The prototypical approach and the factors affecting the teaching and learning of prepositions

References

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. Danesi, M.
   (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. Kövecses, Z.
    (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. Littlemore, J.
    (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. Littlemore, J.
    (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. Tyler, A., & Evans, V.
    (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]