. 10.1093/ijl/ecv005
    https://doi.org/10.1093/ijl/ecv005 [Google Scholar]
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