Complications in the L2 acquisition of the simple spatial prepositions in and on

References

1. Boers, F.
   (2013) Cognitive linguistic approaches to teaching vocabulary: Assessment and integration. Language Teaching, 46(2), 208–224. doi:  10.1017/S0261444811000450
   https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444811000450 [Google Scholar]
2. Boers, F., & Demecheleer, M.
   (1998) A cognitive semantic approach to teaching prepositions. ELT Journal, 52(3), 197–204. doi:  10.1093/elt/52.3.197
   https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/52.3.197 [Google Scholar]
3. Chilton, P.
   (2014) Language, space, and mind: The conceptual geometry of linguistic meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511845703
   https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511845703 [Google Scholar]
4. Correa-Beningfield, M., Kristiansen, G., Navarro-Ferrando, I., & Vandeloise, C.
   (2005) Image schemas vs. “complex primitives” in cross-cultural spatial cognition. InB. Hampe & J. E. Grady (Eds.), From perception to meaning: Image schemas in cognitive linguistics (pp.343–376). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110197532.4.343
   https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197532.4.343 [Google Scholar]
5. Cronbach, L. J.
   (1977) Educational psychology (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
   [Google Scholar]
6. Deane, P. D.
   (2005) Multimodal spatial representation: On the semantic unity of over. InB. Hampe & J. E. Grady (Eds.), From perception to meaning: Image schemas in cognitive linguistics (pp.235–282). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110197532.3.235
   https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197532.3.235 [Google Scholar]
7. Dodge, E., & Lakoff, G.
   (2005) Image schemas: From linguistic analysis to neural grounding. InB. Hampe & J. E. Grady (Eds.), From perception to meaning: Image schemas in cognitive linguistics (pp.57–91). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110197532.1.57
   https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197532.1.57 [Google Scholar]
8. Evans, V., & Tyler, A.
   (2005) Applying cognitive linguistics to pedagogical grammar: The English prepositions of verticality. Rev. Brasileira de Linguistica Applicada, 5(2), 11–42. 10.1590/S1984‑63982005000200002
   https://doi.org/10.1590/S1984-63982005000200002 [Google Scholar]
9. Feist, M. I., & Gentner, D.
   (2012) Multiple influences on the use of English spatial prepositions: The case of “in” and “on”. InC. Boonthum-Denecke, P. M. McCarthy, & T. A. Lamkin (Eds.), Cross-disciplinary advances in applied natural language processing: Issues and approaches (pp.305–323). Hersey, PA: IGI Global. 10.4018/978‑1‑61350‑447‑5.ch020
   https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-61350-447-5.ch020 [Google Scholar]
10. Garrod, S., Ferrier, G., & Campbell, S.
    (1999) In and on: Investigating the functional geometry of spatial prepositions. Cognition, 72(2), 167–189. doi:  10.1016/S0010‑0277(99)00038‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(99)00038-4 [Google Scholar]
11. Gentner, D., & Bowerman, M.
    (2009) Why some spatial semantic categories are harder to learn than others: The typological prevalence hypothesis. InJ. Guo, E. Lieven, S. Ervin-Tripp, N. Budwig, S. Özçaliskan, & K. Nakamura (Eds.), Crosslinguistic approaches to the psychology of language: Research in the tradition of Dan Isaac Slobin (pp.465–480). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Association.
    [Google Scholar]
12. Grady, J. E.
    (2005) Image schemas and perception: Refining a definition. InB. Hampe & J. E. Grady (Eds.), From perception to meaning: Image schemas in cognitive linguistics (pp.35–55). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110197532.1.35
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197532.1.35 [Google Scholar]
13. Hart, C.
    (2014) Discourse, grammar and ideology: Functional and cognitive perspectives. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
    [Google Scholar]
14. Johnson, M.
    (1987) The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226177847.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226177847.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
15. Johnson, M.
    (2005) The philosophical significance of image schemas. InB. Hampe & J. E. Grady (Eds.), From perception to meaning: Image schemas in cognitive linguistics (pp.15–33). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110197532.1.15
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197532.1.15 [Google Scholar]
16. Kosslyn, S. M.
    (1980) Image and mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
17. Lakoff, G.
    (1987) Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
18. Landau, B., & Jackendoff, R.
    (1993) “What” and “where” in spatial language and spatial cognition. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 16(2), 217–265. doi:  10.1017/S0140525X00029733
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00029733 [Google Scholar]
19. Langacker, R. W.
    (1991) Concept, image, and symbol: The cognitive basis of grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
20. 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]
21. Machin, D.
    (2009) Multimodality and theories of the visual. InC. Jewitt (Ed.), Handbook of multimodality (pp.181–190). London: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
22. Mandler, J. M., & Pagan-Canovas, C.
    (2014) On defining image schemas. Language and Cognition, 6(4), 510–523. doi:  10.1017/langcog.2014.14
    https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2014.14 [Google Scholar]
23. McDonough, L., Choi, S., & Mandler, J. M.
    (2003) Understanding spatial relations: Flexible infants, lexical adults. Cognitive Psychology, 46(3), 229–259. doi:  10.1016/S0010‑0285(02)00514‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0285(02)00514-5 [Google Scholar]
24. Odlin, T.
    (2005) Crosslinguistic influence and conceptual transfer: What are the concepts?Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 25, 3–25. doi:  10.1017/S0267190505000012
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190505000012 [Google Scholar]
25. Pinker, S.
    (1999) Words and rules: The ingredients of language. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.
    [Google Scholar]
26. Quirk, R., & Greenbaum, S.
    (1973) A university grammar of English. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
27. Rosch, E., & Mervis, C. B.
    (1975) Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology, 7(4), 573–605. doi:  10.1016/0010‑0285(75)90024‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(75)90024-9 [Google Scholar]
28. Shintani, M., Mori, K., & Ohmori, T.
    (2016) Image schema-based instruction in English grammar. InP. Clements, A. Krause, & H. Brown (Eds.), Focus on the learner (pp.285–296). Tokyo: JALT.
    [Google Scholar]
29. Taferner, R. & Yamada, J.
    (2019 under review). L1 interference and embodied schematic images and image schemas as the loci of difficulty with the “simple” spatial prepositions in and on for L2 learners. 10.1075/jsls.18015.taf
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jsls.18015.taf [Google Scholar]
30. Talmy, L.
    (2000) Toward a cognitive semantics, Vol. 1: Concept structuring systems. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
31. Talmy, L.
    (2005) The fundamental system of spatial schemas in language. InB. Hampe & J. E. Grady (Eds.), From perception to meaning: Image schemas in cognitive linguistics (pp.199–234). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110197532.3.199
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197532.3.199 [Google Scholar]
32. Tyler, A., & Evans, V.
    (2003) Lexical meaning and experience: The semantics of English prepositions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511486517
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486517 [Google Scholar]
33. Zlatev, J.
    (2005) What’s in a schema? Bodily mimesis and the grounding of language. InB. Hampe & J. E. Grady (Eds.), From perception to meaning: Image schemas in cognitive linguistics (pp.314–341). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110197532.4.313
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197532.4.313 [Google Scholar]