Vietnamese Students Learning the Semantics of English Prepositions

GEMA Online® Journal of Language Studies 
Volume 17(4), November 2017  
eISSN: 2550-2131 
ISSN: 1675-8021 
146	
  
Vietnamese Students Learning the Semantics 
of English Prepositions 
Bui Phu Hung 
buiphuhung@yahoo.com 
PhD candidate of TESOL at Hue College of Foreign Languages 
Hue University, Vietnam 
(Vice-Dean at Faculty of Foreign Languguages, Van Hien University, Vietnam) 
ABSTRACT 
Prepositions are significant in sentences because they are used as markers to join words and 
phrases into a sentence. Teachers usually teach prepositions by providing students with 
explanations about the usage of prepositions and then gives examples as illustrations. These 
examples are often accompanied by vivid pictures. This method, however, does not provide 
students information on how to analyze the different senses of prepositions. This current 
study, thus, aims to explore the effectiveness and students’ opinions of new pedagogical 
instructions on ten English prepositions, namely above, among, at, behind, beside, between, 
in, in front of, on and under. The research design involved a quasi-experimental design 
adopting pretest-posttest between-group research. Out of 95 students who volunteered to 
participate in the study, 38 participants were selected. They were divided into two groups for 
the new cognitive linguistic approach and traditional instructions. Pretest and posttest were 
used to discover the participants’ improvements. The participants’ opinions of the cognitive 
treatment were also investigated. The findings illustrate that the group that was treated with 
CL-based instructions outperformed the traditional group in the posttest although they gained 
a comparable mean score in the pretest. Most participants also provided positive responses to 
the new treatment. The findings suggests that cognitive treatment could be employed to assist 
students in improving their understanding and retaining the metaphorical meanings of the 
prepositions. 
Keywords: teaching prepositions; metaphors; English language teaching; image schemas 
INTRODUCTION 
Prepositions play a significant role in language as they join words and phrases into a 
sentence. However, how to teach prepositions effectively is a big concern due to their 
inherent difficulties (Fang, 2000). Firstly, prepositions are clear-cut examples of polysemy; 
one preposition used in different contexts may have several different meanings. Oxford 
Advanced Learner’s Dictionary states even more than 18 meanings of the preposition in 
(Hornby & Wehmeier, 2005). In addition, there is an overlap between prepositions in use; 
that is, one preposition can replace another with a slight difference in meaning. For example, 
the expressions in the school and at the school are both considered correct in some contexts. 
Another common characteristic of prepositions is they are multi-functional. For instance, the 
preposition in can be classified as one of both spatial and temporal relations, as in in the 
world and in the 20th century respectively. 
 The existing instruction of prepositions in many countries in the world is that the 
teacher provides students with explanations of the usage of prepositions and then gives 
examples as illustrations accompanied by vivid pictures. Students are finally required to do 
exercises as drills. However, not only does this method facilitate unstable marginal 
improvements among students since they do not have opportunities to analyze different 
GEMA Online® Journal of Language Studies 
Volume 17(4), November 2017  
eISSN: 2550-2131 
ISSN: 1675-8021 
147	
  
senses of prepositions to profoundly comprehend them, but they also fail to gain knowledge 
by simple memorization and have no circumstances to synthesize their existing understanding 
with the target input (Cho, 2010, pp. 267-269 & Ausubel, 2000). Students, as a result, show 
low gains of prepositions since the isolated items in memory do not carve a long-term 
memory. 
 Although English prepositions are considered complicated to learners, cognitive 
linguists assert that the meanings of prepositions can be represented in a form of symbols, 
which can be applied in teaching prepositions as they show the relations of things and/or 
people. A teaching method based on Cognitive Linguistic (CL) approach has been brought 
into consideration. CL considers language as symbolic as meaningful in virtues of both 
lexicon and grammar. The so-called symbolic theory derives from the symbolic nature of 
language, which can be employed to teach prepositions (Langacker, 1987, p. 12; Talmy, 
1988). 
 This study hopes to extend the previous relevant studies on applying the cognitive 
linguistic (CL) approach to teaching English prepositions. Song, Schnotz and Juchem-
Grundmann (2015) did a quasi-experimental study on teaching the three prepositions in, on 
and at in Germany. Tyler, Mueller and Ho (2011) conducted a study on teaching the three 
prepositions to, for and at to 14 English learners who were Italian. Although, these studies 
were conducted in different countries, they were considered relevant references for this 
current study because they were all done on students who learned English as a foreign 
language and their findings proved positive. This current study intended to measure the 
impacts of CL-based teaching on learners’ understanding of the ten prepositions, namely 
above, among, at, behind, beside, between, in, in front of, on and under. 
 The findings of the present research can provide an insight into the effective 
instruction of prepositions the teacher should present. In addition, curriculum designing and 
textbook writing will be benefited in terms of providing appropriate lessons and tasks to 
assist students in mastering English preposition. The accomplishment of the study will shed 
light on effective teaching of the aforementioned word class, and in turn help student ... vember 2017  
eISSN: 2550-2131 
ISSN: 1675-8021 
155	
  
Regarding statistical reliability, Cronbach’s alpha was used. The analysis shows that 
the reliability of test scores of both groups and each group, called COG and TRAD, were 
internally consistent. In details, the analysis shows that Cronbach’s alpha of COG and TRAD 
was >0.8 and >0.9 respectively. That is to say, the findings from this study were really 
reliable. 
PARTICIPANTS’ RESPONSES 
The participants’ responses to the pre-questionnaire and post-questionnaire were divided into 
two main parts. Their responses to Part 1 of each of the questionnaires were put into SPSS for 
analysis and then were compared. Their responses to Part 2 were mainly thematically 
analysed. The analysis of Part 2 of the pre-questionnaire revealed COG and TRAD were at a 
comparable level of motivation for joining the study, with a mean score of 4.38 and 4.44 
respectively. The independent samples t-test between the motivation levels of two groups 
showed that there was no significant difference (p=0.258). They also responded that they did 
not regularly have out-of-class exposure to English language use. The type of instruction 
which they had received before this study was based on verbal explanations. Also, they had 
taken courses in English as required by the high school curriculum. Regarding their out-of-
class exposure during the study, one COG’s participant reported that he came into a foreigner 
and gave directions. Another participant responded that she watched a 90-minute American 
movie, but it was dubbed into Vietnamese. Similarly, a TRAD’s participant revealed she read 
an online article for about 15 minutes and a further participant responded that he conversed 
with a foreigner at a coffee shop for approximately 20 minutes. In a word, both groups did 
not have significant out-of-class exposure to English language use. 
The participants provided positive responses in that they believed the cognitive 
treatment helped them improve their understanding and use of metaphorical meanings of the 
prepositions. Also, they responded that the class activities as well as the instruction were 
interesting and appropriate (Table 4). The use of image schemas, in particular, was more 
effective in teaching spatial meanings than metaphorical meanings. Finally, the application 
was assumed to be applied widely. 
 Tables 3 and 4 describe COG’s participants’ responses to the CL-based treatment. All 
of them highly appreciated it. Most of the mean scores was above 4.0, except for the 
statement that the use of image schemas clearly presented the metaphorial meanings of the 
prepositions. They also evaluated CL-based instructions more highly the previous 
instructions they had received (mainly based on verbal explanations, as revealed by the 
participants to the pre-questionnaire). In addition, all of the participants believed the CL-
based treatment was appropriate. The mean scores for the appropriacy and interest of the 
treatment and effects of the treatment were 4.00 and 4.31 respectively. Findings were proved 
reliable; Cronbach’s alpha of the first and second clusters was 0.73 and 0.79 respectively. 
Independent samples test shows that their gains were significant, p=0.00 (2-tailed). 
TABLE 3. Participants’ opinions of previous teaching of prepositions 
No Statement (n=19) Mean SD 
1 I liked my previous teachers’ instructions on metaphorical meanings of 
prepositions (e.g. I depend on my family). 
3.05 0.612 
2 My previous teachers’ instructions on metaphorical meanings of 
prepositions were appropriate. 
3.05 0.405 
3 My previous teachers’ instructions clearly presented metaphorical meanings 
of prepositions. 
2.95 0.524 
4 I enjoyed my previous class activities for teaching metaphorical meanings of 
prepositions. 
2.79 0.419 
GEMA Online® Journal of Language Studies 
Volume 17(4), November 2017  
eISSN: 2550-2131 
ISSN: 1675-8021 
156	
  
5 My previous class activities for teaching metaphorical meanings of 
prepositions were appropriate. 
3.16 0.501 
 TOTAL 3.00 0.291 
6 My previous teachers helped me to easily understand metaphorical meanings 
of prepositions (e.g. I depend on my family.). 
3.11 0.459 
7 My previous teachers helped me retain metaphorical meanings of 
prepositions. 
2.95 0.405 
8 My previous teachers’ instructions on metaphorical meanings of 
prepositions were effective. 
2.95 0.524 
9 My previous teachers helped me to be able to effectively use metaphorical 
meanings of prepositions. 
2.89 0.567 
10 I would like to continue to learn metaphorical meanings of prepositions 
under my previous teachers’ instructions. 
3.11 0.459 
11 I believe that other teachers should apply my previous teachers’ instructions 
on metaphorical meanings of prepositions. 
3.11 0.459 
 TOTAL 3.02 0.135 
TABLE 4. Participants’ responses to the CL-based treatment in comparison with those to previous treatments 
No Statement (n=19) Post-
questionnaire 
Gains 
 Mean SD Mean SD 
1 I liked the teachers’ instructions on metaphorical meanings of 
prepositions (e.g. I depend on my family). 
4.53 0.697 1.47 0.814 
2 The teachers’ instructions on metaphorical meanings of prepositions 
were appropriate. 
4.79 0.419 1.74 0.562 
3 The use of image schemas clearly presented metaphorical meanings 
of prepositions. 
3.89 0.567 0.95 0.780 
4 I enjoyed the class activities for teaching metaphorical meanings of 
prepositions. 
4.16 0.501 1.37 0.684 
5 The class activities for teaching metaphorical meanings of 
prepositions were appropriate. 
4.63 0.496 1.47 0.772 
 TOTAL 4.00 0.371 1.40 0.503 
6 The use of image schemas helped me to easily understand 
metaphorical meanings of prepositions (e.g. I depend on my family.). 
4.32 0.671 1.21 0.787 
7 The use of image schemas helped me retain metaphorical meanings of 
prepositions. 
4.16 0.765 1.21 0.787 
8 The teacher’s instructions on metaphorical meanings of prepositions 
were effective. 
4.32 0.671 1.37 0.761 
9 The teacher’s instructions helped me to be able to effectively use 
metaphorical meanings of prepositions. 
4.11 0.658 1.21 0.713 
10 I would like to continue to learn metaphorical meanings of 
prepositions under the teachers’ instructions. 
4.42 0.607 1.32 0.885 
11 I believe that other teachers should apply CL-based instructions on 
metaphorical meanings of prepositions. 
4.53 0.513 1.42 0.692 
 TOTAL 4.31 0.456 1.29 0.487 
CONCLUSION 
This current study was aimed to explore the effects of teaching based on CL, mostly on the 
participants’ understanding of the metaphorical meanings of the ten prepositions above, 
among, at, behind, beside, between, in, in front of, on and under. This study also compared 
the experimental results of the two instructional treatments, namely cognitive and traditional. 
The findings were in line with previous studies in EFL (Song, Schnotz & Juchem-
Grundmann, 2015; Tyler, Mueller & Ho, 2011; Huong, 2005). 
 Limitations of this kind of quasi-experimental study were inevitable. One weakness 
was about the selection of participants. More specifically, although extraneous variables that 
could have taken place during the study were investigated after the treatment, this was done 
GEMA Online® Journal of Language Studies 
Volume 17(4), November 2017  
eISSN: 2550-2131 
ISSN: 1675-8021 
157	
  
through the participants’ feedback. Also, the treatment was usage-based, followed by 
productive tasks; however, these follow-up activities were on a basis of sentence making. In 
other words, language accuracy rather than fluency was the focus. Whether or not the 
treatment could lead to fluency was not really explored even though productive tasks were 
involved. 
 It is obvious from the study that cognitive treatment could help the participants 
improve their understanding and retain the metaphorical meanings of the prepositions. The 
application should be repeated several times to ensure its feasibility. Also, those who are 
interested in applying CL to ELT can conduct studies on other language items. 
 EFL teachers can apply this treatment in their classrooms. The use of symbols and 
ITPC Model has proven to be more effective than the traditional pedagogical options. In a 
small scale, the teacher may be able to adapt the treatment according to the learners’ level of 
proficiency. Information achieved through both visual and auditory channels can help 
learners retain the input. 
 EFL learners should also bear in mind that self-study is an issue of concern in that 
language learning strategies are crucial, which should be somewhat cognitive. Learners can 
also use symbols when learning and reviewing the lessons of prepositions. 
REFERENCE 
Ausubel, D. P. (2000). The Acquisition and Retention of Knowledge: A Cognitive View. 
Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers. 
Bielak, J. & Pawlak, M. (2013). Applying Cognitive Grammar in the Foreign Language 
Classroom: Teaching English Tense and Aspect. Berlin: Springer. 
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, 
Germany: Mouton de Gruyter. 
Condon, N. & Kelly, P. (2002). Does Cognitive Linguistics Have Anything to Offer English 
Language Learners in Their Efforts to Master Phrasal Verbs?. ITL Review of Applied 
Linguistics. Vol. 137/138, 205-231. 
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. 
Fang, A. C. (2000). A Lexicalist Approach owards the Automatic Determination for the 
Syntactic Functions of Prepositional Phrases. Natural Language Engineering. Vol. 
6(2), 183-200. 
Geeraerts, D. & Cuyckens, H. (2007). The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. 
Oxford: Oxford University Press. 
Harmer, J. (2009). The Practice of English Language Teaching. Essex, England: Pearson 
Education. 
Herskovits, N. (1986). Language and Spatial Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University 
Press. 
Hoomanfard, M. H. & Meshkat, M. (2015). Language and Spatial Cognitionwriting on a 
Computer and Using Paper and Pencil: Is There Any Difference in the Internal 
Cognitive Process? GEMA Online® Journal of Language Studies. Vol. 15(2), 17-31. 
Hornby, A. S. & Wehmeier, S. (2005). Oxford Advanced Learners’ Dictionary. Oxford: 
Oxford University Press. 
Huong, N. T. (2005). Vietnamese Students Mastering English Articles. Unpublished doctoral 
thesis, University of Groningen. 
GEMA Online® Journal of Language Studies 
Volume 17(4), November 2017  
eISSN: 2550-2131 
ISSN: 1675-8021 
158	
  
Jafarigohar, M. & Khanjani, A. (2014). Text Difficulty Effects on Metacognitive Reading 
Strategy use among EFL Learners. GEMA Online® Journal of Language Studies. 
Vol. 14(2), 47-59. 
Johnson, M. (1993). Moral Imagination. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 
Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (1980). The Metaphorical Structure of the Human Conceptual 
System. Cognitive Science. Vol. 4, 195-208. 
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Vol. 1. Theoretical 
Prerequisites. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press. 
Langacker, R. W. (1999). Assessing cognitive linguistic enterprise. In T. Janssen & G. 
Rederker (Eds.). Cognitive Linguistics: Foundations, Scope, and Methodology. 
Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 
Langacker, R. W. (2008). Cognitive grammar as a basis for language instruction. In P. 
Robinson & N. C. Ellis (Eds.). Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics and Second 
Language Acquisition (pp. 66-88). New York: Routledge. 
Lee, D. (2001). Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press. 
Mayer, R. (2005). The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning. Cambridge: 
Cambridge University Press. 
Pawlak, M. (2006). The Place of Form-focused Instruction in the Foreign Language 
Classroom. Kalisz: Wydzial Pedagogiczno-Artystyczny UAM. 
Pienemann M. (2007). Processability Theory. In VanPatten, B. & Williams, J., (Eds.). 
Theories in Second Language Acquisition: An Introduction . Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence 
Erlbaum. 
Radden, G. & Dirven, R. (2007). Cognitive English Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 
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: 
Cambridge University Press. 
Schnotz, W. & Banner, M. (2003). Construction and interference in learning from multiple 
representation. Learning and Instruction. Vol. 13(2), 141-156. 
Sohrabi, Z. & Pirnajmuddin, H. (2017). John Donne’s metaphors of self and empire: A 
cognitive analysis. 3L: Language Linguistics Literature®, Southeast Asian Journal 
of English Language Studies. Vol. 23(1). 14-26. 
Song, X., Schnotz W., & Juchem-Grundmann, C. (2015). A Cognitive Linguistic Approach 
to Teaching English Prepositions. In W. Schnotz, A. Kauertz, H. Ludwig, A. Muller 
& J. Pretsch. Multidisciplinary Research on Teaching and Learnin. (109-128). New 
York: Palgrave Macmillan. 
Talmy, L. (1988). Force Dynamics in Language and Cognition. Cognitive Science. Vol. 12, 
49-100. 
Tyler, A., Mueller, C. & Ho, V. (2011). Applying Cognitive Linguistics to Learning the 
Semantics of English Prepositions to, for and at: An Experimental Investigation. 
Vigo International Journal of Applied Linguistics. Vol. 8, 181-205. 
VanPatten, B. (2002). Processing Instruction: An Update. Language Learning. Vol. 52, 755-
803. 
ABOUT THE AUTHOR 
Bui Phu Hung is a vice-dean at the Faculty of Foreign languages and Cultures-Van Hien 
University, Vietnam. He is currently a PhD candidate at Hue University.