Students’ Responses to CL-Based Teaching of English Prepositions

 Eurasian Journal of Educational Research 73 (2018) 41-58 
 Eurasian Journal of Educational Research 
www.ejer.com.tr 
Students’ Responses to CL-Based Teaching of English Prepositions* 
Bui Phu HUNG1, Vien TRUONG2, Ngoc Vu NGUYEN3 
A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T 
Article History: Purpose: Most EFL textbooks suggest the use of vivid 
pictures and verbal explanations in teaching English 
prepositions. However, this word class appears in 
collocations, and rote-learning does not really help 
learners retain and use this word class successfully. 
Cognitive linguistics (CL) has implications for English 
language teaching as it rests against the relationship 
between the human mind and language. Several 
experimental studies have aimed to investigate the 
effects of CL-based treatment on learners’ retention of 
target foreign or second language. However, most of 
these studies have not placed an emphasis on the 
learners’ opinions of CL-based teaching. This current 
study aimed to collect college students’ responses to 
CL-based teaching of English prepositions. 
Received: 09 Sep.2017 
Received in revised form: 25.Dec.2017 
Accepted: 08 Jan.2018 
DOI: 10.14689/ejer.2018.73.3 
Keywords 
cognitive linguistics, English 
prepositions, spatial meanings, 
conceptual metaphors, domain 
mapping 
Research Methods: The study was conducted for four weeks, with a 90-minute session each 
time per week. The students learned the spatial meanings and then the metaphorical meanings 
of the ten prepositions above, among, at, behind, beside, between, in, in front of, on, and under. 
Questionnaires were administered before the study to collect the participants’ opinions of the 
traditional teaching (primarily based on vivid pictures and verbal explanations) and after the 
study to collect the participants’ opinions of the CL-based teaching of the prepositions. The 
participants’ responses to the questionnaires were subject to comparison. Their responses in the 
interview after the study provided an in-depth qualitative analysis of the quantitative findings 
from the questionnaires. Results: All students generally showed positive opinions of the 
treatment and believed that the instructions were appropriate and positively affected their 
memories of the prepositions. They especially appreciated the use of image schemas to teach 
the semantics of the prepositions. Implications for Research and Practice: Most participants 
became more confident in both understanding and using the prepositions under CL-based 
teaching. 
© 2018 Ani Publishing Ltd. All rights reserved 
*This study was part of a doctoral thesis to be presented at Hue University of Foreign Languages, VIETNAM 
1 Ph.D. candidate at Hue University of Foreign Languages and Vice Dean at Van Hien University, VIETNAM, 
buiphuhung@yahoo.com 
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3468-4837 
2 Associate Professor at Hue Univertsity of Foreign Languages, VIETNAM, truongviensp@gmail.com 
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0191-0888 
3 Associate Professor at Ho Chi Minh City University of Education, VIETNAM, elearningvietnam@gmail.com 
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3592-7813 
42 Bui Phu HUNG - Vien TRUONG - Ngoc Vu NGUYEN 
Eurasian Journal of Educational Research 73 (2018) 41-58 
Introduction 
The Context of the Study 
Teaching of English prepositions is primarily based on pictorial illustrations and 
verbal explanations. However, recent research shows that most EFL students 
encounter problems in preposition use (Cho, 2010). It is crucial to develop effective 
methods of teaching prepositions. Contemporary literature shows that the 
acquisition and learning of an additional language should be based on its semantic 
properties to a certain extent (Ticio & Avram, 2015). Regarding adult language 
learning, it is widely accepted that there are connections between language 
production and memory, as using an additional language requires some cognitive 
process (Kroll, Dussias, Bice & Perrotti, 2015; Skrzypek & Singleton, 2013). The 
emergence of cognitive linguistics (CL) has implications for teaching English 
prepositions as it rests itself against the relationship between the human mind and 
language. In particular, it suggests the teaching of English prepositions should be 
meaning-based (Boers, 2011). 
Different from other linguistic schools that aim at the output of language, 
cognitive linguistics explores how the output is generated. Consequently, it has 
many implications for English language teaching and learning. In terms of 
prepositions, cognitive linguists believe that humans first experience the physical 
relations between objects and then express such spatial relations in their language 
coding, called spatial meanings (Lee, 2001). These meanings can be either 
prototypical or non-prototypical. The following examples can illustrate the Theory of 
Prototype: 
(1) the cat in the house 
(2) the flowers in the vase 
(3) the bird in the tree 
(4) the finger in the ring 
Example (1) shows a prototypical meaning of the preposition in. In particular, the 
cat is known as the trajector (the thing mentioned) and the house is the landmark or 
the reference point. Prototypically, the preposition in is used to indicate that the 
trajector is absolutely inside the landmark. Nevertheless, in examples (2), (3), and (4), 
the landmarks do not absolutely cover the trajectors, namely the flowers, the bird, and 
the finger. The preposition in used in (3) means that English speakers include the 
branches of the tree to mean inside by the preposition in (Lee, 2001). 
Previous Research 
There have been a number of studies on cognitive linguistics and teaching 
English prepositions, among which are Hung (2017), Song, Schnotz, and Juchem-
Grundmen (2015), Bielak and Pawlak (2013), Tyler, Mueller and Ho (2011), Beréndi 
(2005), Boers (2000), Kemmerer (2005), and Huong (2005). These ... he metaphorical 
meanings of the prepositions were effective. 
3.32 .476 
20 The teacher helped me effectively use the 
metaphorical meanings of the prepositions. 
3.40 .500 
21 I would like to continue to learn the 
metaphorical meanings of the prepositions 
under the teacher’s instructions. 
3.48 .510 
22 I believe that other teachers should apply this 
CL-based treatment of the metaphorical 
meanings of the prepositions. 
3.52 .510 
Total 3.45 .190 
54 Bui Phu HUNG - Vien TRUONG - Ngoc Vu NGUYEN 
Eurasian Journal of Educational Research 73 (2018) 41-58 
In summary, it is obvious from the quantitative and qualitative analyses that the 
members of the cognitive group believed that CL-based treatment of the prepositions 
was more appropriate and had better effects on their understanding of both the 
spatial and metaphorical meanings. They also believed that the CL-based treatment 
was more applicable for the spatial meanings than the metaphorical meanings. The 
independent samples t-tests of all four clusters show that the statistics were 
significant, with p (2-tailed) <.01, and the statistics were quite reliable, with 
Cronbach’s alpha (α) = .676 rounded as .7. 
Discussion and Conclusion 
Discussion of the Results 
Concerning the participants’ responses to each category about the treatment of 
the spatial meanings of the prepositions, all participants believed that the treatment 
was relatively appropriate for teaching spatial meanings. The participants’ responses 
about the appropriacy of the teacher’s instructions, use of the image schemas, and 
class activities in the post-questionnaire constituted mean scores of 3.52, 3.52, and 
3.88, respectively. They also confirmed that the treatment was comparatively 
appropriate. What is more, they also thought that the treatment was generally 
interesting. They responded that they liked the teacher’s instructions and class 
activities, with a mean score of 3.80 and 3.44, respectively. It is important to note that 
the mean score for the interest of class activities was the lowest in this construct. 
Three out of the 25 participants also wanted the teacher to make the activities more 
interesting (responses from C8, C14, and C15). Also, the participants thought that the 
use of the image schemas absolutely helped them understand the spatial meanings 
and other teachers should apply the treatment to teaching the spatial meanings, with 
a mean score of 4.08 and 4.00, respectively. All also confirmed this in the interview. 
Additionally, the treatment was considered effective, amounting to a mean score of 
3.76. The issues of concern were about the participants’ retention and use of the 
prepositions, with mean scores lower than the mean score of the whole cluster (3.83). 
Two out of 25 participants explained that they were not confident in their retention 
and use of the prepositions, but they admitted that their knowledge and use of the 
prepositions improved slightly. Overall, the participants responded that the CL-
based treatment was appropriate and effective, but it was not very interesting. 
It can be seen from the analyses that all the categories about the CL-based 
treatment received the participants’ high appreciation. There was a rise in the mean 
score of each of the items asked. In general, there was a higher rise in the students’ 
evaluation of the treatment on the spatial meanings than the metaphorical meanings. 
The mean scores for the appropriacy and interest of the treatment of the spatial and 
metaphorical meanings were 3.632 and 3.488, respectively. They also appreciated the 
effects of the treatment on their knowledge of the spatial meanings more highly than 
the metaphorical meanings, with the mean scores of 3.83 and 3.45, respectively. The 
participants’ responses in the interview confirmed this. 
Bui Phu HUNG - Vien TRUONG - Ngoc VU NGUYEN 
Eurasian Journal of Educational Research 73 (2018) 41-58 
55 
Regarding interest and appropriacy, the participants believed that the CL-based 
treatment was more interesting than what their previous teachers had applied. There 
was a higher rise in the mean score of the interest of the instructions on the spatial 
meanings (.72) than the class activities (.36). The participants’ responses also revealed 
that there was a higher rise in the mean score of the interest of the instructions on the 
metaphorical meanings (.72) than the class activities (.32). In the interview, some of 
the participants also said that they would have preferred learning with songs, music, 
or games to make to class more interesting. However, the appropriacy of the 
treatment underwent a lower mean score increase. The appropriacy levels of the 
instructions and the class activities for the spatial meanings improved by .40 and .60, 
and these figures for the metaphorical meanings were .52 and .32, respectively. 
The participants also thought that the CL-based treatment had better effects on 
their knowledge and use of the prepositions than those they had experienced from 
their previous teachers. The quantitative analysis of the participants’ responses to the 
questionnaires shows that there were rises in all the items of concern. The 
participants also believed that the treatment had better effects on their understanding 
of the spatial meanings (m=3.83) than the metaphorical meanings (3.45). The 
participants placed the highest appreciation on the use of the image schemas and the 
effectiveness of the whole treatment of the spatial meanings. The mean scores for 
these two concerns were 4.08 and 4.00 for the spatial meanings and 3.60 and 3.52 for 
the metaphorical meanings, respectively. The theme-based analysis of the 
participants’ qualitative responses in the interview also showed that they believed 
the CL-based treatment was more effective for teaching the spatial meanings than the 
metaphorical meanings. All the participants wanted to continue to learn under the 
CL-based treatment of prepositions. Their willingness to remain in the treatment of 
the spatial and metaphorical meanings increased by .80 and .52, respectively. 
In a word, the participants appreciated the use of image schemas in teaching the 
spatial meanings more than the metaphorical meanings. Most of the items referring 
to the metaphorical meanings amounted to lower mean scores than those referring to 
the spatial meanings. It may be important here to return to a conclusion in the study 
by Kemmerer (2005), that the teaching of the spatial and metaphorical meanings of 
English prepositions could be impaired. 
Research Validity and Reliability 
Variables should be an issue of concern with a kind of interference in educational 
research in order to know how valid and reliable the findings are. The selection of 
the participants in the present study was based on volunteering. The participants’ 
willingness to join this study and their previous learning experiences revealed that 
they had a comparable level of motivation to participate and had never experienced 
CL-based teaching of English prepositions before the study. The questionnaires 
proved understandable to the participants in the pilot study. To avoid the 
participants’ misunderstanding, the translated versions of the questionnaires were 
administered. Each item in these instruments was explained in Vietnamese. Also, in 
the interview the researcher showed the sample image schemas and examples of the 
56 Bui Phu HUNG - Vien TRUONG - Ngoc Vu NGUYEN 
Eurasian Journal of Educational Research 73 (2018) 41-58 
spatial and metaphorical meanings as illustrations to avoid the participants’ 
misunderstanding or confusion of the terms used in the questions. The combination 
of the questionnaires and the interview was to triangulate the research findings. The 
researcher effect was also minimized by letting another teacher - instead of the 
researcher - perform the lessons. The teacher training before the study, the 
observations, and the video-recordings of the class performances also assured what 
was intended to be applied in this study. 
Implications 
It is useful at this point to return to Langacker’s (2001, p. 3) suggestion that there 
should be more experimental results of the effectiveness of pedagogical applications 
of cognitive linguistics. Kemmerer (2005) believes that applying cognitive linguistics 
to teaching English prepositions is only an alternative. It is not considered the best 
nor unique as learners may score higher in one type of meaning, spatial or 
metaphorical. In other words, the transfer of prepositions from one domain to 
another is not always direct. As a result, the spatial and metaphorical meanings of 
English prepositions can be taught separately. It seems that at this point it is 
definitely too early to address with certainty that cognitive linguistics has passed the 
test of its implications for English language teaching, or that it has failed, and to 
recommend on this basis certain modifications of the theory. Referring to the 
experimental results from previous research ( Hung, 2017; Song et al., 2015; Tyler et 
al., 2011), it is somewhat possible to apply cognitive linguistics to teaching the spatial 
meanings of English prepositions. Optimism with respect to relatively successful 
pedagogical application of cognitive linguistics are a confirmation of his words that 
“extensive pedagogical application remains a long-term goal” (Langacker, 2008, p. 
66). In future studies, applications extending to learners in other contexts are 
expected. 
Acknowledgement 
The authors would like to send great thanks to the Academic Council at Hue 
College of Foreign Languages – Hue University for their advice on this research 
paper. Thanks also go to Ms. Nguyen Binh Phuong Ngan Trang and Nguyen Thi 
Van at Van Hien University for their work as EFL teachers in this study. Greatest 
thanks would go to all the participants in this study. Without them, there would 
have been no chance for this study to be completed. 
References 
Beréndi, M. (2005). Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads. New York: Mouton de 
Gruyter. 
Bielak, J. & Pawlak, M. (2013). Applying cognitive grammar in the foreign language 
classroom: Teaching English tense and aspect. Kalisz: Springer. 
Bui Phu HUNG - Vien TRUONG - Ngoc VU NGUYEN 
Eurasian Journal of Educational Research 73 (2018) 41-58 
57 
Boers, F. (2000). Enhancing metaphoric awareness in specialized reading. English for 
Specific Purposes, 19, 137-147. 
Boers, F. (2011). Cognitive semantic ways of teaching figurative phrases: An 
assessment. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 9 (1), 227-261. 
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. 
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. 
Evans, V. 2007. A glossary of cognitive linguistics. Utah: University of Utah Press. 
Harmer, J. (2009). The practice of English language teaching. Essex: Pearson Education. 
Hung, B. P. (2017). Vietnamese students learning the semantics of English 
prepositions. GEMA Online@ Journal of Language Studies, 17(4), 146-158. 
Huong, N. T. (2005). Vietnamese learners mastering English articles. Unpublished 
doctoral dissertation, University of Groningen. Retrieved from 
Kemmerer, D. (2005). The spatial and temporal meanings of English prepositions can 
be independently impaired. Neuropsychologia, 43(5), 797-806. 
Kroll, J. F., Dussias, P. E., Bice, K. & Perrotti, L. (2015). Bilingualism, mind and brain. 
Annual Review of Linguistics, 1, 377-394. 
Langacker, R. W. (2001). Discourse in cognitive grammar. Cognitive Linguistics, 12, 
143-188. 
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. 
Norris, J. M. & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis 
and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50 (3), 417-528. 
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. 
Song, X., Schnotz, W. & Juchem-Grundmann, C. (2015). A cognitive linguistic 
approach to teaching English prepositions. In W. Schnotz, A. Kauertz, H. 
Ludwig, A. Müller, & J. Pretsch (Eds), Multidisciplinary Research on Teaching and 
Learning (pp.109-128). London: Palgrave Macmillan. 
58 Bui Phu HUNG - Vien TRUONG - Ngoc Vu NGUYEN 
Eurasian Journal of Educational Research 73 (2018) 41-58 
Thornbury, S. (2002). How to teach vocabulary. England: Pearson Education. 
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. 
Tyler, A. & Evans, V. (2003). The semantics of English prepositions: Spatial scenes, 
embodied meaning and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 
Ur, P. (2009). A course in language teaching: Practice and theory. Cambridge: Cambridge 
University Press. 
Zhao, Y. F. (2000). An introduction to Cognitive Linguistics. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign 
Language Education Press.