1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Cognitive Linguistic Studies
  4. Volume 12, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 12, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2213-8722
  • E-ISSN: 2213-8730
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This paper presents a digital tool for teaching and learning the usage patterns of English prepositions using an Embodied Scenes approach. Building on corpus linguistic investigations and insights from Cognitive Linguistics, we present the usage patterns of prepositional constructions in line with how spatial relations are typically used to construe meaning. The tool is intended to empower students of English to increase confidence in their L2 skills through usage-based examples. In two studies, we test a set of sample lessons targeting the preposition . Data were collected from ESL classes at Swedish High Schools. Students were randomly assigned to a control group exposed to traditional preposition materials or an experimental group exposed to the new lessons. Students then completed a pre-test, learning sessions, a post-test, and a delayed post-test. Results show that the Embodied Scenes approach led to proficiency in using and this was maintained over time.

© 2025 John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/cogls.22020.oko
2025-06-02
2025-06-24

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/cogls.22020.oko
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Ahlberg, D. K., Bischoff, H., Strozyk, J. V., Bryant, D., & Kaup, B.
    (2018a) How do German bilingual schoolchildren process German prepositions? – A study on language-motor interactions. PloS One, 13(3), Article e0193349. 10.1371/journal.pone.0193349
     https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0193349 [Google Scholar]
  2. Ahlberg, D. K., Bischoff, H., Kaup, B., Bryant, D. & Strozyk, J. V.
    (2018b) Grounded cognition: Comparing language × space interactions in first language and second language. Applied Psycholinguistics, 39(2), 437–459. 10.1017/S014271641700042X
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S014271641700042X [Google Scholar]
  3. Bączkowska, A.
    (2011) Space, time & language: A cognitive analysis of English prepositions. Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Kazimireza Wielkiego.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Barsalou, L. W.
    (2008) Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 591, 617–645. 10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093639
     https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093639 [Google Scholar]
  5. Beitel, D. A., Gibbs, Jr, R. W., & Sanders, P.
    (2001) The embodied approach to the polysemy of the spatial preposition on. InH. Cuyckens & B. E. Zawada (Eds.), Polysemy in Cognitive Linguistics (pp.241–260). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.177.11bei
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.177.11bei [Google Scholar]
  6. Bergen, B. K.
    (2012) Louder than words: The new science of how the mind makes meaning. New York: Basic Books.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Boers, F.
    (2000) Metaphor awareness and vocabulary retention. Applied Linguistics, 21(4), 553–571. 10.1093/applin/21.4.553
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/21.4.553 [Google Scholar]
  8. Boers, F., & Demecheleer, M.
    (1998) A cognitive semantic approach to teaching prepositions. ELT Journal, 52(3), 197–204. 10.1093/elt/52.3.197
     https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/52.3.197 [Google Scholar]
  9. Cuyckens, H.
    (2002) Metonymy in prepositions. InH. Cuyckens & G. Radden (Eds.), Perspectives on prepositions (pp.257–266). Berlin: Max Niemeyer Verlag. 10.1515/9783110924787.257
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110924787.257 [Google Scholar]
  10. Davies, M.
    (2008) The corpus of contemporary American English (COCA): 520 million words 1990 – present. Available online atcorpus.byu.edu/coca/
  11. Desai, R. H., Conant, L. L., Binder, J. R., Park, H., & Seidenberg, M. S.
    (2013) A piece of the action: Modulation of sensory-motor regions by action idioms and metaphors. NeuroImage, 831, 862–869. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.07.044
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.07.044 [Google Scholar]
  12. Field, J.
    (2008) Bricks or mortar: Which parts of the input does a second language listener rely on?. TESOL quarterly, 42(3), 411–432. 10.1002/j.1545‑7249.2008.tb00139.x
     https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1545-7249.2008.tb00139.x [Google Scholar]
  13. Gibbs, Jr, R. W.
    (2006a) Embodiment and cognitive science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. (2006b) Metaphor interpretation as embodied simulation. Mind & Language, 21(3), 434–458. 10.1111/j.1468‑0017.2006.00285.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0017.2006.00285.x [Google Scholar]
  15. Gibbs, Jr, R. W., & Matlock, T.
    (2008) Metaphor, imagination, and simulation. InR. W. Gibbs, Jr. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (pp.161–176). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511816802.011
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511816802.011 [Google Scholar]
  16. Gibbs, Jr, R. W. & Cruz, M. J. S.
    (2012) Temporal unfolding of conceptual metaphoric experience. Metaphor and Symbol, 27(4), 299–311. 10.1080/10926488.2012.716299
     https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2012.716299 [Google Scholar]
  17. Goldberg, A. E.
    (2005) Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199268511.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199268511.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  18. Gärdenfors, P.
    (2014) The geometry of meaning: Semantics based on conceptual spaces. Cambridge: The MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/9629.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9629.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  19. Johansson Falck, M.
    (2012) Metaphor variation across L1 and L2 speakers of English: Do differences at the level of linguistic metaphor matter?. InF. MacArthur, J. L. Oncins-Martínez, M. Sánchez-García & A. M. Piquer-Píriz (Eds.), Metaphor in use: Context, culture, and communication (pp.109–134). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.38.10joh
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.38.10joh [Google Scholar]
  20. (2014) Temporal prepositions explained: Cross-linguistic analysis of English and Swedish unit of time landmarks. Cognitive Linguistic Studies, 1(2), 271–288. 10.1075/cogls.1.2.05fal
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cogls.1.2.05fal [Google Scholar]
  21. (2016) What trajectors reveal about TIME metaphors: Analysis of English and Swedish. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 21(1), 28–47. 10.1075/ijcl.21.1.02fal
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.21.1.02fal [Google Scholar]
  22. (2017) Embodied motivations for abstract in and on constructions. InF. J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, A. L. Oyón, & P. P. Sobrino (Eds.), Constructing families of constructions: Analytical perspectives and theoretical challenges (pp.53–76). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.58.03joh
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.58.03joh [Google Scholar]
  23. Johansson Falck, M.
    (2018) Embodied experience and the teaching and learning of L2 prepositions: A case study of abstract in and on. InA. Tyler, L. Huang & H. Jan (Eds.), What is applied Cognitive Linguistics?: Answers from current SLA research (pp.287–304). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110572186‑011
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110572186-011 [Google Scholar]
  24. Johansson Falck, M.
    (2023) Lexico-encyclopedic conceptual (LEC) metaphors. InF. T. Li (Ed.), Handbook of cognitive semantics (vol. 3) (pp.291–313). Boston: Brill.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Johansson Falck, M., & Okonski, L.
    (2022) Procedure for identifying metaphorical scenes (PIMS): A Cognitive Linguistics approach to bridge theory and practice. Cognitive Semantics, 81, 294–322. 10.1163/23526416‑bja10031
     https://doi.org/10.1163/23526416-bja10031 [Google Scholar]
  26. (2023) Procedure for identifying metaphorical scenes (PIMS): The case of spatial and abstract relations. Metaphor and Symbol, 38(1), 1–22. 10.1080/10926488.2022.2062243
     https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2022.2062243 [Google Scholar]
  27. Johansson Falck, M., & Okonski, L.
    (2024) Metaphorical and non-metaphorical meaning from spatial relations. Review of Cognitive Linguistics. 10.1075/rcl.00186.fal
     https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.00186.fal [Google Scholar]
  28. Kessler, K. & Rutherford, H.
    (2010) The two forms of visuo-spatial perspective taking are differently embodied and subserve different spatial prepositions. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, Article 213. 10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00213
     https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00213 [Google Scholar]
  29. Kissling, E. M., Tyler, A., Warren, L., & Negrete, L.
    (2018) Reexamining por and para in the Spanish foreign language intermediate classroom: A usage-based, Cognitive Linguistic approach. InA. Tyler, L. Huang & H. Jan (Eds.), What is applied Cognitive Linguistics?: Answers from current SLA research (pp.229–256). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110572186‑009
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110572186-009 [Google Scholar]
  30. Lakoff, G.
    (1987) Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  31. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M.
    (1980) Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Lany, J., & Saffran, J. R.
    (2010) From statistics to meaning: Infants’ acquisition of lexical categories. Psychological Science, 21(2), 284–291. 10.1177/0956797609358570
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797609358570 [Google Scholar]
  33. Langacker, R. W.
    (1987) Foundations of cognitive grammar: Vol 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. 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]
  35. Langacker, R. W.
    (2002) Concept, image, and symbol: The cognitive basis of grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Lindstromberg, S.
    (2010) English prepositions explained. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.157
     https://doi.org/10.1075/z.157 [Google Scholar]
  37. Littlemore, J.
    (2009) Applying Cognitive Linguistics to second language learning and teaching. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9780230245259
     https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230245259 [Google Scholar]
  38. MacWhinney, B.
    (2017) A shared platform for studying second language acquisition. Language Learning, 67(S1), 254–275. 10.1111/lang.12220
     https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12220 [Google Scholar]
  39. Mueller, C. M.
    (2011) English learners’ knowledge of prepositions: Collocational knowledge or knowledge based on meaning?. System, 39(4), 480–490. 10.1016/j.system.2011.10.012
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2011.10.012 [Google Scholar]
  40. Presson, N., Davy, C., & MacWhinney, B.
    (2013) Experimentalized CALL for adult second language learners. InJ. W. Schwieter (Ed.), Innovative research and practices in second language acquisition and bilingualism (pp.139–164). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/lllt.38.10pre
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.38.10pre [Google Scholar]
  41. Roediger, H. L., & Karpicke, J. D.
    (2006) The power of testing memory: Basic research and implications for educational practice. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1(3), 181–210. 10.1111/j.1745‑6916.2006.00012.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6916.2006.00012.x [Google Scholar]
  42. Rohrer, D., & Pashler, H.
    (2007) Increasing retention without increasing study time. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16(4), 183–186. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20183193. 10.1111/j.1467‑8721.2007.00500.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2007.00500.x [Google Scholar]
  43. Stroop, J. R.
    (1935) Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18(6), 643–662. 10.1037/h0054651
     https://doi.org/10.1037/h0054651 [Google Scholar]
  44. Taraban, R., Maki, W. S., & Rynearson, K.
    (1999) Measuring study time distributions: Implications for designing computer-based courses. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments & Computers, 31(2), 263–269. 10.3758/BF03207718
     https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03207718 [Google Scholar]
  45. Tyler, A., & Evans, V.
    (2003) The semantics of English prepositions: Spatial scenes, embodied meaning and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511486517
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486517 [Google Scholar]
  46. Tyler, A., Mueller, 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, 81, 181–205.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Tyler, A.
    (2012) Spatial language, polysemy, and cross-linguistic semantic mismatches: Cognitive linguistics insights into challenges for second language learners. Spatial Cognition & Computation, 12(4), 305–335. 10.1080/13875868.2012.698670
     https://doi.org/10.1080/13875868.2012.698670 [Google Scholar]
  48. Vannestål, M. E.
    (2007) Establishing relations: Dealing with prepositions. InM. E. Vannestål (Ed.), A university grammar of English: With a Swedish perspective (pp.359–383). Studentlitteratur.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Wilson, N. L., & Gibbs, Jr, R. W.
    (2007) Real and imagined body movement primes metaphor comprehension. Cognitive Science, 31(4), 721–731. 10.1080/15326900701399962
     https://doi.org/10.1080/15326900701399962 [Google Scholar]
  50. Wong, M. H. I., Zhao, H., & MacWhinney, B.
    (2018) A Cognitive Linguistics application for second language pedagogy: The English preposition tutor. Language Learning, 68(2), 438–468. 10.1111/lang.12278
     https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12278 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/cogls.22020.oko
Loading
The effect of the Embodied Scenes approach to preposition learning with PrepApp
Cognitive Linguistic Studies 12, 70 (2025); https://doi.org/10.1075/cogls.22020.oko
/content/journals/10.1075/cogls.22020.oko
/content/journals/10.1075/cogls.22020.oko
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): computer-assisted language learning; corpus linguistics; English as a second language (L2); prepositions; spatial relationships; usage-based

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