Cognitive language pedagogy:

A course proposal for high proficiency learners

Scott A. Benzenberg Radboud University Nijmegen

S4322711 Master Thesis

Supervisor: Dr. Ad Foolen Second reader: Dr. Sabine Jentges

i    

   

Abstract This thesis seeks to outline how the theoretical framework of Cognitive Linguistics offers insight

into second language pedagogical practice and will present a course proposal for integrating this

Cognitive Language Pedagogy into a course for high proficiency learners. This thesis outlines

the task of first language acquisition from a cognitive perspective and explores how processing

differences and conceptual transfer can account for the difficulties in acquiring a second

language. The pedagogical approach presented here is designed to help learners overcome these

difficulties by orienting the task of second language acquisition as one of general cognitive

learning and will provide opportunities for the learner to consider how context and purpose play

an important role in language use. Crucially, this thesis views constructions, or form/meaning

pairs, as the primary linguistic unit and will present constructions and constructional schemas as

the preferred linguistic input for productive use in the classroom. The final section of this thesis

will provide full lesson plans and a course sequence which can be immediately implemented in

an English for Academic Purposes course.

Acknowledgements I would like to thank my parents for all of the help and support they have provided over the

years. They taught me the value of education and the satisfaction that can only come through

dedication and hard work. I would also like to thank my professors, friends and colleagues at

Radboud University for helping to make my time in Nijmegen memorable. I would also like to

give a very special thank you to Dr. Ad Foolen who introduced me to Construction Grammar,

listened patiently and helped me find my own voice. His insight, consideration and

encouragement go far beyond what I could ever hope to express in words.

ii    

   

Table of Contents

Abstract i Acknowledgements i Table of contents ii

  1. Introduction 1 2. A cognitive perspective on language learning 5 2.1  Cognition and language acquisition 5 2.2  Learnt attention and conceptual transfer 6 2.3  Second language processing: the weak interface model 12

3. Cognitive linguistics 16 3.1 Construal 17 3.2 Frames and prototypes 22 3.3 Constructional categories and schematization 24 3.4 Construction learning and genre 28 3.5 Summary 30 4. A course for English for Academic Purposes 32 4.1 Introduction to construction learning 33 4.1.1 Introduction 33 4.1.2 Lesson 34 4.2 Construal: perspective 36 4.2.1 Introduction 36 4.2.2 Lesson 38 4.3 Constructions and schematization in academic writing 40 4.3.1 Introduction 40 4.3.2 Lesson 44 4.4 Genre and academic writing 45 4.4.1 Introduction 45 4.4.2 Lesson 47 4.5 Corpus in the classroom: Passives in academic writing 48 4.5.1 Introduction 48 4.5.2 Lesson 49 5. Conclusion 52

   

1    

   

1. Introduction

This thesis seeks to investigate how Cognitive Linguistics (CL) and its view of the human

language faculty can provide insights into second language teaching and will outline a

prospective course for implementing this approach in a group of high proficiency learners of

Academic English. The work in this thesis reflects my own perspective as a language teacher

grounded with a theoretical framework provided by recent work in cognitive linguistics.

Although the perspective of cognitive linguistics has been extensively explored in recent

approaches to language instruction, (Robinson & N. Ellis, 2008; Holme, 2012; Littlemore, 2009),

this approach is the first in my knowledge to unify the proposals presented here and the first to

incorporate recent work in discourse and genre analysis using a constructional framework.

Moreover, this thesis will attempt to move past theoretical descriptors of what this approach

could look like by introducing complete lesson plans and a course overview. The work in this

thesis is a reflection of how I believe the CL approach can provide answers to questions raised in

my own teaching practice and fill in theoretical gaps in contemporary approaches to language

teaching.

In my experience as an English instructor, I encountered language learners who were

typically able to demonstrate a much wider range of forms in classroom practice and in testing

situations than in communicative language use. Learners in these real world situations tend to

rely too heavily on highly frequent words and phrases, and they produce language which lacks

the variation and complexity their linguistic resources allow. Although learner attrition, or

limited retention of taught forms, can account for some of this restricted range of target language

use, I also sensed that the type of linguistic input and opportunities for practice within the

language learning classroom in many ways limited student understanding of how to employ

linguistic devices in open practice or in target language communication. A particularly striking

example of this was in the case of a unit on academic writing which focused on employing

variety in written work. As a class, we spent a few weeks exploring different English sentence

types by focusing on a variety of clausal combinations. The students in the class demonstrated a

high capability of creating novel sentences using these types and correctly combining forms both

in practice and in quizzes, but largely failed to utilize these tools on the semester project, a

research paper, due a few weeks later. While the students had a sufficient grasp of the language

2    

   

forms, they failed to implement them in open production. I believe the first issue in this case was

the way the input language was presented and the limited connections between language input

and target use. Although there was discussion about the purpose of the sentence type practice and

the students were aware that sentence variety was an important component of the semester

project, the input material was not presented as being directly related. One of the secondary goals

of this thesis is to explore how language might be presented in relevant contexts in ways that are

feasible for the language instructor and comprehensible for the learner. While the presentation

and instruction of the material in the previous example may certainly have contributed to a lack

of implementation on the part of the students, it doesn’t fully explain why second language

learners were unable to utilize the forms into their own language production. Since restricted use

of newly acquired language is so widespread among second language learners, the phenomenon

must be connected with the second language learning task itself. This thesis will explore the role

of second language learning from a psychological perspective in an attempt to better understand

the nature of the language learning task and provide learners with tools specifically suited to it.

Another question raised in my professional experience was the links between second

language methodology and linguistic theory. Although there has been a great deal of work in

Applied Linguistics to present good practice for language teachers, many of the textbooks I

encountered had little overt formal theory and have been similar in their presentation of words

and rules. While these textbooks are helpful in the way they categorize grammar and group

thematic lexis, they often provide an approach to language which is somewhat abstracted and not

particularly accessible for the learner. I can think of several examples of students who mastered

the structure of a verb tense without really understanding what it really represented in meaning.

In general, I found textbooks and methodological approaches helpful, but I failed to see a

comprehensive theory of second language acquisition which could unify an approach and fit with

my own intuitions about language. These two questions were primary motivations in my decision

to pursue an advanced degree in linguistics. My hope was to both develop my own understanding

of the second language teaching practice and to gain a sound theoretical perspective into the

nature of the human language faculty as it relates to second language teaching and learning.

Cognitive Linguistics offers a perspective about language and language acquisition which

focuses on the connections between meaning and linguistic form. This is important in the second

language classroom because it emphasizes the role of the language user in the creation and

3    

   

negotiation of meaning. In my own experience, students do benefit from an extended

understanding of the nuances of language use and are able to better employ novel forms when

they understand the specific ways it is used and what exactly it represents. This type of learner

awareness is a central focus of the cognitive approach to language teaching, and can be of

particular benefit to the high-proficiency learners this thesis takes as a model. The full range of

target language items are not presented simply as linguistic options, but instead reflect

conventionalized ways of expressing meaning in purposeful contexts. An additional attraction in

applying the CL approach to second language teaching is that it views language as a series of

meaningful surface-level patterns. This view provides instructors with a framework for teaching

language and grammar without appealing to an abstract deep structure. The target language

system is not one of abstract words and rules, but a series of meaningful patterns which can be

put to use productively and for a particular purpose. Finally, CL views the task of language

acquisition as one of general cognitive learning. The acquisition process is one of sorting,

categorizing and building a network of conceptual relationships. This view supports a wider

range of language learning activities and calls upon learners to engage more fully in the learning

process. In short, the view of language offered by CL fits closely with my experience as an

instructor and I believe it can be of particular benefit in the Academic English classroom.

This thesis will focus on high proficiency learners of Academic English and will present a

prospective course based on the Academic English skills courses offered at Radboud University

Nijmegen. Before I began my research, I met with instructors from the language skills courses

(Academic English Writing, Advanced Academic Writing and Oral Communication Skills) and

discussed the difficulties they faced. Just like my own students in the example above, students in

these skills courses often tested quite well but failed to employ the full range of language in

production. Of particular concern was the way these students handled formal academic writing

and speaking contexts. These students often demonstrated an overreliance on informal, casual

linguistic styles even in contexts which demanded an elevated register, and they did not seem to

recognize the extra-linguistic factors associated with language use. These findings are not

particularly surprising. In general, second language learners have difficulty producing

compositional forms of newly acquired language (Ullman, 2005), and often overgeneralize rules

leading to error (Holme, 2012). Awareness of the contexts and purpose surrounding language use

4    

   

is particularly difficult for L2 learners and most language learning classrooms do not provide

sufficient opportunities for practice.

Why should high-proficiency second language learners fail to utilize their full range of

linguistic competence? The aim of this thesis is to explore how Cognitive Linguistics can offer a

pedagogical approach which encourages high proficiency learners of Academic English to

employ their full range of linguistic expression in meaningful and contextualized use. This thesis

will outline the field of CL as it relates to second language instruction and will present a

provisional course for these high proficiency learners which reflects the CL theoretical

framework. First, in section 2.1, I will explore the CL view of the language faculty and the

differences in the cognitive processes of first and second language acquisition as well as the

practical constraints for the typical L2 learner. In section 2.2 and 2.3 I will present a

psycholinguistic account of why the second language acquisition process should pose problems

for adult learners and will present potential ways to mediate and overcome this learning

difficulty based on the view of language supported by Cognitive Linguistics. In sections 3-3.5 I

will outline the specific elements of this pedagogical approach and will present the provisional

course in the final sections 4-4.5.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5    

   

2. A cognitive perspective on language learning

Central to this thesis, CL holds that language is stored and acquired through general learning

mechanisms and strategies (see 2.1), and that language and its component units are entirely

symbolic representations which encode and transmit perceptions about the world (Radden &

Dirven, 2007; Croft & Cruse, 2004). These linguistic units, or forms, are influenced and

motivated by meaning (Langacker, 1987; Taylor, 2002; Holme, 2010) such that grammar

systems themselves are influenced through perception and represent conventionalized ways of

expressing these perceptions (Tomasello, 2003; Goldberg, 2003; Littlemore, 2009).

2.1 Cognition and language acquisition

Cognitive Linguistics frames language learning as an emergent acquisition process. Here,

language is acquired through extensive exposure target language input combined with general

cognitive learning strategies (Tomasello, 2001; Tomasello, 2003; N. Ellis, 2008, Langacker,

2008). In first language acquisition, children are provided with sufficient linguistic input to sort

into usable language data and are able to map this input through general cognitive learning

mechanisms such as categorization, pattern finding and shared attention. The process of second

language acquisition is largely similar, though biological changes and first language attunement

(see 2.2) make the task of second language learning more challenging. Fundamental to this CL

approach is that the human language system is usage-based (Bybee, 2008; Langacker, 2008)

meaning that the human language system is “derived from and informed by language use”

(Evans and Green, 2006: 111). Here a user’s language system is crafted through experience with

language in usage events. Usage events are patterns of cognitive activity including “motor,

perceptual, conceptual, interactive, or any combination thereof” (Langacker, 2009: 628). These

patterns of cognitive activity provide data to help sort linguistic data into useful units. For

example, over the course of many months, a young child might hear the sound [wɒtəәr] and see a

liquid in a variety of containers. Though each of these experiences with the sound [wɒtəәr] are

unique, (perhaps the containers are different or the setting changes), the clear liquid is typically

part of this scene and the child begins to associate the sound with the substance. What the child

stores as water in his linguistic repertoire is not only the denotative meaning of the substance

itself, but the patterns of cognitive activity in which that word appeared. For the child, the

6    

   

meaning of the word water includes information about the feelings, effects and contexts

associated with his experiences with the word.

The process of mapping linguistic input to semantic scenes is based on the recognition of

patterns in cognitive activity and subsequent process of categorization. A language user’s

experience with language over time is categorized into patterns of conceptual and relational

categories of varying degrees of abstractness and productivity. Through extended experience

with language, “this categorization process creates a vast network of phonological, semantic and

pragmatic associations that range over what has traditionally been designated as lexicon and

grammar” (Bybee, 2008: 217). In place of an abstract grammar system, the usage-based model

recognizes the role of lexico-grammatical constructions as the basic unit of language.

Constructions are defined as form/meaning pairs of linguistic units whose meanings are not

retrievable based on surface pattern alone, or are are stored as idiomatic language chunks

(Goldberg, 2006). According to Goldberg, “any linguistic pattern is recognized as a construction

as long as some aspect of its form or function is not strictly predictable from its component parts

or from other constructions recognized to exist. In addition, patterns are stored as constructions,

even if they are fully predictable, as long as they occur with sufficient frequency” (2006: 5).

These constructions, therefore, range from surface level lexical collocations to abstract argument

structure schemas (Goldberg, 2006) and, critically, this wider network of constructions and

combinatorial possibilities capture “the totality of our knowledge of language” (Goldberg, 2003:

219; Tomasello, 2001; Goldberg, 2005). The combinatorial properties and restrictions governed

by the network of constructions N. Ellis (2013) offers that constructions are more than just

tokens of language use, but rather the very building blocks of both first and second language

acquisition.

Constructions are patterns of language influenced by frequency and a user’s experience

with language. Since communication largely takes place for “specific interactional goals” in

“specific communicative situations” (Tyler, 2010: 271), the context and purpose of language use

play important roles in acquisition. As Tyler states, “natural language always occurs in context,

and the user’s choices in crafting an utterance are influenced by an array of contextual factors”

(Tyler, 2010: 271). These contextual factors are important in how users are able to choose and

construct linguistic strategies. For the acquisition process, these contextual constraints provide

input data about how language is actually used. Users are exposed to identifiable patterns of

7    

   

language use where talking about a particular thing or for a particular purpose can be associated

with specific language forms. Contextual factors have influence on how language is selected and

interpreted and are therefore an essential aspect of a user’s experience with language and the

overall acquisition process. What is at the heart of the usage-based approach is that interaction

and experience with language shapes this network of linguistic associations. A language user’s

linguistic network reflects his experience with language. The frequency of linguistic input, then,

is a crucial component in how the network is formed. Children use the considerable amount of

linguistic input to map semantic scenes to emerging linguistic structures. This implicit,

unconscious learning, made possible through salient input and cognitive mapping provides the

first language learner with an opportunity to store the underlying mechanisms, or grammar, and

access these mechanisms unconsciously and without additional processing time. These

mechanisms are stored in the procedural memory of a young learner.

Procedural memory supports largely unconscious tasks such as the use of motor skills,

cognition, sequencing and categorization (Ullman, 2001). Much of the grammatical knowledge

of a first language is stored in unconscious procedural memory. This procedural storage of

grammatical knowledge allows for automaticity and productive use. EEG studies which

investigate the cognitive processes in second language comprehension and production suggest

that L2 users, on the other hand, access language data primarily from portions of the brain which

support declarative memory, which is responsible for the conscious knowledge of facts and

figures and does require additional processing time (Ullman, 2005). Since most second language

users do not have an unconscious representation of the grammar system, production and

comprehension of the second language requires additional working memory constraints which

potentially limits fluency. The declarative/procedural model of language storage might help to

clarify the underlying cognitive differences in first and second language acquisition, but this

description alone is not particularly useful in the development of effective second language

pedagogy. What is necessary is an explanation as to why these differences might be present.

There are very real biological changes which diminish the ease at which novel processes

are stored as procedural memory. As children move through puberty, they are able to better

employ working declarative memory for storing and accessing novel information (Ullman,

2005). These biological changes predict that second language acquisition should indeed be

governed through the conscious learning of facts and information. This model does not suggest

8    

   

that procedural learning of a language’s underlying grammar mechanisms is impossible, but

instead is dispreferred due to the relative strengths of the memory systems. The biological

constraints modeled above do not predict an insurmountable critical age, but instead help to

highlight the challenges in achieving real fluency in a second language.

This model of language acquisition points to a user’s experience with language as central

to the process of acquisition. Experience here refers to both the language input and the

contextualized circumstances surrounding linguistic choices. General cognitive learning

strategies enable users to sort language use and the contexts in which they appear into

meaningful linguistic forms or constructions. This model also makes distinctions between two

types of linguistic working memory systems: declarative and procedural, and provides an

account of how linguistic information is accessed and stored. Additionally, the emergent, usage-

based model of language acquisition provides some explanation as to why the second language

learning task should operate differently at a cognitive and neurobiological level. In the section

below, I will discuss an additional hurdle that second language learners must overcome in the

acquisition process and provide pedagogical solutions derived from a CL account.

2.2 Learnt attention and conceptual transfer

As previously discussed, general cognitive learning strategies play an essential role in the

learning of a language. In early language acquisition, children are provided linguistic input and

are able to map this linguistic data unto corresponding semantic scenes through the

categorization, pattern-finding and shared attention Through exposure, intense cognitive

attention and sufficient repetition, young learners are eventually able to build a linguistic

repertoire all the way up. Second language acquirers, no matter how immersed or desperate, are

not confronted with the same language learning imperative. Adult second language learners have

already formed a complex conceptual network based on L1 usage and have additional cognitive

resources to mediate communicative difficulty. While a young L1 learner is acquiring the word

water in conjunction with more general social and motor skills, an adult L2 learner is able to call

upon additional resources such as pointing to the water, describing it, or even use his L1 in the

hopes that it might help. This practical difference between the cognitive processes of acquiring a

second language is compounded in traditional second language pedagogy where learners are

introduced to a language of words and rules, not a cognitive process. Second language users

9    

   

over-rely on L1 processing habits and conceptual networks (N. Ellis, 2007). This transfer of

cognitive processing, not linguistic transfer per se, is fundamentally the issue facing second

language learners. This distinction is important. The view here is that the difficulty in adult L2

acquisition is not some linguistic quality which has been fossilized, but rather what N. Ellis

(2007) terms “learnt attention”. Learnt attention refers to first language linguistic attunement to

linguistic forms and conceptual categories. This learnt attention to language refers to a user’s

orientation towards the processing and parsing of linguistic input and certainly alters how a user

is likely to conceptualize, frame and structure L2 input and output. N. Ellis (2007) suggests that

these “processing habits” (17) represent the cognitive barrier to second language acquisition.

This notion of learnt attention implies that second language learning is subject to conceptual

transfer which interferes with the learning process. Odlin states that conceptual transfer “could

underlie patterns of meaning transfer either in lexis or grammar” (2008: 312).

Previous work has shown that a major obstacle in second language construction learning

is indeed L1 conceptual transfer (N. Ellis, 2006; N. Ellis, 2008, Odlin, 2008). There are several

reasons this might be so. First, L1 conceptual relationships can predict meaningful connections

between concepts and lexical categories that may not exist in the L2. Radden and Dirven (2007)

provide a useful example as they compare words for describing a particular spectrum of poor-

visibility weather in three different languages, English, Dutch and German. Both English (fog,

mist and haze) as well as Dutch (mist, nevel and was) have three words to describe this spectrum

of weather, though the semantic boundaries differ. The German language, on the other hand,

captures the spectrum of weather using only two words (Nebel and Dunst). These languages each

code poor visibility weather conditions differently, although all languages are essentially

responding to the same stimulus. This lexical example highlights how conceptualization interacts

with language use and how it can interfere with the acquisition of meaningful connections in the

target language. This overextension of first language concepts can also inhibit language learners

from making meaningful connections in the target language. Consider the example (1) below.

(1) The financial report shows losses in several areas.

This rather straightforward sentence first requires an understanding of area as a container

metaphor (Holme, 2012) before the meaning is entirely clear. A second language learner might

10    

   

be inclined to interpret this sentence about financial losses in geographic space and might fail to

understand the intended meaning of the sentence. This example, far from peripheral or

infrequent, demonstrates the central importance that metaphor and wider conceptual categories

have in language. Target language use requires a great deal of sub-textual knowledge such as

metaphorical relationships or wider conceptual categories, and the notion of learnt attention

predicts that this meta-knowledge of language is a substantial aspect of the language learning

process. Additionally, learnt attention or cognitive transfer has the potential to create learner

error because languages differ in terms of what they require to be expressed and how these

expressions are related. Since languages do not share obligatory categories of what information

must be marked, for example, language learners may therefore fail to mark information

necessary to the L2 or over-generalize L1 obligatory categories in the target language. Odlin

(2008) cites several studies of second language learners from various L1 backgrounds which

suggest the conceptual notions of space, time and motion are categories of concepts which are

particularly vulnerable for transfer. In these studies, L2 users mark information in these

categories in ways that are consistent with their first language. As an example, Odlin notes that

some English speakers whose first language is Polish will mark the perfect form by using after as

in I am after lunch, to express I have eaten, the former phrase a direct translation from the Polish

perfect construction. In these cases, the learner’s cognitive orientation towards language in

general dictates how the target language is likely to be processed and conceptualized. This

orientation extends influence over lexical, semantic and syntactic choices in the target language.

Second language learners therefore have to not only learn the appropriate lexical and

grammatical rules, they must also unlearn to attend to L2 in a way which is directly equivalent in

the L1. This central task has been largely overlooked in many approaches to second language

teaching, but is critical in ensuring that a second language is conceptualized and organized in a

way that is consistent with the target.  

Learnt attention proposes that conceptual categories are fundamental to meaning and

influential in the categorization and production of language. The words and rules teaching of

most second language textbooks, then, is not sufficient for adequate acquisition of the target if it

does not appropriately reorient the learner’s expectations about the conceptual relationship

inherent in language. Instead, this notion of learnt attention suggests that language teachers need

to incorporate metalinguistic awareness and discussion about how concepts are organized and

11    

   

related in the second language in addition to linguistic or grammatical input. According to N.

Ellis & Bogart (2007), what is needed for successful second language acquisition is explicit

instruction and categorization about how novel input can be mapped to a comprehendible

linguistic structure. This explicit instruction must attend to difference in learner cognitive

perceptions, and should engage an adult learner’s enhanced cognition and ability to utilize

declarative memory. For second language instruction, learnt attention makes a strong prediction

that the scope of the second language acquisition process is both a linguistic and a

cognitive/conceptual one.

What is particularly useful about this notion of learnt attention is that it helps to explain

the challenges of L2 learning and does so within the wider framework of CL and the cognitive

account of language acquisition. While young children acquiring their L1 must learn to sort

linguistic expressions to corresponding semantic scenes and build a network of productive

conceptual categories, an adult L2 learner must first learn to override the L1 conceptual

categories and then map L2 expressions onto the scenes which correspond most directly with L2

semantics. For second language instructors, the notion of learnt attention also makes claims

about what kinds of teaching methods could be effective and how the instructional syllabus

should be organized. Here, instruction must also include an attention to meaning and how the

specific components of language (and context) contribute to this wider meaning. N. Ellis &

Bogart claim that conscious attention to linguistic form and meaning can take place through

explicit instruction and a wide range of language input and awareness-raising tasks. R. Ellis

(1993) refers to the process of noticing the gap as a way for language learners to become aware

of how a novel target language feature is comprised and how it is different from the learner’s

previous “interlanguage” representation of the feature. Interlanguage here refers to the

intermediary stages of linguistic representation of an L2 system which is incomplete and

influenced by the L1. This process of noticing the gap allows language learners to be aware of

the differences between their own conceptualization of the L2 and the target and provides an

opportunity for learners to update and refine their own L2 conceptual networks. As outlined in

section 2.3, recent psycholinguistic evidence suggests that through repetition of these types of

awareness-raising tasks, surface-level declarative knowledge and practice with a second

language can facilitate storage into automatized procedural memory.

12    

   

2.3 Second language processing: the weak interface model

There is good evidence to suggest that first and second languages are stored and accessed in the

brain through fundamentally different processes (Ullman, 2005, N. Ellis, 2008). The distinction

between declarative memory and the procedural memory (see 2.1) is a critical component of the

learning task as it predicts how linguistic information is likely to be processed. Since adult

learners have advantages in employing declarative memory over young learners, but are less

likely to store linguistic information as procedural, the declarative/procedural model predicts that

adult learners will have difficulty in automatizing linguistic patterns for productive use. This

account corresponds well with the case of high-proficiency learners who have difficulty applying

new target language features. In the example above (see 1), students were able to use new

language features in testing conditions (a declarative task) while failing to employ the target

form in productive, open-ended use (a task governed largely by procedural processing). R. Ellis

(1993) offers elaboration to help clarify the language acquisition process and suggests that the

declarative/procedural memory model entails two types of knowledge: explicit and implicit.

Explicit knowledge refers to conscious, focused awareness, while implicit knowledge refers to

concepts or ideas that are intuitive and understood without conscious analysis. R. Ellis also

makes note that while declarative/procedural memory seems to correspond directly with the

explicit/implicit distinction, the former refers to a “process dimension” while the latter refers to

“a knowledge dimension” (95). An example modified from R. Ellis might help clarify this

distinction. “Knowledge of the highway code (e.g. Always signal before overtaking) would

constitute declarative knowledge while knowledge of how to drive a car in accordance with these

rules would be procedural” (94). Additionally, explicit knowledge would refer to knowledge

gained through driver’s education training or conscious learning, while implicit knowledge refers

to knowledge gained through observation and unconscious intuition about driving. Together, this

model reflects both the content (explicit/implicit knowledge) and the operation

(declarative/procedural processing) of the language faculty. R. Ellis (1993) further separates two

types of implicit knowledge for second language learners. According to Ellis, implicit knowledge

can refer to the unconscious awareness of formulaic language including constructional data, as

well as rule-based knowledge, which refers to “generalized and abstract structures which have

been internalized” (93). For language learners, implicit knowledge can be internalized through

extended exposure to input. Critically, Ellis suggests a secondary way implicit knowledge can be

13    

   

internalized: through interaction with the explicit knowledge accessible through formal

instruction.

While traditional pedagogical practice was guided by a non-interface theory (Krashen,

1981) which suggested that the declarative and procedural memory systems were entirely

separate and did not interact, more recent psycholinguistic studies have suggested otherwise. R.

Ellis (1993) examines three related findings which show a relationship between

declarative/procedural memory systems.

1.   Grammar instruction results in faster learning and higher levels of L2 grammatical

accuracy.

2.   Grammar instruction directed at a grammatical feature that learners are not ready to

acquire as implicit knowledge does not succeed.

3.   Grammar instruction directed at a grammatical feature that learners are ready to acquire

as implicit knowledge is successful.

(R. Ellis, 1993: 97)

What is critical here is that there is a strong relationship between the learner’s knowledge about a

grammatical item and ways the acquisition process can be augmented since explicit grammatical

instruction does in fact aid in acquisition, but only after the learner has some knowledge of the

forms. Ellis argues in favor of a weak interface model, which makes the claim that explicit

knowledge and repeated practice which employs the declarative process can ultimately facilitate

automaticity, or storage in procedural memory. The weak interface model (R. Ellis, 1993; N.

Ellis & Bogart 2007; N. Ellis 2008) provides a description of the second language learning task

at the neurological level. N. Ellis and Bogart (2007) suggest that through this weak interface, the

procedural working knowledge of a language can indeed be augmented by employing focused

attention to a language and sufficient input. As the name implies, the interface or relationship

between declarative performance and procedural competency is not a direct correspondence, but

consistent and repetitive engagement of declarative memory can lead to its automation and

storage as procedural knowledge. The weak interface model instead holds that procedural

memory of second language (including grammatical, pragmatic and real-time processing) is

14    

   

indeed possible, but can only be achieved through meaningful input and explicit attention to the

connections between linguistic form and meaning.

While connection exists between surface-level practice and the deeper, automated

acquisition of a language, this model holds that the route to fluency involves overcoming L1

learnt attention through focused L2 attention and a mindfulness of the gaps between the two.

This is critical for second language teachers and learners and offers a partial explanation for how

learners might be able to use newly acquired forms for productive use. The weak interface and

its implications also have clear connections with the case of the high proficiency learners in this

project. Language learners are able to learn the structure and rules of new forms and quickly

apply them to specific uses while still failing to utilize them for more productive use.

How should language teachers structure lessons in order to exploit this weak interface for

language acquisition? This model suggests that more productive use patterns can emerge through

time if the learners are provided ample practice opportunities and explicit metalinguistic

instruction about the functions of linguistic forms. N. Ellis (2007) argues that conscious attention

to language forms must be the cornerstone of a teaching approach which seeks to benefit from

the weak interface and states “conscious activity affords much more scope for focused long-

range association and influence than does implicit learning. It brings about a whole new level of

potential associations” (27). According to this approach, explicit instruction about linguistic

forms, the relational network of meaning and metalinguistic data should be the focus of

instructional input.

There are several component features of explicit learner knowledge which help illustrate

the importance of explicit instruction and define its scope. First, explicit knowledge serves as an

“advance organizer” (Terrell, 1991: 58) which can help learners comprehend novel language

input according to previously known rules. R. Ellis (1993) refers to this as a “meaning-form

focuser” (1993: 98) which helps learners make connections between a linguistic form (such as

adding –s) and its meaning (in this case, plurality). Language learners are more likely to be able

to properly sort novel information if they already have acquired some explicit knowledge of how

the instantiation relates to the broader system of rules. This explicit knowledge can therefore aid

in pattern-finding as language learners use explicit information as salient cues. Explicit

knowledge can also help in learner self-monitoring, which in turn can aid in acquisition. Terrell

(1991) states “monitoring can apparently interact with acquisition, resulting in learners acquiring

15    

   

their own output” (61). Learner monitoring can also help facilitate autonomy. Finally, explicit

knowledge allows a learner to incorporate new linguistic knowledge by recognizing the gap

between what they identify as target and their own developing language performance. This

awareness acts as corrective feedback and enables the learner to reproduce more accurate

language (R. Ellis, 1993). In general, explicit instruction and this kind of learner attention to

language form the kinds of cognitive tasks necessary for incorporation into automatic procedural

processing

The weak interface model provides an important first position in defining the problems

adult second language acquisition with evidence from cognitive neuroscience and first language

acquisition research and provides some explanation for the differences in the quality of L1 and

L2 performance. Here, the process of L1 acquisition is a function of general cognitive learning

strategies which become attuned over time. This attunement, or learnt attention, frames how

language is processed and interferes with L2 acquisition. The weak interface model offers insight

into how this attunement can be overcome: through form-focused practice which uses a wide

variety of language input to promote general cognitive learning.

In the following chapters I will present a more detailed view of important components of

the CL view of language: linguistic construal cognitive framing and schematization. These

components of the CL approach to language are important because of how they inform the nature

of language and the linguistic network. For second language teaching especially, these

components offer ways to investigate the relationship between language, meaning and context.

One fundamental goal of second language learning must be to overcome conceptual transfer, and

both construal and cognitive framing offer avenues for investigation into how language codes

meaning. I argue that the explicit teaching of these components also provides an opportunity for

engagement with the weak interface. The following sections will seek to define these

components of the CL approach to language and will propose how they might be incorporated

into the second language classroom.

16    

   

3. Cognitive Linguistics

Cognitive Linguistics (CL) provides a useful theoretical route for engaging awareness at this

weak interface. For second language teaching, one of the most important aspects of the CL

approach is that it presents the human language faculty as a network of conceptual relationships

and views language use as a way to code and transmit perceptions. In this approach, language

acquisition and use is facilitated through general cognition and suggests that difficulties faced by

second language learners are also cognitive in nature. Cognitive Linguistics shifts the scope of

language teaching away from words and rules, and towards a more comprehensive model which

accounts for both the relational network of concepts and extra-linguistic factors which influence

language production and reception. Language use “is the primary shaper of linguistic form and

the foundational of language learning” (Tyler, 2010: 270), so the second language teaching task

should provide opportunities for learners to make connections between language use and

meaning. The cognitive view of the human language faculty and the task of language acquisition

presents new insights for language teaching. Approaches based on the CL framework are

becoming more influential in the field of second language instruction and these approaches

might collectively be termed Cognitive Language Pedagogy (CLP) (Roche, 2014). The

pedagogical approach advocated in this thesis reflects the theoretical framework of CL and CLP.

The work in this thesis places extended emphasis on how language choices are meaningful in

relation to purpose and context of use. Practically, this means that in addition to salient and

varied linguistic input, second language teaching must include explicit instruction about the

meaningful components of language use and the contextual, extra-linguistic factors which

influence language decisions and hearer reception. Conceptual metaphor is one area of Cognitive

Linguistics which has been introduced to the second language classroom (Boers &

Lindstromberg, 2008; Beréndi et al, 2008), and the teaching of conceptual metaphor has been

particularly useful in vocabulary instruction. While conceptual metaphors lie outside of the scope

of this thesis, the pedagogical approaches outlined below are in many ways derived from the

types of metalinguistic tasks found in conceptual metaphor instruction. The full implementation

of a second language cognitive pedagogical programme would certainly include explicit work

with metaphor.

17    

   

Below I will argue that linguistic construal and the relational, categorical meanings

associated with linguistic forms can provide significant benefit to language learners as they

attempt to reconfigure their own conceptual categories. Practically, this view also offers a great

deal of potential resources for language instructors. Here, conscious attention to how a language

feature is used in context, its meaning and associations all provide opportunities for learners to

make connections between form and function and engage the weak interface. The construction

approach offers something very critical for the way individual items can become abstracted and

schematized for future productive use. By using specific constructional instantiations and finding

patterns in the linguistic input and then consciously abstracting the constructional slots to create

a productive schema, language learners are employing declarative knowledge for interaction at

the weak interface.

3.1 Construal

CL assumes that perceptions and their corresponding linguistic representations share

motivation, and this framework also makes predictions about the source of alternative linguistic

formulations for describing a scene or concept. It is of course possible to imagine several ways

of communicating the same scene based on which elements of the scene seem most prominent to

the speaker or may be most relevant to the hearer. The famous half X glass of water is a

straightforward example which illustrates how the same scene might be encoded in differing

ways by different speakers. While one might argue that “the glass is half full” and the other that

“the glass is half empty”, they are both viewing the same scene and both providing

propositionally true accounts. The variation in the ways that these speakers are able to express a

scene in language is the result of extra-linguistic factors and the aspects of the scene that each of

the speakers deems most significant.

These alternations highlight the role of conceptual construal in language production.

Construal here refers to the way a language user makes deliberate choices to represent a scene

with language. The components of linguistic construal (see below) allow a user to select from an

inventory of constructions to most accurately convey his own perception through language. As

an example, Verhagen (2010) offers three ways to construe a group of stars: as a constellation, a

cluster of stars, or specks of light in the sky. While the scene (and propositional content) remains

consistent, the user is able to make choices about how to talk about the night sky, with each

18    

   

constructional option highlighting a slightly different element or quality. A constellation or

specks of light in the sky may both refer to stars, but the linguistic construal of that scene encodes

slightly different sets of semantic and pragmatic associations. These choices in construing a

scene are strategic and are constrained by an array of contextual and extra-linguistic factors.

While a poet may write about stars as specks of light in the sky, an astronomy professor speaking

at an academic conference is not likely to have the same license. Language choices like the ones

above are fundamentally conceptual. Each alternative construction conjures a different mental

scene complete with widely different associations.

For the high-proficiency learners of this study, the notion of linguistic construal is

especially important. These learners fail to utilize their full range of linguistic expression in

communicative situations and have particular difficulty in less-frequent registers. The explicit

teaching of construal provides an opportunity for language learners to consider the variety of

choices available to them and to explore how these choices impact interpretation and reception.

The categories of construal offer usage patterns which can be made salient to learners through

awareness-raising tasks. For the example above, students could match the utterances with the

contexts they are most likely to appear in. A meta-linguistic discussion such as this could then

lead to a closer focus on the linguistic elements which make the constructions more or less

suitable in a given context. Since this type of instruction links language awareness with usage

characteristics, language learners have the opportunity to apply their knowledge about language

in specific contexts. Below I will briefly summarize some of the components of construal which

could be of particular benefit for second language instructors. There are several different

frameworks which categorize these components of construal in slightly different ways. I will use

the framework and terminology set forth by Littlemore (2009) and will supplement her

presentation where appropriate. Littlemore divides the components of construal into four broad

categories: attention/salience, perspective, granularity and categorization. Attention/salience, as

presented by Littlemore (2009) refers to how language is able to focus attention to particular

aspects of a concept or scene while reducing the prominence or focused attention on another

element. Salience is related to this and refers to the extent to which a particular component of a

scene or concept is immediately present in language. An immediate example of this type of

distinction and its relation to lexico-grammar is clefting.

19    

   

(2a) The cookies have been eaten.

(2b) It was the cookies that have been eaten.

Clefting in English allows users to call attention to a particular part of an utterance for semantic

or pragmatic clarity. The example above presents alternating ways to describe the same scene.

The example (2a), the focus of the sentence is on the action. One might expect this disappointing

utterance in response to a situation where there is some possibility that cookies are available. The

second utterance (2b) focuses the attention to the cookies. In this sentence, it is likely already

understood that something has been eaten, this construal presents the cookies as the new and

most relevant information in this construction. In a second language classroom, this difference in

meaning among constructional possibilities can be a source of investigation and discussion about

why a speaker might choose one construction over another and the implications for directing

attention through language use. Closely related to attention is the notion of salience, which

describes the prevalence of a particular aspect of a scene or event within a linguistic

representation. Littlemore (2009) provides a helpful discussion about how languages attend to

prepositional relationships differently. In English, she notes, in might describe a CD in a CD

player or a piece of fruit in a basket while in Korean, the prepositions to describe this

relationship also include the additional attribute of tightness. The aspect of tightness is not at all

salient in English, while Korean requires this attribution for a grammatically acceptable

representation. Second language learners are indeed more likely to frame the world in the target

language in ways that are congruent with L1 constraints. Here language use influences cognitive

patterns in ways that become highly regularized over time. Slobin (1996) identifies this

phenomenon as part of his thinking-for-speaking hypothesis which forwards the idea that

language use and the ways languages allow users to construe events is closely associated with

the way we are able to pattern the world.

The second component of construal, as presented by Littlemore (2009), is perspective and

how perspective is encoded in language. Perspective here describes how the speaker chooses to

orient a particular scene event that is being described. Langacker (1987; 2008; 2009) suggests

that the category of perspective is further comprised of three elements: viewpoint, deixis and

subjectivity/objectivity. Deixis plays a role in perspective by relating the scene to ground or

20    

   

static element. Viewpoint here refers to the position from which the scene is viewed and is

demonstrated in the examples (3a and 3b) below.

(3a) The Netherlands scored three penalty shots and won the match against Costa Rica.

(3b) The Netherlands scored three penalty shots in the match lost by Costa Rica.

The example (3) above was taken from an online news article written about a recent football

match which provided an overview of the match and concluded with the sentence (3b). This

example struck me as odd because it shifts the attention away from the Netherlands (as in 3a)

and towards Costa Rica. With this minor change in construction, the perspective of the match is

removed from the victorious team, the side we might expect to have precedence, towards the

losing side. The construction in (3b) provides a possible interpretation that Costa Rica’s loss was

primarily the result of their own failure, rather than the success of the Netherlands. While the

propositional content of (a) and (b) are identical, they encode the scene differently by marking

the outcome of the match as it relates to each of the sides providing a greater range of

interpretations. This type of perspective taking is particularly important for high-proficiency

learners who must be able to use language in a precise and nuanced way. English allows a great

deal of flexibility in whether or not the speaker’s perspective needs to be specifically attributed

in the utterance and it also provides some room for the utterance to take the hearer’s perspective

as well. Perspective not only deals with how a construal encodes propositional content within

relationships, it also influences how information is reported and presented. Subjective and

objective attribution “is a matter of vantage point and role in a viewing relationship” (Langacker,

2000: 297).

Like a photographer using a good camera lens, a language user is able to construct

language to zoom in on a scene in varying levels of detail. This component of construal,

granularity, refers to the ways that levels of specificity can be coded in language. As an example,

it would be possible to refer to the same physician as either a doctor, a young surgeon, or a

young resident who specializes in endoscopic surgery. While all of these descriptions present the

same basic information, they convey differing levels of specificity and detail. The distinctions

between these examples are actually quite meaningful in context. It might be perfectly fine to tell

someone that you sat next to a doctor on a plane, but a patient prepping for surgery would likely

21    

   

not appreciate being introduced to the same doctor this way. For second language learners,

presenting this notion of granularity can provide an opportunity to consider how to present

information which is relevant and conventional in a particular context. These considerations are

particularly important in academic writing and speaking, where attributing sources and providing

concrete information are of critical importance. Learners in the classroom can be encouraged to

identify the level of specificity which is conventional in a particular genre or text type.

Perhaps the most critical element of construal as it relates to a cognitive approach to

language teaching is the notion of categorization. As discussed above, categorization is an

important element of how learners are able to sort information about the world into relevant and

meaningful units. This general cognitive process relates to language learning in the ways that the

world is perceived and grouped and is an important element of learnt attention which must be

overcome in second language learning. Categorization about the world is easily identifiable in

language, especially in areas which tend to give L2 learners significant difficulty. Littlemore

identifies prepositional systems as particularly challenging to language learners as they mark a

purely arbitrary way of assigning spatial or temporal relations. These boundaries are particularly

murky and provide good insight into the way cognitive perception and categorization impact

linguistic decisions. Prepositional systems are also clear examples of learnt attention (see 2.2)

which impact how language users are likely to frame a particular scene. Second language

learners are likely to incorrectly identify L1 boundaries in the target language, so prepositions

are excellent candidates for the explicit instruction and noticing tasks advocated by N. Ellis.

For Cognitive Language Pedagogy, the explicit teaching of construal allows learners to

view language use as purposeful and strategic. Second language learners are exposed to a

broader range of possible linguistic choices and are taught to understand the connections

between these linguistic choices and the nuances in meaning they represent. The notion of

construal and its components are an essential part of the pedagogical approach advocated here.

Since the specific goal of this thesis is to investigate how high-proficiency learners might be

encouraged to use the widest range of linguistic expressions and an increased variety of L2

register, significant attention should be paid to how the tools available for construing a particular

scene are used for linguistic production. These categories should indeed be presented to second

language learners as tools, both for production and nuanced comprehension since they open a

wider range of alternatives which may be utilized in language performance. Furthermore,

22    

   

construal and its components provide excellent resources for discussion about language, form-

focused instruction and the weak interface.

3.2 Frames and prototypes

The network of concepts stored in the brain categorizes our perceptions about the world and

shapes the way we construe language. The relationship between conceptual content and

linguistic representation is fundamental to the CL view of the human language faculty and helps

to explain obstacles in the task of second language acquisition. Since languages do not code

conceptual meaning in a uniform way, second language learners often resort to first language

conceptual categories when using the target language. This conceptual transfer (see 2.2) can be

overcome through focused instruction which emphasizes language use which reflects target

conceptual relationships. The task for Cognitive Language Pedagogy is to present these

conceptual relationships in a way that is both meaningful and salient to the second language

learner.

Cognitive frames (Fillmore, 1977) refer to the network of mental associations and

categorizations that a particular word or phrase can evoke. As an example, (slightly altered from

Fillmore’s) consider the English words man and gentleman. While both words have highly

overlapping meanings, these words are likely to be associated with very different conceptual

networks. While man might likely trigger contrastive concepts like woman or boy, gentleman

would more likely be stored in a network of concepts such as lady and would be more likely to

be associated with a contextual frame which requires a more formal register. Petruck further

defines frames as “a system of concepts related in such a way that to understand any one concept

it is necessary to understand the entire system; introducing any one topic results in all of them

becoming available” (Petruck, 2007). The network of frames then is a system of organizing,

categorizing and storing information in the brain. Frame semantics assumes that there is indeed a

network of interrelated concepts which instantiate one another in this loose network of linguistic

associations. Each frame also specifies participant roles which assign conceptual attributes to the

elements involved in a particular frame. What is important for this thesis is that these concepts

are not necessarily universal, but are instead emergent and language specific. This view of the

mental lexicon helps to explain some of the challenges to second language acquisition as defined

by N. Ellis and others above (see section 2.2). Language learners are likely to bring concepts and

23    

   

associations from the L1 and attempt to apply them in the target language. Frame semantics

helps to highlight how the underlying difficulty in acquisition, conceptual transfer and learnt

attention, has roots in the mechanism of the language system (general cognition) itself. If

linguistic storage is indeed a related network of conceptual associations, language learners must

overcome this problem of storage and relearn how the target language codes and relates concepts

to one another. Although this is certainly a challenging undertaking, adult learners are

particularly suited to this type of task. Since the pedagogical approach here centers explicit

instruction and attention to how language is a symbolic representation for communicating

perception, the teaching of new associations and new ways of framing and relating concepts

through language is closely in line with the scope of this pedagogical project. What is essential,

though, is that language learners are given opportunities to make these kinds of associations by

encountering language use in context. I argue that interactional frames provide exactly the type

of contextualized information necessary for the successful reconfiguring of conceptual

associations in the target language.

For language teachers, these interactional frames provide theoretical support for

communicative tasks which are heavily grounded in contextualized scenarios. Since frames

prescribe linguistic expectations, the teaching of particular interactional frames (though I’m not

necessarily advocating they be introduced this way) can provide a sufficiently closed set and

meaningful context for language acquisition. Even more promising are the opportunities for

explicit instruction provided by the linguistic and non-linguistic specifications of the frame.

Teachers could introduce a “frame” such as talking on the phone with a friend. Language

learners could be prompted to develop a list of particular phrases they are likely to hear, discuss

potential topics and the stages or “moves” likely to occur in the discourse. This work could be

augmented through comparative work with a customer service phone conversation frame. This

type of teaching practice also provides opportunities for focus on form instruction as it relates to

constructions which frequently occur in the frame. Another additional component in this practice

is that it demands learner awareness of how language and linguistic patterns create meaning in

context.

Frames are a way of organizing conceptual and linguistic information into a coherent

network where information is stored and retrieved, but the question remains as to what, in

particular, gets stored. If a concept of is triggered, what exactly is the image that is conjured?

24    

   

Taylor (2003) proposes that linguistic concepts are organized into radial categories where the

most salient exemplar of the category, the prototype, is stored and summoned most centrally,

while less salient examples are stored in the periphery of the category. Radden and Dirven

(2007) provide the example of the category car. They suggest that while a truck or van may fit

within the category, they are not particularly prominent members and are not likely to be

triggered in response to the concept car. In addition to lexical units, prototypes also extend from

lexical units to longer syntactical patterns (see 3.3). Prototypes are important in the way they

facilitate meaning and provide a concrete grounding for categorical relationships. This network

of relational meaning also has implications for comparison.

3.3 Constructional categories and schematization

L2 learners must be aware of the varied ways languages can be encoded for nuance in meaning,

but what units of language should be taught? Constructions are the preferred linguistic units in

the CL approach to language (Langacker, 1987; Tomasello, 2003; Croft & Cruse, 2004;

Goldberg, 2006) and are therefore the preferred input for this CL approach to second language

pedagogy. Constructions are lexico-grammatical pairings which combine form with function

(Goldberg, 2003). Form refers to the syntactic, morphological and phonological properties of

language, while meaning incorporates the semantic, pragmatic and discourse-functional

properties of language (Croft, 2001). Croft argues that meaning here is a conventionalized

meaning derived from use and offers that form and meaning are connected through a symbolic

correspondence (in line with the general CL views that language is symbolic, outlined above).

Hilpert (2014) provides a useful framework for identifying constructions and suggests that a

linguistic pattern constitutes a construction if it meets at least one of the following criteria:

1.   Constructions deviate from canonical patterns.

2.   Constructions carry non-compositional meanings.

3.   Constructions have idiosyncratic constraints

4.   Constructions have collocational preferences.

Using this list, Hilpert argues that constructions, far from idiomatic or peripheral, can account for

a substantial portion of language (at the very least).

25    

   

Form/meaning constructions in language are patterns that operate at range of levels of

abstraction. N. Ellis and Ferreira-Junior (2009) define three categories of constructions as

concrete, abstract and mixed. These categorizations are useful for in that they group

constructions based on their formulation and level of abstraction as well as their general

functions in language. Most importantly for the purpose of language teaching, this categorization

of constructions provides some prescription of how they could be presented, and what learners

might be able to achieve in terms of acquisition and productivity. While I will argue below that

each of the following categories should indeed be taught under the general umbrella of

construction-based pedagogy, the categories of constructions will each demand a specific type of

approach.

Concrete constructions are highly-fixed patterned items such as words and idiomatic

expressions. Since this category of constructions is highly fixed, patterns here cannot be

generalized over extended language use and therefore provide a very low level of abstraction and

rather limited productivity. Idiomatic language may be the most salient type of concrete

constructions. Indeed, much of the work in Construction Grammar stems from the investigation

into the nature of idioms and how they operate in language. It is important to note that I am

referring to a very particular set of idioms whose constructions are wholly fixed. A number of

linguistic expressions which might otherwise be considered as idiomatic (such as the Xer the

Yer) are excluded from this set as they provide open slots and are therefore productive in the

creation of novel language use.

Constructions also account for language patterns beyond the sentence level. Abstract

constructions form the combinatory possibilities of language and account for verb argument

structure, syntactic restrictions and abstract categories of word classes like nouns and verbs.

Abstract constructions are fundamental to the usage-based account of language which offers that

a language is formed and stored according to experience with language. Instead of appealing to

an underlying structure which governs the combinations of lexical items, the constructional

account of language views syntax as surface-level patterns. Abstract constructions mediate

between the meanings of particular words and a wider set of expectations (in the case of word

classes), or the patterns in which they appear (as in the case of argument structure) (Holme,

2010). A popular sentence which exemplifies the latter type of construction is the English

caused-motion clause (Goldberg, 2006).

26    

   

(4) John sneezed the napkin off the table

While this sentence is perfectly grammatical and coherent to the native English speaker, the

motion instrumental to the semantics of the sentence is not retrievable based on the meanings of

the individual words, but rather the specific and highly recognizable way in which they collocate.

Here, the construction itself informs and can change and even alter the meanings of individual

words. Syntactic argument structure also shows characteristics of constructional composition. An

experimental study conducted by Bencini and Goldberg (2000) found that language users found

a greater degree of similarity among sentences with the same argument structure construction

than sentences which used the same verb. For example, when users were asked to sort sentences

based on overall similarity, they were more likely to group a sentence such as “Beth got Liz an

invitation” with other ditranstive constructions than with a sentence like “Michelle got the book.”

For language teaching, this finding is particularly striking and potentially useful. If learners sort

existing information based on argument structure patterns, then the explicit teaching of these

patterns and the ways they inform particular lexical items should play an important role in

language acquisition. This aspect of teaching is also evident in a more general property of this

category of these constructions in that abstract constructions are highly productive.

The final category of constructions as defined by N. Ellis and Ferreira-Junior is mixed

constructions, which provide both fixed and open slots. This category of constructions is perhaps

the most intriguing as it relates to language teaching because it identifies a category of linguistic

items which traditional pedagogical methods have overlooked. Items in this category are

structures which have both compositional meaning and open slots such as the somewhat

idiomatic expression [the Xer, the Yer], discussed above.

(5) The harder they come, the harder they fall.

This mixed category of constructions has features of both concrete and abstract constructions in

that they contain certain fixed lexical components while also offering a degree of flexibility in

how they are filled. I argue that a great deal of the value of this Construction Grammar approach

to language teaching lies in the recognition of this category as linguistic units with distinct

27    

   

compositional meaning rather than strings of lexis governed by external syntactic restrictions. By

recognizing the lexico-grammatical properties of mixed constructions, learners could be able to

employ partially schematic phrases for novel production.

This category of constructions also includes word-level morphological constructions.

While it may be surprising to include individual words in a category of constructions, work in

constructional morphology provides good support to treat individual lexical items as

constructions (Croft, 2001; Booij; 2010; Hilpert; 2014). Booij provides an example of the

English affix [–ness], how it operates as a construction and its productivity. He offers a list of

instantiations where new noun is coined by adding the [-ness] suffix to an existing adjective (6)

and offers the schema (7).

(6) [[aware]A ness]N

(7) [[x]A ness]N “the property/state of A”

(Booij, 2010: 544)

This schema highlights a critical difference in the ways that a construction framework deals with

morphology and has wider implications for second language instruction. A traditional approach

might present the suffix [-ness] by encouraging language learners to recognize that the

combination of letters typically means “the property or state of something” and is usually a noun.

The focus in the traditional approach is for leaners to identify and be able to define particular

instantiations of the [-ness] suffix they encounter. Second language instruction based on the

constructional, schematic view offers a much more productive description of the target language.

A construction approach to presenting the suffix [-ness] might demonstrate several instantiations

of the construction above (6) and ask leaners to create a general rule (as in 7). Here, learners are

storing a productive description of the linguistic input and have access to the rules which

comprise the form. This schematic representation also provides information about the building

blocks of the construction for learners to be able to create their own novel productions in the

target language.

Constructions and the construction approach are especially promising for language

instruction as they offer a clear directive for what is required for successful acquisition. First,

constructions fit within the framework of the emergent, usage-based account of language

acquisition outlined above. This account suggests that extensive, varied and contextualized input

28    

   

is required for any real fluency. While sufficient language input has been a particular challenge

in the past, I offer that a classroom approach which centers the explicit teaching of highly

productive constructions, and restricting constructional input to highly salient patterns of

contextualized use, learners are presented an opportunity for extensive, meaningful language

input. Additionally, since constructions are form/meaning pairs, the instruction of lexical units

and syntactic rules are no longer disjoint. Constructions are meaningful in themselves and the

ways in which they collocate. Lexical combinations have syntactic properties, so teaching

constructional patterns means students are simultaneously exposed to lexical and grammatical

information. Finally, the constructions are schematic and productive. Just like early first

language pivot schemas which comprise a young child’s early constructions (such as more X)

(Tomasello, 2001), much of early second language use is centered on fixed expressions of

meaningful lexico-grammatical phrases (Durrant & Schmitt, 2010). A construction approach

recognizes the productiveness of these phrases and provides an opportunity for language users to

abstract surface forms into general syntactic patterns (see 4.3). Constructions allow language

instructors to explicitly teach a restricted set of form/meaning units for engagement at the weak

interface.

3.4 Construction learning and genre

Since the CL view holds that language is categorized and stored in conceptual networks which

share links through similarities or metaphorical connections, any second language pedagogical

approach within this framework should also account for the contextualized, relational nature of

language. Here, this means providing linguistic input which is grounded in meaningful,

situational contexts and also applying cognitive construction grammar to the way discourse is

analyzed, presented and practiced. While language teachers have long been aware of the need for

contextualized and relevant linguistic input, the Cognitive Language Pedagogy approach

advocated here will seek to underline the importance of context as it relates to meaning and

linguistic forms through the explicit teaching of linguistic and non-linguistic constraints which

hold influence in the creation and reception of a text. Many of these factors can be accounted for

through attention to the components of construal, but a more productive way to present these

factors in the high-proficiency classroom is through the explicit instruction of genre and text

types. While genre analysis may be a somewhat unexpected practice in the second language

29    

   

learning classroom, there is good reason to perform this kind of instruction, particularly for high-

proficiency learners who are reluctant to implement the wider range of linguistic forms and

registers available to them. Taylor (2002) states the need for connecting contextual knowledge to

linguistic forms and suggests the “need to appeal to domain-based knowledge in order to account

for how words are used” (440). Domains here refer to arenas of language use. From the

perspective of second language instruction, the most relevant arenas of language use can be

categorized by genre and text types.

There is good reason to treat genre within the scope of cognitive linguistics and to

promote bringing genre descriptors into the second language classroom. Östman (2005) views

genre as an extended frame and gives precedence to the way genre influences linguistic form.

Like frames, genre provide a network of linguistic associations and constraints. Because the

genre frame prescribes style, register and pragmatics, the interrelated functions of genre and

language demand that a pedagogical approach accounts for these aspects simultaneously. In

further support of teaching genre in the cognitive construction grammar L2 classroom is recent

work by Anotonopoulou and Nikiforidou (2011) which views conventional discourse settings as

large-scale constructions. They suggest that form-meaning pairings are, at the semantic core,

defined by frames and suggest “information, therefore, about the

pragmatic/discoursal/textual/register characteristics associated with a particular form can be

representing in the meaning pole of the corresponding construction alongside purely semantic

information” (2011: 2595). In this light, contexts are stored as meaningful components within the

semantic network. Croft and Cruse further support this notion of genre as wider constructions

and offer “Meaning, in construction grammar thus stands for all the conventionalized aspects of

construction’s function, which may include not only properties of the situation described by the

utterance, but also properties of the discourse in which the utterance is found” (Croft and Cruse,

2004: 258). Anotonopoulou and Nikiforidou further provide samples from several genres of

written discourse and perform construction-based analysis of forms, functions and discourse

moves. These moves, or sequences, comprise the constructional nature of the genre. I argue that

these constructions are productive and can be made salient to language learners through explicit

teaching of these constructions.

We can expect that close genre analysis might not only reveal types of linguistic style or

register, but also concrete patterns of language use. By first asking learners to define the

30    

   

boundaries of genre and later segmenting learner input into genres of language use, this

pedagogical approach facilitates the exploration of genre-specific constructions without relying

on L1 conceptual representations. Instruction and discussion about the boundaries of genre can

help draw L2 learners’ attention to the expectations of a particular language act. Explicit

instruction of the genre of academic writing, for example, could reveal a number of critical

elements about how texts are constructed in general. Teaching general elements of a genre can be

productive as it guides and constrains all particular component language choices. In this light,

genre is something of a schema. The teaching of these schemas has the benefit of productivity. If

language learners are explicitly taught the general characteristics of academic writing, for

example, they can make linguistic choices which take genre expectations into account.

3.5 Summary

The first principle of this approach holds that the language learning task is one of general

cognitive learning. Here, both first and second languages are learnt through linguistic input in

combination with cognitive learning strategies such as joint attention and categorization. The

process of second language acquisition is additionally complex as the learner must overcome

cognitive attunement, or learnt attention, to the first language. Teaching then is a process of

providing contextualized input and explicit instruction of the gaps in how language codes and

relates conception. Inherent also in this notion is that language is symbolic. Individual lexical

units, as well as wider combinations of syntactic phrases, are meaningful only in representation.

These symbols are stored in the mental lexicon as relational networks, or frames. This cognitive

approach to second language acquisition emphasizes the central role of general cognition in the

language learning task, and incorporates this theoretical standpoint in the teaching practice.

Active presentations and discussions about how language is being used, its component variables

and word/concept relationships are all prominent in this practice.

Next, this approach views constructions as the meaningful linguistic unit and utilizes

linguistic constructions as input. Cognitive construction grammar views constructions, or form-

meaning pairings, as the fundamental component of the mental lexicon. These form-meaning

pairs have a range of schematicity and productivity, but their combinations can account for the

syntax and semantics of a language. This approach uses constructions as the unit of input both

because of this theoretical position, and its practical implications. Constructions are productive

31    

   

because they can be schematized and presented at varying levels of abstraction. Instead of

teaching individual lexis, (or even lexical phrases), constructions allow language learners to

work with linguistic forms they are most likely to encounter in target language communication.

Moreover, constructional schemas allow users to learn the mechanics of the combinatory rules

and apply them directly to their own novel instantiations. Construction schemas provide a salient

framework for language use.

The final principle in this approach is that language must be presented in relation to

context and purpose. Since the language learning task involves mapping cognitive experience to

linguistic forms, it is critical that language is contextualized and presented in relation to some

specific purpose. For the high-proficiency learners in this thesis, this means explicit instruction

and practice with genre and text type analysis. Language encodes and transmits perception, so

high proficiency learners must account for how and why language is being used in a particular

way. Genre analysis provides focused attention to the component parts of language and

discourse. This perspective is supported by Anotonopoulou and Nikiforidou (2011) who analyze

genre and the specific discourse moves of several texts types using a construction framework.

Learners here must perform metalinguistic consideration about how the target language is

formed and the effect these forms have on a particular audience. While this type of work is not

typically situated in the second language learning classroom, I advocate that practice of this type

has the benefit of situating language in a specific context, calls attention to the networks of

relational meanings, demands focused attention to L2 conceptual categories and provides

awareness-raising opportunities to overcome L1 learnt attention. For the high-proficiency

learners of Academic English this thesis takes as model, genre and textual analysis has the

additional benefit of cross-curricular instruction which can help students gain awareness of

communication techniques in general.

32    

   

4. A course for English for Academic Purposes

This chapter will explore how the principles of a cognitive construction grammar approach to

second language instruction might be put into practice. Below I will offer a sample syllabus and

lesson plans which are based on the theoretical framework outlined above. The syllabus and

sample lessons follow the scope of this thesis and are designed for high-proficiency L2 learners

of academic English. The characteristics of the students (ages, aptitude and range of proficiency)

and the course (contact hours, schedule and objectives) are modeled on actual English language

skills courses offered at Radboud University as a mandatory component of the undergraduate

English programme. The course proposal below is meant to fit within a seven week academic

period with a double 45 minute block for each lesson.

The overall objective of the course modeled below is consistent with the aim of this

thesis: to encourage high-proficiency learners of academic English to use their full range of

linguistic expressions to respond appropriately and accurately in specific contexts of use. With

this in mind, the model course presented below will focus on both linguistic and extra-linguistic

factors which inform and constrain conventional language use. The first lessons are meant to

provide a foundation and contain activities to re-orient second language learners to the kinds of

cognitive and linguistic tasks associated with this approach. It is essential that learners are aware

of the symbolic connection between language and the perceptions that it represents. A further

focus of the course modeled below is that students are made to see language use as strategic,

deliberate and governed by the conventions of contexts and genre. As the course progresses,

learners are encouraged to become increasingly independent and able to make sound conclusions

about novel linguistic information and how it can be integrated into conventionalized usage

patterns. The course moves from preliminary work regarding context and genre to specific

instantiations of language use and how form/meaning pairing are conventionally used in

academic discourse. The work within the course culminates with the final two lessons which

incorporate course concepts into an open corpus investigation.

Because the goal of this course is to encourage high-proficiency language learners to use

their full range of linguistic competence, the lessons detailed below are primarily meant to

integrate a learner’s knowledge about language into productive use. As a result, this prospective

course focuses on instructing learners to consider the close connections between form and

33    

   

meaning, and to make the same kinds of linguistic choices which are conventional in the target

language (Achard, 2008). In other words, this CL course proposal centers on unifying language

use with context and purpose rather than introducing a wide range of linguistic input. The chart

below represents a scope and sequence for the topics covered in this course. In sections 4.1-4.5 I

will provide detailed theoretical support and full lesson plans for five units in this course.

Week 1 Introduction to construction learning (4.1)

Week 2 Construal: perspectives (4.2)

Week 3 Construal: categorization

Week 4 Constructions and schematization in academic

discourse (4.3)

Week 5 Genre and academic writing (4.4)

Week 6 Introduction to corpus and concordancers

Week 7 Corpus in the classroom: passives in

academic writing

4.1 Introduction to construction learning

4.1.1 Introduction

The first lesson is meant to provide an overview of the types of learning tasks students should

expect from this course. The activities in this lesson are meant to reorient the language learner

and encourage them to identify language as meaningful choices by examining the interaction

between language use and context. The focus of this lesson is not necessarily to provide

linguistic input, but to promote a language learning process which connects precise language

meaning with context and purpose. This lesson also serves as an introduction to construction

learning and promotes constructions as the meaningful linguistic unit of instruction. Throughout

this course, language learners are encouraged to identify patterns of language use and should

implement these patterns in their own production. This lesson takes the first step in framing

language as these kinds of meaningful constructional patterns.

Categorization, an important element in general cognitive learning tasks (Littlemore,

2009), plays a particularly important role in this first lesson. Language learners in this course are

34    

   

confronted with the task of identifying the meaningful connections in language, context, genres

and text types. These categorical connections are essential for high proficiency learners to use

language in ways that are conventional in the target language. The lesson below uses samples of

contextualized language to provide students with a limited data set from which to make

conclusions about conventionalized language use. The first lesson, like other lessons in this

proposal, is highly scaffolded. Learners are initially given plenty of support and direct evidence

about the target forms. As the lesson progresses, students are asked to make more and more

independent conclusions about language using contextual clues and general cognitive learning

strategies. This is meant to reflect the language acquisition process as outlined in 2.1.

4.1.2 Lesson

Aims:

•   To introduce learners to important concepts in construction learning and genre. •   To encourage learners to focus on the relationship between language and contexts.

Objectives:

•   Learners should be able to independently use data-driven learning strategies to make reasonable conclusions about language use in context.

•   Learners should be able to identify frequent collocations and their functions in writing. •   Learners should be able to demonstrate an awareness of the main features of academic

writing.

Procedure: Warm up The warm up task is meant to get students thinking about categories.

1.   The instructor will play two short music clips from different genres as students create two lists of very short descriptions about the music they hear (loud, slow, lots of drums, etc.).

2.   The instructor will then play an additional music clip (from one of the genres already played) and ask students to decide which two songs belong in the same group

The following discussion should include the following prompts: How were you able to group the third song?

35    

   

How is it possible to group these songs even if the lyrics are not similar? What are some general characteristics of this category of music? Introduction to Genre The first task is meant to prompt discussion about language use and contexts of language use.

1.   The instructor will divide students in small groups and distribute short sections from a variety of text types and a worksheet with a list of genres (academic writing, fiction, poetry, etc.) Students are asked to match the sample text to the genre it belongs with.

2.   Students will complete the worksheet which prompts them to identify particular words and phrases which helped them match the text type to the appropriate genre.

Discussion: The instructor should focus the discussion to prompt students to notice the use of particular words or phrases, the frequent use of words and phrases and the structure of the sample itself. Language Focus 1: Features of Academic Writing The first language focus is designed as an opportunity for learners to engage with the genre of academic writing by using the kinds of linguistic and extra-linguistic knowledge practiced in the previous activity.

1.   The instructor distributes five sample sections of academic writing (introduction, central argument, supporting argument, counter-argument and conclusion) are distributed to a group of students

2.   Each member of the group will read his/her section individually and write brief responses to the following prompts:

What is the overall function of your section of writing? Where would this section fit in an academic paper? Underline the words and phrases that helped you understand where this section belongs.

3.   Each member will share their findings to the group. Working together, the group will place the sections of the text in the correct order and review the answers to the prompts above.

Language Focus 2: Constructions in Academic Writing The next task uses the extracts samples from same text sections to focus on lexical constructions and how they are used for discourse management (function).

1.   Learners are prompted to compare and investigate the phrases which seemed characteristic of the text. In the same groups, students are to complete the handout by using the text sections to create their own list of functional phrases common in academic

36    

   

writing: providing support, countering an argument, introducing a new topic, linking with an old topic

Production and Practice: Gap fill The instructor will distribute a gap fill activity where students must use the construction in the handout above to complete novel samples of academic writing. 4.2 Construal: perspectives

4.2.1 Introduction

Since the CL view holds that language is a means of representing and transmitting perception,

explicit instruction about how the units are arranged and encoded must be an important

component of second language teaching. The focus of this lesson is to examine how meaning can

be represented through linguistic constructions and to place emphasis on the “central role of the

speaker in the selection of a specific construction” (Achard, 2008: 441). While these objectives

seems fairly straightforward, they represent a major shift away from traditional approaches to

second language pedagogy, which view language as a system separate and isolated from general

cognition (Tyler, 2008). These approaches to second language teaching present language as a

system of lexical units combined with an abstract set of grammatical rules (with plenty of

exceptions). This teaching practice does not address the problem of conceptual transfer in second

language learning or L1 processing habits, and does not account for how meaning motivates

language use.

The cognitive construction-based approach in this thesis views the language user as

having a central role in choosing linguistic strategies from an inventory of potential

constructions. Here, the task is to explore how a language user can select target-like

constructions to respond to contextualized and meaningful situations. As Achard (2008) states,

“for the instructor, focusing on the speaker rather than on the system involves the shift from

teaching set patterns of lexical associations to teaching the conventionalized ways of matching

certain expressions to certain situations” (441). This updated role which places the language

learner at the center of practice (and language use in general) has two advantages. First, the

approach presents language as a means for the user to accurately represent and communicate

perceptions. Language is not presented as an abstract system, but rather a tool where the target is

an accurate and precise linguistic representation of the perceptions which motivate language use.

This view of language also provides an opportunity for engagement with the weak interface

37    

   

through instruction which fronts learner-awareness about how linguistic choices interact with

meaning and hearer reception. Because cognitive linguists view the human language faculty as a

means of representing and transmitting perception through symbolic units, explicit instruction

about how the units are arranged and encoded can be a fruitful way of overcoming the transfer of

cognitive processes ingrained from the L1. The second advantage of centering the language

learner’s role in choosing linguistic strategies is that it demands learners draw upon their full

range of cognitive resources to choose appropriate forms. Learners are provided language input

which is contextualized and made purposeful through classroom practice. Instructors in this

approach help clarify the extra-linguistic factors which contribute to how language is used, and

discuss how alternative constructions can modify meaning. Learners must consider pragmatic,

contextual and genre-based constraints on the formulation of language, and must rely on general

cognitive strategies such as pattern-finding and categorization to define and adapt to those

constraints.

Construal refers to the various ways of viewing a particular scene and expressing it in

language (see 3.1). This variability in how to choose and construct a scene is at the heart of the

linguistic choices that language learners face. In teaching certain aspects of construal and how

language affords users with a large inventory of potential ways to describe a scene, learners can

gain an awareness of the range of language choices available to them in the target language. If

L2 learners are explicitly made aware that language production reflects specific choices about

how the speaker wishes to portray a particular event or scene, then they should be better

equipped to overcome the conceptual transfer from their L1. Of particular benefit to the high

proficiency learners of this study, the appropriateness and reception of these construals is context

and purpose dependent. Learners are taught how to utilize general cognitive strategies to help

interpret meaning in the target language and to help them formulate their own linguistic

constructions. The learners of this study have the linguistic data and knowledge of the language

to successfully navigate in a wide range of registers and contexts, but lack the knowledge about

the target language required to implement them.

In the second language classroom, the teaching of construals means “placing students in

situations where native speakers are most likely to exercise a specific choice, so that they can

make the same choice the natives make, and enjoy the same flexibility of expression” (Achard,

2008: 449). Here the instructor introduces a target form and provides opportunities for the

38    

   

language learner to use the form in conventional ways. Learners are faced with very specific

contextual situations and must use the target form for an explicit purpose. For an example, a

lesson about the English progressive construction might place emphasis on how the progressive

form fronts the duration of an activity while backgrounding the temporal boundaries of when the

process began and finished. This meta-knowledge can then be applied directly to contextualized

and purposeful practice where learners must decide whether this progressive construction

construes the scene in an appropriate and precise way.

The difficulty in teaching construal in the second language classroom is that it necessarily

complex and highly variable. While the instruction of construal should encourage learners to

implement the full range of target-like performance, individual lessons and language input

should be restricted to the most salient components of construal (prominence and perspective

here). Additionally, many (or most) second language learners will not have had much explicit

practice making metalinguistic decisions about the target language, so the instructional input

must rely on highly regularized examples. Achard (2008) suggests that visible cultural schemas

provide a useful starting point for this type of instruction because they are meaningful and easy

to teach. He details how cultural schemas such as eating at a restaurant can provide structured

and salient examples of conventionalized language. Because contexts such as these are quite

specific, the schemas provide a restricted area for language practice. In this way, learners are not

faced with a chunk of language with abstract descriptors, but instead have a partially-constructed

linguistic tool to respond appropriately in a particular situation.

This particular lesson will focus on the construal category of perspective as presented by

Langacker (1987) which is itself comprised of three components: viewpoint, deixis and

subjectivity/objectivity. Perspective is of particular importance to the group of high-proficiency

learners in this study as pertains to the kinds of linguistic decisions that are fundamental to

academic text. Additionally, the components of this category of perspective are rather transparent

in the ways they can be mapped to language decisions.

4.2.2 Lesson

Aims:

•   To introduce learners to how language can be presented (construed) in varying ways. •   To help learners identify how perspective can be coded in language use.

39    

   

•   To encourage learners to consider the production and reception of their own language use.

Objectives:

•   Learners should be able to identify and comment on how perspective is coded through constructions in both spoken and written language.

•   Learners should be able to express the basic ways that language can encode meaning. •   Learners should be able to formulate a variety of perspectives in their own spoken and

written language.

Warm-Up

1.   The instructor begins the lesson by providing students with three visual scenes and three corresponding partial sentences. The first scene is a glass filled halfway with water, the second scene depicts a train on a track between the names of two cities and the final scene depicts two equally salient men, one in the process of throwing a ball and the other in the process of catching it. The scenes and sentences are designed to allow for multiple correct responses. Learners should first individually complete the sentences before comparing with a partner. The glass is half (full/empty). This train (goes/ is going) from Amsterdam to Nijmegen. The man ______________.

2.   After learners have had the opportunity to compare results, the instructor should introduce a discussion based on the following prompts:

What are the differences between your response and your partner’s? Do these differences change the meaning? How? What are some reasons why language offers multiple ways to describe a scene? The discussion should emphasize how language provides ways to express variation in interpretation and that specific linguistic choices are available to accurately capture our perceptions and perspectives about a scene.

Language Focus 1

The first language focus task is meant to encourage learner awareness of how perspective is coded in language.

1.   The instructor distributes several text examples (from a variety of genres: fiction, academic writing, textbook, magazine article, personal correspondence) which each discuss the same event. Working in groups of 3-4, students should rank the texts from

40    

   

most objective to most subjective. The instructor will not provide any criteria for this initial sorting task, but can help clarify the definitions of subjective/objective.

2.   The instructor distributes a handout which prompts students to identify textual features which comprise subjective/objective texts. With the handout, students are prompted to create a list of parameters for how texts might be identified as subjective or objective.

The subsequent discussion should bring the groups together as a class to formulate a wider set of criteria which can be used to judge whether a text is subjective or objective.

Language Focus 2

The next activity will use the same sample texts as above to introduce words and phrases which signify how the perspective is encoded

1.   The instructor asks students to take out a piece of paper and fold it into three sections. At the top of each of the sections, the students will write “first-person” “other- known source” and “other-unknown source”.

2.   As a group, students will identify the words/phrases which help them identify how the perspective is taken in the text examples (including pronoun use, attribution in the text, distance between author and the information provided etc.) and will write these examples in the appropriate columns.

The subsequent class discussion should seek to identify the words/phrases that were most useful in identifying how perspective is taken in the text. The discussion should also prompt students to consider the general effects that perspective taking has in presenting meaning and how it is received. The instructor should also encourage students to note how certain genres are more or less restricted in how they take perspective.

Production:

Students will receive a sample text of academic writing which codes perspective in unconventional ways. Students should correct the text by attributing perspective consistently and in line with the conventions of the genre.

4.3 Constructions and schematization in academic writing

4.3.1 Introduction

Since constructions are the preferred linguistic unit with the CL framework (Langacker, 1987;

Goldberg, 2006; Bybee, 2008), this pedagogical approach prefers constructional input over

individual lexical items. This preference for lexical strings is not new for second language

instruction. The lexical approach, popular in the early 1990s (Nattinger & DeCarrico, 1992;

Lewis, 1993), was based around the principle of teaching lexis in the collocational chunks in

41    

   

which they frequently appear. The advocates of the lexical approach focused primarily on

authentic language data from the Collins COBUILD corpus to support the importance of

collocational patterns in language use. For teachers, this meant a heavy emphasis on the co-

textual factors which influenced language choices and the importance of a lexical competence,

including the syntactic patterning of words and phrases (Lewis, 1993). This approach also

rejected the idea that grammar and lexis are separate. As Lewis states “the grammar/vocabulary

dichotomy is a false one. Often when ‘new words’ are introduced into the class it will be

appropriate not simply to present and record the word but to explore the grammar of the word –

at least noting its principle collocates, and perhaps one or two institutionalized sentences

containing the word”(1993: 116). Like this reduced focus on abstract grammar in favour of

collocational structures, the lexical approach did reflect many of the same theoretical

perspectives that have since been incorporated into cognitive instructional methods, but the

lexical approach failed to present an account of how these collocations might be organized and

presented. The shortcoming of the lexical approach, according to Holme (2010) was that the

focus was on learning individual instantiations of a collocation, rather than the productivity

afforded by schematic nature of constructions. According to Holme, “lexical approaches

overstress the substantive nature of language content and understress the compositional nature of

even heavily lexicalized forms” (2010: 15).

In the approach presented in this thesis, the focus is not merely on the strings of lexis or

lexical collocations, but the more productive ways they can be schematized and incorporated into

the wider lexicon. Holme suggests that while a lexical approach might present the collocation

ready to, a constructional approach would present the ready to leave, which offers a possibility

to introduce the predicate adjective constructional schema. This schematic view of constructions

is a cornerstone of the approach forwarded here and is offered as a way for instructors to utilize

insights about collocational frequency, and more fundamentally, the constructional nature of

language within the classroom setting.

There is good evidence to support a teachable model for the process of schematization.

In learning a language, users acquire constructional islands (Tomasello, 2003; Robinson & N.

Ellis, 2008), which are specific instances of a constructional form. These early instances lack

productivity, but provide a foundation for subsequent realizations. For second language learners,

constructional islands can serve as prototypical examples of the constructional schemes they

42    

   

instantiate and can provide salient clues for subsequent generalizations about the constructional

form. Prototype learning is also important of second language learners. In a study conducted by

Goldberg and Casenhiser (2008), second language learners were able to make generalizations

about constructions after acquiring the prototypical forms. This study is important because it

suggests that second language learners can indeed follow the same acquisition pathway as first

language learners if they have access to the relevant linguistic data. Goldberg and Casenhiser

note that second language learners require particularly strong exemplars in order to employ them

as prototypes. These learner prototypes provide structure for subsequent generalizations about

the target language. This finding was further supported by N. Ellis and Ferreira-Junior (2009),

who found that second language learners were able to use a highly frequent instantiations as

prototypical models to learn English verb argument structure constructions. The first step to

learning constructions, then, is exposure to a salient prototype from which subsequent

abstractions can be derived. For second language instructors, this means modifying input in order

to provide learners with a highly frequent prototype construction (whether concrete, mixed or

abstract).

It is expected that students in this model course are not familiar with the notion of

constructions (and certainly not of constructional schemas), so this lesson is designed to

introduce constructions and how they operate by presenting salient constructions in authentic

language. This task is not insurmountable. Second language learners do employ lexico-

grammatical strings, and these strings are important pieces of early second language production

(Durrant & Schmitt, 2010). The focus of this type of lesson is to first orient the students toward a

kind of constructional thinking where they actively seek out patterns of language use. Initially,

these investigations should focus on very salient, stable constructions such as fixed constructions

in an academic text. Holme (2010) offers a general pedagogical sequence informed by the

construction-based research outlined above. He suggests a five step process for construction-

based teaching which forms the framework for the lesson plan detailed below.

1.   Construction identification

2.   Construction specification

3.   Construction reproduction: exploring construction meaning

4.   Reinforcing meaning through conceptualization

43    

   

5.   Representing the construction’s category meaning

(Holme, 2010: 367-370).

The teaching sequence outlined above reflects an intuitive approach to the acquisition of

constructions. First, students are presented a text with the target construction (8). The instructor

then prompts students to isolate a particular section of text in order to specify the component

parts of the target construction. Together, the instructor and learners work upwards to specify

and schematize the target construction (9).

(8) This study shows a link between exam success and the number of hours a student studies

(9) A connection between Trend X and Trend Y.

With this schematized form, learners are able to experiment by creating their own novel

reproductions of the constructional schema. The focus is on producing meaningful instantiations

in context, so the instructor should provide relevant feedback for support. Learners are then

encouraged to understand the construction by conceptualizing how it represents information.

Holme (2012) suggests this can be achieved by drawing a picture of the conceptual

representation (here a spotlight and a chain link). Since construal is an explicit topic in this

approach, I advocate that the high proficiency learners in this model course should be prepared to

have a metalinguistic discussion about how constructions construe a scene. Finally, Holme

suggests that students represent the construction by mapping out several instantiations of the

construction, with the one most meaningful to the learner at the centre of the map. These

constructional maps can be a resource for students to keep in a notebook and can take the place

of traditional vocabulary lists.

The CL approach gives lexical phrase learning a sound theoretical background supported

through empirical research. Constructions are brought into the classroom through student corpus

investigations, prototype heavy materials and discourse management lessons. One example of a

construction appropriate to the latter approach could be a lesson on discussion strategies.

Prototypical lexical phrases for agreement or disagreement are taught, then the underlying

construction is explicitly brought to the surface and students are subsequently asked to abstract

the construction by employing the underlying structure to create novel phrases. The slots in these

44    

   

novel phrase constructions can be filled with a range of lexical entries across a range of registers.

Critically, this final slot fill task combines the notions of genre and conceptual construal with the

mechanics of construction learning. The specific constructions below are adapted from Bieber et

al. (2004) who present a list of the most frequent lexical bundles in academic writing.

4.3.2 Lesson

Aims:

•   To familiarize learners to the nature of constructions and constructional schemas. •   To demonstrate productivity in construction learning. •   To present an efficient means for learners to categorize and take inventory of newly

learned constructions.

Objectives:

•   Learners should be able to locate frequent constructions in within a text. •   Learners should be able to identify connections among several instantiations of a

particular construction. •   Learners should be able to work towards a more productive, schematic description of

familiar constructions within academic writing.

Warm Up

1.   On an overhead projector or on the whiteboard, the instructor displays a large picture with several activities depicted.

2.   The instructor asks students to describe what they see in the picture (the picture should have several different elements to make it difficult for the students to refer to it as a whole.

3.   The instructor then holds up an empty frame (for a painting) and asks the students what the object is for. The instructor should encourage responses such as “it creates a boarder”, “it focuses your attention” or even “it frames a picture”.

4.   The instructor then places the frame over a section of the picture and asks students to describe what they see.

In the subsequent discussion, the instructor will ask why the frame was helpful in forming a response. The instructor will then prompt students to consider how language can help in identifying or “framing” language.

Language Task 1

The focus of this first task is to present framing constructions such as the nature of (det+N), the case of (det+N), the terms of (det + N)

45    

   

1.   The students will receive a sample text which uses several instantiations of one of the above constructions. Working as a class, students should identify the phrase used to frame or identify a concept.

2.   The instructor writes the construction on the white board and students will copy the construction into a notebook to collect constructions (in place of traditional lexis)

3.   The instructor works with the class to schematize the construction. The instructor prompts students to review the examples of the construction from the sample text and generalize the information to create the general schema [the X of DET + N].

Language Task 2

The second language task is meant to provide students with a more thorough understanding of the meaning of the construction.

1.   The instructor leads the class in substituting words in the open slots of the construction. The students, working as a class, provide feedback about how well the substitution fits the intended meaning of the framing construction.

2.   Students copy down the instantiation of the construction which is most meaningful to them and create a prototype diagram, with spaces to write additional instantiations of the construction.

Production

The production task is a short exercise meant to encourage learners to implement the construction in real-time production. Taking turns, pairs of students will each read from a short text with the framing construction omitted while the other partner inserts the correct construction form.

4.4 Genre and academic writing

4.4.1 Introduction

Genre-based frames are also essential in the learning of constructions. One very salient tool for

the explicit instruction of these constructions is genre analysis. Genre provides the learner a

contextual frame on which to map linguistic and pragmatic choices. The role of genre analysis in

a cognitive second language classroom is to make learners aware of how other language users

create meaning and to stress the role of stylistic and pragmatic awareness in language

production. In this approach, learners first explore and define the boundaries of a particular

genre by evaluating the role of text type, audience and purpose. Subsequent classroom work

seeks to investigate the specific linguistic choices which are first coded and subsequently

received by the hearer. This analysis phase is followed by scaffold production tasks which

emphasize the wide range of contextual constraints and allow learners to operationalize data

46    

   

discovered through close analysis. A study by Upton & Connor (2001) investigated the use of a

corpus combined with concordancer software for the purpose of teaching discourse moves within

a particular genre of writing. The study focused on a learner corpus to identify discourse moves

such as politeness strategies, indirectness, and the use of modal verbs. The learner corpus

revealed clear pragmatic differences among text types and the cultural backgrounds of the

speakers. Here concordance results helped to identify the frequency of pragmatic constructions.

Constructions of politeness strategies and other pragmatic expressions are typically not salient.

Students in a cognitive construction based second language classroom could examine several

lines of text from a concordancer and discuss the pragmatic nuances associated with each of the

entries. Students could then examine the context of the discourse moves and determine how the

linguistic constructions changed the pragmatic weight of each of the sentences. Finally, students

could be asked to build on particular examples to define lexico-grammatical constructions that

could be effectively used within the genre of study. This type of corpus-based genre analysis

provides the language instructor with a wider set of tools to investigate how texts are created and

received. This bottom-up approach can also provide language learners with a more in-depth

understanding of the subtleties of academic communication that may otherwise go unnoticed.

One related pedagogical approach that incorporates the notion of the weak interface

teaching is the Data Driven Learning method that has gained traction since the early 1990s. This

approach most accurately captures the advantages of using concordance software within the

language learning classroom. Data-driven learning was developed largely by Tim Johns, who

promoted the idea of language learners as “language detectives” (Hunston, 2002). Language

users use various linguistic input to make connections and ultimately to categorize the

underlying patterns and structure to target language use (Hunston, 2002). This approach has been

beneficial for both proficient learners seeking individual pieces of linguistic information, as well

as beginners who can learn to rely on contextual information to aid in the understanding of new

linguistic information. Another approach, Discovery Learning, also forwards the importance of

the language student as proactive in language acquisition.

Discovery Learning differs in that it explicitly calls upon the student to make use of adult

processing capabilities (Ullman, 2001) in order to most effectively sort and remember novel

linguistic information. Both data-driven learning and discovery learning view the instructor as a

guide, who is helpful in demonstrating what types of questions students should be posing and

47    

   

also how they can interpret contextual cues. Bernardini (in Hunston, 2002) describes how the use

of corpora in the language classroom shifts the emphasis from teacher-guided deductive learning,

to learner-centered inductive learning. A corpus provides language learners with nearly limitless

linguistic resources from which to draw and a concordancer gives learners a tool to

independently explore the information in order to make autonomous decisions about the

underlying mechanisms and patterns in language. A typical lesson activity has students working

in pairs to parse through concordance results from a purpose-built corpus. The instructor leads a

short discussion about a specific language topic and prompts students to investigate the list of

collocations, word frequency lists and syntactic colligations. The student then work together to

make meaningful conclusions about the data from the concordance lists and attempt to piece

these new conclusions into useful information about the language of study. Later, the instructor’s

role is to guide the class at large as they compare results and discuss the grammatical

associations they have uncovered.

4.4.2 Lesson

Aims:

•   To demonstrate how linguistic choices are influenced by contextual factors. •   To develop a working definition of the genre of academic writing. •   To introduce students to linguistic corpora and concordance software.

Objectives:

•   Learners should be able to make meaningful observations about the important features of academic writing.

•   Learners should be able to make conclusions about the kind of language used in academic writing.

•   Learners should be able to use corpus data to identify frequent collocations and their functions in writing.

Warm Up

Students will be presented with a short academic text which does not fit the conventions of academic writing. The instructor will prompt the students to explore why the text does not fit and how unconventional writing might impact reception.

48    

   

Workshop

This lesson is meant to serve as a date-driven workshop where students work to define the boundaries of the genre of academic writing. The instructor will distribute a large blank poster paper with the heading “academic writing.” Working in groups, students are to parse through the available data of full academic papers, titles and concordance results (frequency lists and collocations) from an academic corpus to write information about the following aspects of academic writing:

•   Structure •   Discourse “moves” •   Register •   Style

Each group will write the most important findings on the poster paper. At the end of the session, the class will work together to form a master list which defines the genre of academic writing. Production This lesson should take place after a first draft has been submitted. After the workshop, students will compare a draft of their own academic writing with the guidelines produced in class. Students will create a short report which identifies the areas of their own writing which should be more conventional. 4.5. Corpus in the classroom- Passives in academic writing 4.5.1 Introduction This next lesson builds on the data-driven learning practices. The previous lesson (4.4) was

structured as an inductive investigation, where students were provided raw linguistic data and

asked students to formulate more general rules, this lesson will ask students to investigate how

general rules or descriptions of language forms appear in context. Data-driven learning involves

both inductive and deductive tasks in the second language classroom (Hunston, 2002), and this

lesson will use grammar book descriptions and a professional corpus to help learners formulate

rules about passives in academic discourse. This lesson focuses on bringing corpus work into the

classroom and can easily be adapted from passives to other language topics salient to high

proficiency learners. Corpus-based lessons provide language learners with statistical information

about language frequency, use in context and can provide a scaffold support when students

encounter lexico-grammatical phrases which have not yet been acquired. There is good empirical

(Bloch, 2010; Flowerdew, 2005) and anecdotal (Yoon, 2008; Yoon & Hirvela, 2004) evidence to

support the use of corpus based-lessons in academic writing in particular. Lessons which center

the use of linguistic corpora are of particular interest to the pedagogical approach forwarded

here, as the corpora provide an open resource from which to drawn contextualized and authentic

49    

   

language. Most importantly, the use of corpora in conjunction with concordance software allows

language learners to control and parse through the data in a meaningful, relevant and focused

way. These kinds of lessons offer precisely the type of practice advocated by N. Ellis and Bogart

(2008). Here a wide range of linguistic input is made meaningful by its context and the explicit

instruction which attends to particular forms and their function. Like all lessons and approaches

advocated here, the attached lesson is meant for high proficiency learners who are able to engage

in metalinguistic discussion and who already have some knowledge of active and passive verb

forms. While these particular lessons are meant for high proficiency learners, data-driven

methods of this lesson (but not the content) could be adaptable for all ranges of language

proficiency

As it relates to the overall scope of a program, this particular lesson should be situated

after students have already been introduced to academic writing. Ideally, this lesson would take

place after students had submitted a first draft, as the concordance work could be particularly

useful for revision. Students should already be familiar with the genre of academic writing and

the particular constraints regarding register, lexis and structure. These concepts should help

guide student inquiry and discussion during the lesson.

4.5.2 Lesson

Aims:

•   To increase student proficiency and independence in using data-driven learning strategies.

•   To examine and evaluate the use of passive and active verb construction in student and professional writing samples.

Objectives:

•   Students should be able to independently use data-driven learning strategies to make reasonable conclusions about language use in context.

•   Students should be able to apply knowledge of active/passive verb constructions in their own written works by more accurately reflecting target use.

•   Students should be able to use corpus materials to independently edit written work.

Procedure

Warm up:

50    

   

The lesson will begin with a few examples of active and passive verb constructions. The instructor should choose examples which are rich enough to provide salient cues about the functions of the verb constructions and the contexts surrounding each type of construction. Students work through the examples first in pairs and later in a class discussion.

Examples: The clock tower was finished in 1885. Over three thousand visitors have stayed in the new hotel this year. Previous reports have contained incorrect information.

Review: Passive Verb Constructions

From the initial analysis of passive/active verbs in contexts:

1.   Students will be briefly asked to identify the differences between active and passive verb constructions. The discussion should include general usage and forms.

2.   Students will be provided with a handout of the information below and encouraged to consider the examples and the reasons why a writer might choose to present information in the passive form.

Language Focus 1

1.   Student discussion about the sample sentences should lead to the following general categories of passive use according to Givón (in Tyler, 2010). Instructors should be prepared to be somewhat flexible as they define the categories with students. Inform students that this list can be altered or amended as they acquire the relevant information. a.   Focus on the theme b.   Makes the action static c.   De-emphasis of agent

2.   Students should use the passive constructional schemas to search the corpus for examples

of each type of use. Each pair will write their responses on the worksheet. 3.   The students should use the Wadsworth Handbook to check their responses. Have the

students choose one more function of passive constructions and search the corpus for an example.

Language Focus 2

1.   The students should turn over the worksheet to activity 2. This activity will focus on three types of constructions of passive verbs:

2.   Students will be prompted with search options to run through AntConc software. These search options will correspond to these three constructions of passive verbs and will allow students to collect data on passive constructions.

51    

   

3.   Students will be asked to find the frequency of each of these three passive constructions. 4.   As a class, compare findings and check results.

Language Focus 3

1.   Students will be asked to move to the final section of the worksheet which focuses on the difference between a) get passives and b) have + object + past participle passives.

2.   The worksheet will contain one example of each type of passives (a+b) and will prompt students to identify difference in the way these passive forms are used.

3.   Students should compare the frequency of each type of construction in the professional corpus.

4.   As a class, compare findings and check results.

52    

   

5. Conclusion

The central goal of this thesis is to explore how a cognitive approach to second language

teaching might address some of the most critical problems in second language acquisition. This

CL perspective is based in the most recent work in psycholinguistics and cognitive neuroscience

and views the learning task as one of general cognition. Together, these insights provide

evidence for the types of pedagogical practices which could be most beneficial for second

language learners. The course proposal offered in section 4 reflects my efforts to incorporate

these insights into a comprehensive unit for high proficiency learners. This proposal in general

and the individual lessons present linguistic input in conjunction with context and purpose so that

learners have a more comprehensive view of how meaning is coded in language. The lesson

plans are meant to provide an important step in bringing CL insights into the language learning

classroom.

From the standpoint of language teaching, the cognitive approach to language pedagogy

provides some exciting ways to bridge good teaching practice to a wider theoretical model of

acquisition. The approach provided by Cognitive Linguistics helps to explain why some

contemporary pedagogical methods are effective and outlines the second language acquisition

task in a way that is accessible to language teachers. I believe this last point is most encouraging.

Cognitive Linguistics offers a transparent connection between linguistic theory and the ways that

classroom teaching can present language input. By incorporating general cognitive learning

strategies into the second language pedagogical practice, a course based on Cognitive Language

Pedagogy presents language in a realistic and comprehensive way. Language learners are also

able to employ the full extent of their processing capabilities toward the language learning task.

While the course proposal outlined above focuses on a very specific application of

Cognitive Language Pedagogy, I believe that the theoretical framework and general principles

presented here can be extended to all second language learning classrooms. While there is still a

great deal of work to be done, CL and constructions hold a great deal of promise. I believe that

the principles of this approach can revolutionize the scope and content of second language

instruction.

53    

   

References Achard, M. (2008). Teaching construal: cognitive pedagogical grammar. In P. Robinson, & N.

Ellis (Eds), The Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Acquistion (pp. 432-455). New York: Routledge.

Antonopoulou, E., & Nikiforidou, K. (2011). Construction grammar and conventional discourse: a construction-based approach to discoursal incongruity. Journal of Pragmatics, 2594-2609.

Bencini, G. M., & Goldberg, A. E. (2000). The contribution of argument structure constructions to sentence meaning. Journal of Memory and Language 43, 640-651.

Berendi, M., Csabi, S., & Kovecses, Z. (2008). Using conceptual metaphors and metonymies in vocabulary teaching. In F. Boers, & S. Lindstromberg (Eds), Cognitive Linguistic Approaches to Teaching Vocabulary and Phraseology (pp. 1-61). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Cortes, V. (2004). If you look at...: Lexical bundles in university teaching and textbooks. Applied Linguistics 25(3), 371-405.

Bloch, J. (2010). A concordance-based study of the use of reporting verbs as rhetorical devices in academic papers. Journal of Writing Research 2(2), 219-244.

Boers, F., & Lindstromberg, S. (2008). From empirical finding to pedagogical practice. In F. Boers, & S. Lindstromberg (Eds), Cognitive Linguistic Approaches to Teaching Vocabulary and

Phraseology (pp. 375-394). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Booij, G. (2010). Construction morphology. Language and Linguistics Compass 4(7), 543-555. Bybee, J. (2008). Usage-based grammar and second language acquisition. In P. Robinson, & N. C. Ellis (Eds), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition (pp. 216-

233). New York: Routledge. Charles, F. (1976). Frame semantics and the nature of language. Annals of the New York

Academic of Science: Conference on the Origin and Development of Language and Speech, 280, 120-32.

Croft, W. (2001). Radical Construction Grammar. New York: Oxford University Press. Croft, W., & Cruse, D. A. (2004). Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press. Durrant, P., & Schmitt, N. (2010). Adult learners' retention of collocations from exposure.

Second language research 26(2), 163-188. Ellis, N. C. (2007). The weak-interface, consciousness, and form-focused instruction: mind the

doors. In S. Fotos, & H. Nassaji (Eds), Form Focused Instruction and Teacher Education: Studies in Honour of Rod Ellis (pp. 17-33). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ellis, N. C. (2008). Usage-based and form-focused language acquisition. In P. Robinson, & N. C. Ellis (Eds), The Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition (pp. 372-

405). New York: Routledge. Ellis, N. C. (2013). Second language acquistion. In T. Hoffmann, & G. Trousdale (Eds), The

Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. 365-378). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ellis, N. C., & Bogart, P. S. (2007). Speech and language technology in education: the perspective from SLA research and practice. SLaTE-2007, (pp. 1-8).

Ellis, N. C., & Ferreira-Junior, F. (2009). Constructions and their acquisition: Islands and the distinctiveness of their occupancy. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 7, 187-220.

54    

   

Ellis, R. (1993). The structural syllabus and second langauge acquisition. TESOL Quarterly 27 (1), 91-113.

Evans, V., & Green, M. (2006). Cognitive linguistics: an introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Flowerdew, L. (2005). An integration of corpus-based and genre-based approaches to text analysis in EAP/ESP: countering criticisms against corpus-based methodologies. English for Specific Purposes 24, 321-332.

Goldberg, A. (2003). Constructions: a new theoretical approach to language. Trends in Cognitive Science, 7(5), 219-224.

Goldberg, A. (2006). Constructions at Work. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Goldberg, A. E., & Casenhiser, D. (2008). Construction learning and second language

acquisition. In P. Robinson, & N. C. Ellis (Eds), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition (pp. 197-215). New York: Routledge.

Hadley, G. (2002). An introduction to data-driven learning. RELC Journal 33, 99-124. Hirvela, A., & Yoon, H. (2004). ESL student attitudes toward corpus use in L2 writing. Journal

of Second Language Writing 13(4), 257-283. Holme, R. (2010). A construction grammar for the classroom. International Review of Applied

Linguistics 48, 355-377. Holme, R. (2012). Cognitive linguistics and the second language classroom. TESOL Quarterly

46, 6-29. Hunston, S. (2002). Corpora in Applied Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Krashen, S. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford:

Pergamon Press. Langacker, R. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Langacker, R. (2000). Grammar and Conceptualization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Langacker, R. (2008). Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction. New York: Oxford University

Press. Langacker, R. (2009). A dynamic view of usage and language acquisition. Cognitive Linguistics

20(3), 627-640. Lewis, M. (1993). The Lexical Approach: The State of ELT and a Way Forward. Hove:

Language Teaching Publications. Littlemore, J. (2009). Applying cognitive linguistics to second language learning and teaching.

Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan. Nattinger, J. R., & DeCarrico, J. S. (1992). Lexical Phrases and Language Teaching. Oxford:

Oxford University Press. Odlin, T. (2008). Conceptual transfer and meaning extentions. In P. Robinson, & N. C. Ellis

(Eds), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition (pp. 306- 340). New York: Routledge.

Östman, J.-O. (2005). Construction discourse: a prolegomenon. In J.-O. Östman, & M. Fried (Eds), Construction Grammars: Cognitive Groundings and Theoretical Extensions (pp. 121-144). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Petruck, M. R. (1996). Frame Semantics. In J. Verschueren, J.-O. Östman, J. Blommaert, & C. Bulcaen (Eds), Handbook of Pragmatics (pp. 1-13). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Radden, G., & Dirven, R. (2007). Cognitive English Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Roche, J. (2014). Language acquisition and language pedagogy. In J. Littlemore, & J. R. Taylor

55    

   

(Eds), The Bloomsbury Companion to Cogntive Linguistics (pp. 325-351). London: Bloomsbury

Slobin, D. (1996). From "thought and language" to "thinking for speaking". In J. J. Gumperz, & S. C. Levinson (Eds), Rethinking Linguistic Relativity (pp. 70-96). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Taylor, J. R. (2002). Cognitive Grammar. New York: Oxford University Press. Terrell, T. (1991). The role of grammar instruction in a communicative approach. Modern

Language Journal 75, 52-63. Tomasello, M. (2001). First steps toward a usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cognitive

Linguistics 11, 61-82. Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language: a usage-based theory of language acquisition.

Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Tyler, A. (2008). Cognitive linguistics and second language instruction. In P. Robinson, & N.

Ellis (Eds), The Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition (pp. 456-488). New York: Routledge.

Tyler, A. (2010). Usage-based approaches to language and their applications to second language learning. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 30, 270-291.

Ullman, M. (2005). A Cognitive Neuroscience Perspective on Second Language Acquisition: The Declarative/Procedural Model. In C. Sanz (Ed), Mind & Context in Adult Second Language Acquisition (pp. 141-178). Washington D.C.: Georgetown University Press.

Ullman, M. T. (2001). The Declarative/Procedural Model of Lexicon and Grammar. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 30(1), 37-69.

Upton, T. A., & Connor, U. (2001). Using computerized corpus analysis to investigate the textlinguistic discourse moves of a genre. English for Specific Purposes 20, 313-329.

Verhagen, A. (2007). Construal and Perspectivization. In D. Geeraerts, & H. Cuyckens (Eds), Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 48-81). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Yoon, H. (2008). More than a linguistic reference: the influence of corpus technology on L2 academic writing. Language Learning & Technology 12(2), 31-48.