Applying Cognitive Linguistics to Teaching English Prepositions: A QuasiExperimental Study

International Journal of Instruction July 2018 ● Vol.11, No.3 
e-ISSN: 1308-1470 ● www.e-iji.net p-ISSN: 1694-609X 
pp. 327-346 
Citation: Hung, B. P., Vien, T., & Vu, N. N. (2018). Applying Cognitive Linguistics to Teaching 
English Prepositions: A Quasi-Experimental Study. International Journal of Instruction, 11(3), 327-
346. https://doi.org/10.12973/iji.2018.11323a 
Received: 23/12/2017 
Revision: 21/03/2018 
Accepted: 26/03/2018 
Applying Cognitive Linguistics to Teaching English Prepositions: A Quasi-
Experimental Study 
Bui Phu Hung 
PhD candidate at Hue College of Foreign Languages, Hue University, Vietnam, Vice-
Dean at Faculty of Foreign Languages, Van Hien University, Vietnam, 
buiphuhung@yahoo.com 
Truong Vien 
Assoc. Prof., Hue College of Foreign Languages – Hue University, Vietnam, 
truongviensp@gmail.com 
Nguyen Ngoc Vu 
Assoc. Prof., Ho Chi Minh City University of Education, Vietnam, vunn@hcmue.edu.vn 
 This quasi-experimental study aimed to investigate the effectiveness of applying 
cognitive linguistics (CL) to teaching English prepositions. The pretest-posttest 
between-group design was adopted. The participants were selected according to 
their previous learning experiences, regular out-of-class exposure, eagerness for 
joining the study, and pretest results. The spatial and metaphorical meanings of the 
prepositions above, among, at, behind, beside, between, in, in front of, on and 
under were taught in 4 sessions of 90 minutes. The Cognitive Group received CL-
based instructions and the Traditional Group received instructions based on vivid 
pictures and verbal explanations. The findings showed that the Cognitive Group 
outperformed the Traditional Group in the posttest in terms of both the spatial and 
metaphorical meanings. It can be said that CL-based instruction can help learners 
improve their knowledge of the prepositions better than the traditional pedagogical 
application. It is recommended that applying cognitive linguistics can help students 
of other languages master English prepositions. The participants’ responses to the 
questionnaires also assured research reliability and validity. 
Keywords: cognitive linguistics, English language teaching, English prepositions, ITPC 
Model, teaching 
INTRODUCTION 
Theoretical background 
The traditional pedagogical options for instructions on English prepositions currently 
applied in many countries speaking English as a foreign language are mainly based on 
328 Applying Cognitive Linguistics to Teaching English  
International Journal of Instruction, July 2018 ● Vol.11, No.3 
translation, verbal explanations, and vivid pictures (Hung, 2017 & Lorincs & Gordon, 
2012). Those in favor of language function classify prepositions according to their 
functions in language segments, such as prepositions of place, prepositions of time and 
prepositions of direction and suggest that instruction on prepositions should be based 
their functions in language segments (Chomsky, 1981 & Halliday, 2014) and these 
pedagogical options are also suggested in the textbooks published by international 
publishers (Hopkins & Cullen, 2007; Murphy, 2013 & Oxenden, Latham-Koeing & 
Seligson, 2008). These textbooks are used in many countries in the world, including 
Vietnam. Accordingly, these subtypes of prepositions are taught independently. 
However, recent studies have shown that these types of instruction do not help students 
learn and enhance their achievements in English prepositions successfully (Lorincs & 
Gordon, 2012). Cho (2010, pp. 267-269) further explains that these types of instruction 
primarily rest on simple memorization in that they simply learn the target items by heart. 
In particular, in the study by Cho (2010), the Japanese EFL learners instructed by this 
pedagogical option improved insignificantly after the treatment. Ausubel (2000) 
believes that it is crucial to give students opportunities to integrate new input with their 
existing knowledge as this can help them form a related cognitive structure. 
Ticio and Avram (2015) believe that acquisition and learning of an additional language 
should be somewhat based on its semantic features. It has been widely accepted by 
language researchers that knowledge of language plays a significant role in production 
and memory of language. This is especially valid in terms of adult L2 acquisition 
(Skrzypek & Singleton, 2013). 
The emergence of cognitive linguistics (CL) has implications for teaching prepositions. 
As CL rests itself against the relationship between the human mind and language, it 
suggests teaching prepositions should be meaning-based and employ image schemas. 
Accordingly, humans first experience spatial relation of objects in real life and reflect 
such a spatial physical relation via linguistic coding (Lee, 2001). The spatial meanings 
of prepositions can be prototypical and non-prototypical. The following examples by 
Herskovits (1986) can illustrate this point: 
(1) the cat in the house 
(2) the flowers in the vase 
(3) the bird in the tree 
(4) the finger in the ring 
The meaning of the preposition in in example 1 is prototypical as the cat as the trajector 
(the mentioned object) is totally contained in the house as the landmark (the reference 
entity). However, the trajector (TR) the flowers is not wholly inside the landmark (LM) 
the vase, which shows that the preposition in in this example has a non-prototypical 
meaning. In example (3), it is essential to include all the branches of the tree as LM as 
to use the non-prototypical meaning of the preposition in. In this case, a three-
dimensional (3-D) space should be construed. In example (4), the finger is 
conceptualized as TR in a particular position and the ring is construed as LM covering 
some part of TR. In a word, the preposition in in example (1) is prototypical, while 
examples (2), (3) and (4) illustrate n ... ut there was only a minor dif-ference 
in the improvements of their knowledge of the metaphorical meanings. However, the 
study by Song, et al. (2015) admitted that COG and TRAD improved less than the two 
342 Applying Cognitive Linguistics to Teaching English  
International Journal of Instruction, July 2018 ● Vol.11, No.3 
groups involved in this present study. In the former study, the scores achieved by COG 
and TRAD totally rose by 3.32 points and 0.81 points respectively. COG’s score for the 
spatial meanings and metaphorical meanings developed by 1.01 points and 1.74 points 
respectively, but TRAD lost 0.04 point for the spatial meanings and gained 1.18 point 
for the metaphorical meanings. An explanation for this difference may have been in the 
pedagogical applications in that there was no evidence that the former study applied 
these post-teaching activities. Lee (2003), Nagy and Scott (2000), Schmitt (2008) and 
Shintani (2011) assert that these post-teaching activities could contribute to learners’ 
retention of the target items. 
Also, this study generally confirmed the study by Tyler, et al. (2011). In the previous 
study by Tyler et al. (2011), COG gained 4.9 points on average. Only one participant 
lost one point and the other participants generally made significant gains. However, the 
data analysis, as admit-ted by the researchers, was relatively simple. There were no 
discussions on gains in different semantic facets of the prepositions. It was hard to make 
further comparisons between the findings from these two studies. 
CONCLUSION 
The present study aimed to investigate the effectiveness of applying CL-based ap-proach 
to teaching both spatial and meta-phorical meanings of prepositions. The study also 
compared the findings from the CL-based instructional description and tra-ditional 
instructional description. The findings from this study were in line with local and 
international studies of applying this approach (Hung, 2017; Huong, 2005; Song et al., 
2015 & Tyler et al. 2011). CL-based approach provided L2 learners with signifi-cant 
understandings of the spatial and met-aphorical meanings of prepositions. After CL-
based instructions of totally 6 hours, the participants showed considerable gains, with 
the assistance of visual aids mainly from the PowerPoint files. 
The participants’ responses to the questionnaire illustrated that COG and TRAD 
generally had comparable out-of-class exposure during the study. More specifically, one 
of them remained free from extra courses in English. They did not watch movies in 
English nor converse with for-eigners in English as they believed they were not 
proficient enough for that. Three participants from COG and five participants from 
TRAD watched American films dubbed into Vietnamese, and they did not pay attention 
to English subtitles at all. They did not join any website written in English during the 
study. All of them also revealed that each participant reviewed the lesson from 20 to 30 
minutes each week. 
The statistical analysis shows that the study gave more positive findings than the 
previous studies (Song et al., 2015). This may have been caused by the participants’ 
additional practices of productive skills after instruction. In addition, the use of image 
schemas in instructing spatial and metaphor-ical meanings of prepositions was valid. 
The prepositions had opportunities to transfer from the spatial domain to the abstract do-
main via the use of image schemas. 
However, the research population was quite limited. Also, the exploration into sub-ject 
interferences with the findings were based on the learners’ responses. Finally, cognitive 
Hung, Vien & Vu 343 
International Journal of Instruction, July 2018 ● Vol.11, No.3 
linguistics was a usage-based ap-proach (Evans & Green, 2006). In other words, 
language fluency was not a focus of the treatment. Although the participants were 
involved in productive tasks, the teacher-fronted time was the main input. This was also 
reflected in the measures of the pretest and posttest, which was in the form of direct 
tests. 
These participants were first-year students who already learned prepositions in 
traditional approach in high school and the pretest and posttest contained simple vocab-
ulary and clues for them to choose the right answers. The application should be 
extended in different contexts to know to what extent this approach is valid. 
This article provides an insight into the effectiveness of applying cognitive linguistic 
approach to Eng-lish language teaching and its pedagogical applications give 
implications for practices and studies (Langacker, 2008, p.66). There should be more 
experimental studies apply-ing cognitive linguistics to ELT. The unex-plored areas of 
the application of cognitive linguistics can be endeavors to ELT researchers and 
practitioners. Future studies applying cognitive linguistics in different contexts can 
provide better insights into its range of applications in ELT. 
REFERENCES 
Ausubel, D. P. (2000). The acquisition and retention of knowledge: a cognitive view. 
Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers. 
Bassili, J. N., Smith, M. C. & MacLeod, C. M. (1989). Auditory and visual word-stem 
completion: separating data driven and conceptuallly driven processing. The Quaterly 
Journal of Experimental Psychology, 41A (3), 439-453. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/14640748908402375 
Bielak, J. & Pawlak, M. (2013). Applying cognitive grammar in the foreign language 
classroom: Teaching English tense and aspect. Kalisz, Poland: Springer. 
Boers, F. (2011). Cognitive semantic ways of teaching figurative phrases: an 
assessment. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 9(1), 227-261. 
https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.9.1.11be 
Brower, C. (2000). A cognitive theory of musical meaning. Journal of Music Theory 
44 (2), 323-379. https://doi.org/ 10.2307/3090681. 
Cho, K. (2010). Fostering the acquisition of English prepositions by Japanese learners 
with networks and prototypes. In S. D. Knop, F. Boers & A. D. Rycker (Eds.), Fostering 
language teaching efficiency through cognitive linguistics (pp. 259-275). Berlin: 
Mouton de Gruyter. 
Condon, N. (2002). A cognitive approach to phrasal verbs: How useful is it?”. IVACS 
Conference: University of Limerick, Ireland. 
Currie, Q. T. (2008). Animation as reality: factors impacting cognitive load in studio-
based E-learning. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Capella University. Retrieved 
344 Applying Cognitive Linguistics to Teaching English  
International Journal of Instruction, July 2018 ● Vol.11, No.3 
from https://search.proquest.com/openview/d7ef7a6c9139610f8c36d7a0bf1b1909/1?pq-
origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y 
Ellis, R. (2008). Investigating grammatical difficulty in second language learning: 
Implications for second language acquisition research and language testing”. 
International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 18, 4-22. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/j.1473-
4192.2008.00184.x. 
Evans, V. (2007). A glossary of cognitive linguistics. Utah: University of Utah Press. 
Evans, V. & Green, M. (2006). Cognitive linguistics. An introduction. Edinburgh: 
Edinburgh University Press. 
Evans, V. & Tyler, A. (2005). Applying cognitive linguistics to pedagogical grammar: 
the English prepositions of verticality. Revista Brasileira de Linguística Aplicada, 5(2), 
11-42.  2005000200002 
Farías, M., Obilinovic, K., Orrego, R. & Gregersen, T. 2014. Evaluating types and 
combinations of multimodal presentations in the retention and trasnfer of concrete 
vocabulary in EFL learning. Revista Signos. Estudios de Lingũistica 47(83), 21-39. 
https://doi.org/ 10.4067/S0718-09342014000100002. 
Fasko, D. (2001). Education and creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 13(3), 317-
327. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326934CRJ1334_09 
Gardner, H. (2006). Multiple intelligences: New horizons. New York: Basic Books. 
Grafs, P. & Mandler, G. (1984). Activation makes words more assessible, but not 
necessary more retrievable. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 23, 553-
568. 
Grafs, P. & Schacter, D. (1985). Implicit and explicit memory for new associations in 
normal and amnesic subjects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory 
and Cognition, 11, 501-518.  
Hama, M. (2005). The effects of the minilesson on advanced learners’acquisition of 
English modals: A case study”. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Linguistics, 
Georgetown University, Washington, D. C., 2005. In A. Tyler. Cognitive linguistics and 
second language learning: Theoretical basics and experimental evidence. New York: 
Rouledge. 
Harmer, J. (2007). How to Teach English. Essex, England: Pearson Education. 
Harmer, J. (2009). The practice of English language teaching. Essex, England: Pearson 
Education. 
Herskovits, A. (1986). Language and spatial cognition - an interdisciplinary study for 
the perceptions in English. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 
Hopkins, D. & Cullen, P. (2007). Grammar for IELTS with answers: Self-study 
grammar, reference and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 
Hung, Vien & Vu 345 
International Journal of Instruction, July 2018 ● Vol.11, No.3 
Hung, B. P. (2017). Vietnamese students learning the semantics of English prepositions. 
GEMA Online
@
 Journal of Language Studies, 17(4), 14-27. 
 1704-10 
Huong, N. T. (2005). Vietnamese learners mastering English articles. Unpublished 
doctoral dissertation, University of Groningen. Retrieved from https://www.rug.nl/ 
research/portal/files/2925151/c8.pdf 
Jamrozik, A. & Gentner, D. (2011). Prepositions in and on retain aspects of spatial 
meaning in abstract contexts. Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Meeting of the Cognitive 
Science Society, 1589-1594.https://escholarship. org/uc/item/0kd5r1db 
Kemmerer, D. (2005). The spatial and temporal meanings of English prepositions can 
be independently impaired. Neuropsychologia, 43(5), 797-806. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j. neuropsychologia.2004.06.025 
Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: Chicago University 
Press. 
Langacker, R. W. (2008). Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford 
University Press. 
Lee, D. (2001). Cognitive linguistics: An introduction. New York: Oxford University 
Press. 
Lin, Lu-Fang. (2014). Chinese-speaking learners’ cognitive comprehension problems 
with English video-based materials. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 
51(1): 23-47. https://doi.org/10.2190/EC.51.1.b 
Lorincs, K. & Gordon, R. (2012). Difficulties in learning prepositions and possible 
solutions. Linguistics Portfolios, 1, Article 14.Retrieved from 
 _ling/vol1/iss1/14/ 
McAllister, D. & Guidice, R. M. (2012). This is only a test: A machine-graded 
improvement to the multiplechoice and true-false examination. Teaching in Higher 
Education, 17(2), 193-207. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2 011.611868 
Murphy, R. (2013). English grammar in use (3rd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge 
University Press. 
Nagy, W. E. & Scott, J. A. (2000). Vocabulary processes. In: Kamil, M. L., Mosenthal, 
P. B., Pearson, P. D. & Barr, R. Handbook of reading research, Vol 3 (pp. 269-284). 
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. 
Norris, J. M. & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis 
and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50(3), 417-528. https://doi.org/ 
10.1111/0023-8333.00136. 
Oxenden, C., Latham-Koeing, C. & Seligson, P. (2008). American English file (student 
book 2). Oxford: Oxford University Press. 
346 Applying Cognitive Linguistics to Teaching English  
International Journal of Instruction, July 2018 ● Vol.11, No.3 
Pérez-Hernández, L. (2011). Cognitive tools for successful branding. Applied 
Linguistics 32 (4), 369-388. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amr004 
Schintani, N. (2011). A comparative study of the effects of input-based and production-
based instruction on vocabulary acquisition by young EFL learners. Language Teaching 
Research, 15(2), 137-158. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168810388692 
Schmitt, N. (2008). Instructed second language vocabulary learning. Language 
Teaching Research, 12(3), 329-363. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168808089921 
Schnotz, W. (2005). An integrated model of text and picture comprehension”. In R. E. 
Mayer (ed.), Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning (pp. 49-69). Cambridge, 
UK: Cambridge University Press. 
Skrzypek, A. & Singleton, D. (2013). Productive knowledge of English collocations in 
adult Polish learners: The role of short-term memory. Vigo International Journal of 
Applied Linguistics, 10, 105-129. Retrieved from  
Vial-2013-Article5.pdf 
Sobrino, P. P. (2014). Multimodal cognitive operations in classical music. Vigo 
International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 11, 137-168. Retrieved from 
 uvigo.es/pdf/Vial-2014-Article6.pdf 
Song, X., Schnotz, W. & Juchem-Grundmann, C. (2015). A cognitive linguistic 
approach to teaching English prepositions. In Schnotz W., Kauertz A., Ludwig H., 
Müller A., Pretsch J. (eds) Multidisciplinary Research on Teaching and Learning (pp. 
109-128). Palgrave Macmillan, London. 
Taylor, J. R. (1989). Linguistic categorization: Prototypes in linguistic theory. Oxford: 
Oxford University Press. 
Ticio, E. & Avram, L. (2015). The acquisition of differential object marking in Spanish 
and Romanian: semantic scales or semantic features?. Revue Romaine de Linguistique, 
4, 383-402. 
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, 8, 181-205. 
Vasiljevic, Z. (2011). Using conceptual metaphors and L1 definitions in teaching idioms 
to non-native speakers. The Journal of Asia TEFL 8(3), 135-160.