Share This Article:

Cognitive Linguistics–Inspired Empirical Study of Chinese EFL Teaching

Full-Text HTML Download Download as PDF (Size:109KB) PP. 354-362
DOI: 10.4236/ce.2011.24050    7,022 Downloads   11,985 Views   Citations
Author(s)    Leave a comment

ABSTRACT

Aiming to verify how and why insightfulness of the CL-inspired approach can facilitate L2 or FL learners in the process of learning English as a second or a foreign language, an empirical study of Chinese EFL learners has been carried out in the authentic Chinese EFL classroom on the campus of Tianjin Foreign Studies University. After the classroom treatment, it has been found that the EG outperformed the CG by 21.7% based on the results from the delayed posttest in Experiment 1; by 6.73% in Experiment 2; by 6.61% in Experiment 3; by 21.7% in Experiment 4. The study has concluded that through awakening students’ metaphoric awareness and analyzing features of the image schematic structure, the CL-inspired approach benefits L2 or FL learners in the process of learning English as a foreign language with respect to lexical and grammatical competence, metaphorical and pragmatic or sociolinguist competence, including semantic comprehension in reading, writing and translation, particularly in terms of long-term retention of memory.

Cite this paper

Gao, Y. (2011). Cognitive Linguistics–Inspired Empirical Study of Chinese EFL Teaching. Creative Education, 2, 354-362. doi: 10.4236/ce.2011.24050.

References

[1] Achard, M., & Niemeier, S. (Eds.) (2004). Cognitive linguistics, second language acquisition, and foreign language teaching. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
[2] Arnold, J. (1999). Affect language learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[3] Baddeley, A. (1990). Human memory. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
[4] Beréndi, M., Csábi, S., & K?vecses, Z. (2008). Using conceptual metaphors and metonymies in vocabulary teaching. In F. Boers and S. Lindstromberg (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistic Approaches to Teaching Vocabulary and Phraseology (pp. 65-100). New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
[5] Boers, F., & Lindstromberg, S. (Eds.) (2008). Cognitive linguistic approaches to teaching vocabulary and phraseology. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
[6] Boers, F., & Lindstromberg, S. (2006). Cognitive linguistics application in second or foreign language instruction: Rationale, proposals, and evaluation. In G. Kristiansen, et al. (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics: Cu- Rrent Applications and Future Perspectives (pp. 305-358). New York: Mouton de Gruyter. doi:10.1515/9783110197761.4.305
[7] Boers, F., & Lindstomberg, S. (2005). Finding ways to make phrase- learning feasible: The mnemonic effect of alliteration. System, 33, 225- 238. doi:10.1016/j.system.2004.12.007
[8] Boers, F., & Demecheleer, M. (2004). Cross-cultural variation as a variable in comprehending and remembering figurative idioms. European Journal of English Studies, 8, 375-388. doi:10.1080/1382557042000277449
[9] Boers, F. (2000a). Enhancing metaphoric awareness in specialised reading. English for Specific Purposes, 19, 137-147. doi:10.1016/S0889-4906(98)00017-9
[10] Boers, F. (2000b). Metaphor awareness and vocabulary retention. Applied Linguistic, 21, 553-571. doi:10.1093/applin/21.4.553
[11] Boers, F. (1999). When a bodily source domain becomes prominent: The joy of counting metaphor in the socio-economic domain. In R. W. Gibbs and G. J. Steen (Eds.), Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 47-56). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
[12] Boers, F., & Demecheleer, M. (1998). Cognitive semantic approach to teaching preposition. English Language Teaching Journal, 52, 197- 204. doi:10.1093/elt/52.3.197
[13] Boers, F. (1996). Spatial prepositions and metaphor: A cognitive semantic journey along the up-down and the front-back dimensions. Tubingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.
[14] Bolinger, D. (1971). The phrasal verb in English. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
[15] Broukal, M. (1995). Idioms for everyday use. IL: NTC Publishing Group.
[16] Cameron, L., & Low, G. (1999). Researching and applying metaphor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[17] Clark, J. M. & Paivio, A. (1991). Dual coding theory and education. Educational Psychology Review, 3, 149-170. doi:10.1007/BF01320076
[18] Cohen, P. R. (2000). Learning Concepts by Interaction. Technical Report, Computer Science Department, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.
[19] Condon, N. (2008). How cognitive linguistic motivations influence the learning of the phrasal verbs. In F. Boers and S. Lindstromberg (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistic Approaches to Teaching Vocabulary and Phraseology (pp. 133-158). New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
[20] Croft, W (1998). Mental representations. Cognitive Linguistics, 9, 151- 174. doi:10.1515/cogl.1998.9.2.151
[21] Cuyckens, H., Dirven, R., & Taylor, J., B. (Eds.) (2003). Cognitive Approaches to Lexal Semantics. New York: Mouton de Gruyte.
[22] Ellis, N. C., & Freeman, D. L. (2006). Language emergence: implications for applied linguistics—introduction to the special issue. Applied Linguistics, 27, 558-589. doi:10.1093/applin/aml028
[23] Fauconnier, G. (1985). Mental spaces: Aspects of meaning construction in natural language. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
[24] Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (2002). The way we think: Conceptual blending and the minds hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books. A Member of the Perseus Books Group.
[25] Fillmore, C. (1985). Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Semantica, 6, 222-254.
[26] Geeraerts, D. (2010). Theories of lexical semantics. New York: Oxford University Press.
[27] Gibbs, R. (1992). What do idioms really mean? Journal of Memory and Language, 31, 485-506. doi:10.1016/0749-596X(92)90025-S
[28] Gibbs, R. W. (2006). Embodiment and cognitive science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[29] Hampe, B., & Grady, J. (2005). From perception to meaning: Image schemas in cognitive linguistics. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. doi:10.1515/9783110197532
[30] Johnson, M. (1987). The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
[31] K?vecses, Z. (2005). Metaphor in culture: Universality and variation. London: Cambridge University Press.
[32] K?vecses, Z. (2006). Language, mind and culture: A practical introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[33] K?vecses, Z., & Szabó, P. (1996). Idioms: A view from cognitive semantics. Applied Linguistics, 17, 326-355. doi:10.1093/applin/17.3.326
[34] Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
[35] Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
[36] Langacker, R. W. (1987)..Foundations of cognitive grammar: Theoretical prerequisites (Volume I). Stanford: Stanford University Press.
[37] Lazar, G. (1996). Using figurative language to expand students’ vocabulary. ELT Journal, 50, 43-51. doi:10.1093/elt/50.1.43
[38] Lazar, G. (2003). Meaning and metaphors: Activities to practise figurative language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[39] Lindner, S. (1981). A lexico-semantic analysis of English verb-particle constructions with UP and OUT. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, San Diego, University of California.
[40] Littlemore, J. (2001a). Metaphoric competence: A language learning strength of students with a holistic cognitive style? TESOL Quarterly, 35, 459-491. doi:10.2307/3588031
[41] Littlemore, J. (2001b). An empirical study of the relationship between cognitive style and the use of communication strategy. Applied Linguistics, 22, 241-265. doi:10.1093/applin/22.2.241
[42] Littlemore, J., & Low, G. (2006). Figurative thinking and foreign language learning. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave MacMillan. doi:10.1057/9780230627567
[43] Littlemore, J., & Low, G. (2006). Metaphoric competence, second language learning, and communicative. Language Ability Applied Linguistics, 27, 268-294.
[44] Radden, G., & Panther, K.-U. (2004). Studies in linguistic motivation. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
[45] Sadoski, M., & Paivio, A. (2001). A dual coding theory of reading and writing. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publishers.
[46] Sophia, S. (2008). Conceptual metaphoric meaning clues in two idiom presentation methods. In F. Boers and S. Lindstromberg (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistic Approaches to Teaching Vocabulary and Phraseology (pp. 101-132). New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
[47] Gao, Y. M. (2010). Applying CL to L2 acquisition. Tianjin: Nankai University Press.
[48] Gao, Y. M. (2001). Learn how to learn: Comparative research on learning style preferences. Teaching English in China, 4, 51-57.
[49] Gao, Y. M. (1996). T.R.I. model and college English reading. Foreign Language World, 3, 34-37.
[50] Li, F. Y. (2004). Applied cognitive linguistics. Beijing: China Wenshi Publishing.
[51] Liang, X. B. (2000). Enlightenments of the cognitive linguistics on English vocabulary teaching. Foreign Language Teaching and Research, 2, 35-39.
[52] Liu, Z. G. (2010). Cognitive linguistic view of language and principles for FL teaching. Foreign Language Research, 1, 10-16.
[53] Yu, N. (1998). The contemporary theory of metaphor: A perspective from Chinese. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
[54] Wang, Y. (2006). A Survey to cognitive linguistics. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.

  
comments powered by Disqus

Copyright © 2017 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

Creative Commons License

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.