1

INTRODUCTION
Where Have We Been and
Where Can We Go?

1. Why Should I Read this Book? No Silver Bullets

Learning a language is one of the most complex accomplishments humans achieve.
We have known for many years that the story of children mastering their first
language effortlessly in a short three- or four-year period is just that, a story.
Research has long established that children learning their first language take at least
eight years in an immersion situation to master many of the more complex gram-
matical constructions of their language. They generally do not gain productive
control over much of derivational morphology until they are 10 or older. Many
aspects of pragmatics take even longer. Given the length of time and attention
needed for first language learning, it stands to reason that no new model of the
structure of language can radically reduce the difficulty facing adult second
language (L2) learners. However, the task of the adult L2 learner in the instructed
L2 learning situation has been made even more difficult by the fact that important
elements of systematicity that exist in language have not been captured by the
traditional view of language. This view has been the mainstay of both descriptive
and pedagogical grammars that underlie most modern L2 learning research and
English language teaching (ELT) textbooks and materials for the past 50 plus years.
This book introduces a new and very different approach to pedagogical grammar
– a cognitive linguistics approach (CL).1 This approach to L2 grammar and

1 The use of the word “approach” is quite deliberate. Cognitive linguistics is not a
monolithic theory of language. There are a number of contending analyses for various
aspects of language. For instance, in my explication, I primarily focus on Adele
Goldberg’s (1995, 2006) version of construction grammar. However, Croft (2001) and
Bergen and Chen (2005) have developed alternative models of construction grammar.
4 The Basics of Cognitive Linguistics

lexis does not offer an easy, guaranteed shortcut for helping L2 students become
near-native speakers. What it does offer is a different understanding of the nature
and organization of language, one which is more accurate, explanatory and more
complete than the traditional view.
The traditional view treats language as a system separate from other cognitive and
social abilities, an entity separate unto itself. Being an isolated system, disconnected
from general cognitive processes and conceptual structure, language has traditionally
been understood as operating under its own set of rules and properties, most of
which have been assumed to be largely arbitrary, idiosyncratic and mysterious. This
view tends to represent language as a set of rules (often attempting to represent
“alternating,” “synonymous” sentence patterns, such as so-called dative alternation
or active–passive alternation, as transforms of a basic pattern), a list of vocabulary
items that plug into the rules, and a list of exceptions to the rules. The approach to
language learning that accompanies this view of language emphasizes the need for
the learner to master the rules and memorize the exceptions.2
A CL account differs radically from the traditional perspective by emphasizing
that language is best understood as a reflection of general cognitive processes, the
highly social nature of humans as a species, and the unique ways that humans
experience and interact with the physical world. This last point is the notion of
embodied meaning. In addition, CL emphasizes the recurrent organizing
principles that are found at all “levels” of language. So, for example, in the tradi-
tional approach, metaphor is understood as only pertaining to limited aspects of
non-literal language and is largely treated as outside the domain of systematic
investigation. In contrast, the CL approach treats metaphor (i.e., understanding
entities, actions, or events, in one domain, the target domain, in terms of entities,

Ron Langacker (e.g., 1987/1991) developed cognitive grammar, a fully articulated theory
that focuses on the spatial nature of human thinking, successfully using concepts such as
Focus and Ground to explain basic sentence structure and force dymanics in what
Langacker calls the “action chain” model. Each of these models represents a unique and
important perspective on just how grammar works. However, all these approaches also
agree on certain fundamentals, first and foremost being that syntactic patterns, like all
aspects of language, are symbolic units which consist of form–meaning pairings and,
thus, are meaningful in themselves.
2 With the communicative, focus on form and task-based approaches there has been a
shift in emphasis to implicit learning through rich input, meaning negotiation, and
pushed output. These L2 teaching methodologies do not overtly relate to any particular
model of language and do not overtly attempt to explain the patterns of the target
language. In theory, most learning of the target language takes place implicitly.
However, studies show that most language teachers do offer explanations for the
grammar, and certainly most ELT texts, even those purporting to take a communicative
approach, offer rules. These rules are generally based on the traditional view. It is likely
that the trend of explicit presentation of rules will continue, especially in light of Norris
and Ortega’s (2000) extensive review of the relevant literature which demonstrates that
L2 learners appear to benefit from a combination of both explicit presentation of
grammatical patterns and communicative manipulation of the language.
 Introduction 5

actions, or events in another domain, the source domain) as a fundamental aspect

of human cognition, which is pervasively reflected in language.
Under a CL account, the same principles of metaphorical extension, force
dynamics, and sensory perception that account for semantic extension of open-
class lexical items, such as grasp and head, and semantic extensions of closed-class
lexical items, such as prepositions, are also central to a systematic, principled
account of verb argument structure and the particular syntactic patterns in which
individual verbs occur. (This will be discussed extensively in Chapter 6.) Relatively
recently, the traditional approach has acknowledged another layer of the language
system which involves functional or pragmatic aspects of language use. Examples
of this layer include politeness formulas and their contexts of use (e.g., in making
a polite request, use could instead of can, Could I ask a favor?); speech act formulas
(such as set phrases for offering an apology or making a complaint); and register
differences (e.g., using sweat in more informal contexts and perspire in formal ones).
While I applaud the language teaching approaches and materials that include
pragmatic and discourse aspects of language use, I reject the notion that pragmatics
should be largely treated as an “add-on,” disconnected from the formal gram-
matical and lexical structure of the language. Within a CL approach, pragmatic
inferencing is understood as a ubiquitous cognitive process fundamental to how
we interpret the world that surrounds us, one component of which includes
language. CL analyses present pragmatic inferencing as integral to any interpreta-
tion of language, to semantic extension and grammatical extension. Moreover,
many aspects of politeness, for instance using could and would, rather than can and
will, turn out to be motivated aspects of a principled system.
As we will see, a significant disadvantage of the traditional perspective is that it
fails to take into account our everyday interactions with and understanding of the
world and their effect on language. One significant consequence of this perspec-
tive for pedagogical grammars, upon which ELT teachers rely and ELT textbooks
are based, is that functions associated with distinct grammatical constructions, e.g.,
the full range of different functions associated with tense (e.g., time-reference,
attenuation, counterfactuals, etc.) have been at worst ignored, or at best, presented
in piecemeal fashion, with no indication that these functions are related to one
another and so motivated (see Tyler & Evans 2001a).3 Hence the traditional
grammars fail to inform the L2 researcher and the language teacher of significant
regularities and systematic connections in the language.
This book takes a quite different perspective, one which asks you, as a pro-
fessional in the area of L2 learning, to set aside your established ways of thinking

3 Criticizing pedagogical grammars for failing to present organized systems, such as the
multiple functions of tense, in a piecemeal fashion should not be taken as criticizing ELT
texts for not presenting students with all aspects of the system in one go, rather than in
a selected and graded fashion. The point is that the researcher and the teacher need to
understand the system in order to make informed choices about appropriate experi-
mental materials, sequencing and teaching materials.
6 The Basics of Cognitive Linguistics

about the nature of language. Rather than thinking about language as a set of rules,
each with a set of exceptions for L2 learners to memorize, the CL approach asks
you to consider the social and physical world you operate in every day, general
human cognitive processes, and the connections between that social–physical
world and the structure of language itself. Here is a simple example: Everyday co-
occurrences we observe between the rising level of a river and an increased amount
of rainfall or the rising level of liquid in a measuring cup and an increase in amount
of liquid, turn out to be reflected in language use.
We find many instances of language that literally refer to physical elevation
being used to talk about increases in amount. For instance, in a sentence like The
price of that stock is up, in which the monetary amount the stock is worth is held to
have increased, we find language that literally refers to physical elevation, up, being
used to refer to an increase in a rather abstract area, monetary value. In fact, this
connection is so strongly conventionalized in English that it is often difficult for
us not to talk, and think, about an increase in the amount of something without
talking, and thinking, in terms of an increase in height. The two parameters of our
experience of the external, physical world (quantity and vertical elevation) are
clearly distinct. An increase in amount of liquid can result in a bigger puddle
without resulting in an increase in height; similarly, an increase in amount of
weight can result in an expanded waistline which extends horizontally rather than
vertically. Nevertheless, quantity and physical elevation do correlate with one
another in everyday experience in an extremely tight and recurring fashion. After
all, every time we fill a glass, as the height of the liquid increases so does the
quantity. Returning to The price of that stock is up, the point is prices do not literally
rise in elevation, but we talk about such an increase as if they did. In other words,
we use language that relates to our experience of the physical world to understand
and talk about more abstract notions, such as the increase in value of some stock.
This is a form of metaphor which cognitive linguists calls experiential correla-
tion. (We will discuss experiential correlation in more detail in Chapters 2, 3 and
5). In this example, cognitive linguists call the domain of vertical elevation the
source domain and the domain of the abstract notion amount as the target
domain. The target domain is understood and talked about in terms of the
source domain.
This exemplifies one fundamental way in which language reflects social–
physical experience. In the sentence described above we have seen that up is
interpreted as having a meaning of “more” rather than literally relating to vertical
elevation. The traditional view would represent this non-literal use of up as
idiomatic. In contrast, rather than treating this non-literal, additional meaning as
an exception to be memorized, a CL approach treats such multiple meanings of
lexical items as being systematically related and therefore explainable. No theory
of language can eliminate the need for language learners to memorize a good deal
of vocabulary. However, a CL approach allows us to represent the multiple mean-
ings and uses of lexical items as motivated, that is, reflecting a principled
 Introduction 7

pattern. Although understanding the systematic motivation for extensions of word

meaning (through recurrent processes such as experiential correlation) does not
automatically allow the learner to predict which extended meanings the target
language has developed, it does provide a set of principles that can act as a schema
for organizing and acquiring new lexical information. Work in psychology has
long established that humans learn new information more easily and reliably when
they can relate it to established schemas (e.g., Rummelhart, 1981; Wilson &
Anderson, 1986). Presumably once language learners have a systematic, motivated
explanation for meaning extension, it will be easier for them to interpret and
remember related lexical items that they encounter. Importantly, a CL approach
explains much more than the related meanings of lexical items. We will see in the
chapters that follow that a CL approach offers a coherent account of a number of
the most difficult aspects of (English) grammar – from prepositions to modals to
which verbs occur in the double object construction. It also offers insightful
explanations for many functional and discourse patterns, for instance, why
languages tend to use past tense to indicate politeness.

2. Where Have we Been?

Over the past 60 years, there has been a dizzying array of different L2 teaching
approaches. These have often appeared to vary greatly. Such approaches include,
but are certainly not limited to, the audiolingual approach, Total Physical Response,
the functional–notional approach, the generative-based “cognitive” approach,
numerous varieties of the communicative approach and the task-based approach.
These have represented important advances in L2 teaching. For instance, the
audiolingual approach emphasized the use of certain carefully monitored kinds of
question–answer interactions between the teacher and student, repetition by the
student and oral drills of various kinds, all of which were in service of mastering the
accurate production of a particular chunk of language (which involved pro-
nunciation as well as a grammatical structure) before a new grammatical structure
could be introduced. This was an important advance over the grammar translation
approach in that it included spoken, everyday language. However, the learning of
particular language forms was often disconnected from their meaning. In contrast,
the communicative approach has stressed the importance of meaningful communi-
cation, rather than focusing on accuracy at the expense of other aspects of L2
learning. Consequently, student–student as well as student–teacher interactions
focusing on goal-directed (i.e., communicative) interactions have been encouraged.
These activities are often based on naturally occurring text or real-world encounters.
However, while the approaches have changed, the view of the nature and
structure of language that underpins these approaches has not. What is remarkable
is that the pedagogical grammar adopted by all these approaches is strikingly similar
and has changed very little over the past 70 years. For instance, when we compare
many of the exercises and explanations of specific grammar points in Lado’s (1957)
8 The Basics of Cognitive Linguistics

book, which exemplifies the audiolingual approach, to those in Azar’s Fundamentals

of English grammar (2002), which takes a strictly descriptive approach, or those in
Larsen-Freeman’s Grammar dimensions (2000), which is oriented with respect to a
communicative and discourse perspective, we find a startling amount of overlap.
In order to illustrate this point let’s take two concrete examples from modern
textbooks which address points of grammar. My purpose here is to illustrate how
such texts are reliant on the traditional view of language. To do this, let’s look at
how prepositions and modals have been treated.
Our first illustration comes from Azar’s (2002) treatment of prepositions in her
Fundamentals of grammar series, which has three levels. The challenge for the
language learner in mastering English prepositions involves at least two aspects.
One problem is learning the many meanings associated with each preposition, as
illustrated for over in the following:

(1.1) a. The lamp is over the table. (above meaning)

b. The teller at the central bank switched the account over to a local branch.
(transfer meaning)
c. The film is over. (completion meaning)
d. The ball landed over the wall, in the neighbour’s garden. (on-the-other
side)
e. She has strange power over me. (control meaning)
f. She has a veil over her face. (covering meaning)
g. The relationship changed over the years. (temporal meaning)

This problem is amplified by the fact that non-spatial uses of prepositions are
ubiquitous in naturally occurring discourse produced by native speakers of English.
Thus, any time language learners venture outside the realm of the ELT text they
will encounter this multiplicity of meanings.
A second major problem in mastering prepositions involves the complex ways
they combine with verbs to create phrasal verbs. The following represent a small
subset of the range of phrasal verbs associated with over as illustrated in the Collins
cobuild dictionary of phrasal verbs (1989):

(1.2) a. ask over, flick over, roll over (movement and position)
b. boil over, drool over, cry over (overflowing and overwhelming feelings)
c. fall over, keel over, knock over (falling and attacking)
d. cloud over, frost over, paper over (covering and hiding)
e. brood over, pour over, think over (considering and communicating)

Azar (2002) approaches this highly complex area by introducing a limited subset
of the prepositions through diagrams, which represent the spatial relations coded
by each preposition, e.g., a picture of an object located higher than another to
illustrate over (the “above” sense in 1.1a, and accompanying example sentences.
 Introduction 9

This introductory material is followed by a series of fill-in-the-blank sentences, in

which the learner is asked to supply the appropriate preposition. At more advanced
levels, more prepositions are introduced through illustrative sentences without
explanation of their individual interpretations. Prepositions are often presented in
sets, e.g., by, near, beside, with the information that they share the same meaning
for certain of the spatial uses. This representation is only roughly accurate even for
spatial meanings, e.g., one can reside near a city without residing beside the city,
and highly problematic for additional meanings, e.g., We decided to travel by car, but
not near car or beside car. At the most advanced level, over 50 prepositions appear
in a single list followed by several pages of fill-in-the-blank exercises. Except for
the temporal uses, the non-spatial meanings of the prepositions, e.g., the transfer
meaning and the completion meaning for over, etc., are not addressed. The expla-
nation for temporal uses is not presented as being systematically related to the
spatial use. Thus, language learners (and the L2 professional) are presented with a
quite incomplete and even inaccurate picture of the many meanings that native
speakers regularly assign to prepositions. Moreover, learners are not provided any
systematic overview or tools of analysis to help them as they encounter natural
discourse which inevitably contains numerous instances of non-spatial meanings
of prepositions, as well as contexts in which the meanings of certain prepositions,
e.g., by, near, beside, appear to converge and other contexts in which the meanings
of the same set of prepositions appear to diverge.
Phrasal verbs are introduced in completely different sections, without reference
to the meaning of the preposition participating in the phrasal verb construction,
and in the form of idiosyncratic pairings whose meanings must be memorized.
Again, fill-in-the-blank sentence completion exercises are provided to give the
learner practice linking the form with its meaning.
As we will see, a CL approach treats the many meanings associated with each
preposition as being systematically motivated and grounded in basic human
experience of the physical world. This perspective allows for a more motivated,
organized representation of the network of meanings associated with each
preposition. The representation does not relieve learners of all memorization, as
the particular spatial system developed in their L1 will inevitably vary from that of
English and those differences will have to be learned. For instance, learners whose
native language is Spanish will have to learn that spatial relations represented by
en are represented by both in and on in English. However, the teacher, armed with
an accessible account of the systematic meaning differences between in versus on,
can help provide the L1 Spanish learner with learning strategies beyond memo-
rizing lists of uses. Based on a more complete analysis of the many meanings asso-
ciated with each preposition, the CL approach is also able to provide a systematic
account of a large percentage of phrasal verbs.
Modal verbs are another particularly challenging area of English grammar. Like
prepositions, each modal seems to have a range of meanings and uses. Consider
the uses of the two modals can and could:
10 The Basics of Cognitive Linguistics

(1.3) Can you go to the library this afternoon?

a. My mother just said I could go to the library. (permission)
b. My mother just said I can go to the library. (permission)

Here can and could are basically interchangeable.

In contrast, in the example in 1.4b, could is acceptable but can is not because
could is functioning as the past tense of can:

(1.4) a. They say Bill can cook better than his wife. (ability + present)
b. They say Bill could cook better than his wife. (ability + past time)

In 1.5 can and could both relate to ability and again seem interchangeable:

(1.5) How many sandwiches should we take?

a. I can easily eat two sandwiches for lunch.
b. I could easily eat two sandwiches for lunch.

However, when speaking of generic truths, can is acceptable but could sounds odd:

(1.6) a. Camels can survive in arid conditions.

b. Camels could survive in arid conditions.

Can and could can also assume a possibility meaning:

(1.7) a. Even an expert driver can make mistakes.

b. Even an expert driver could make mistakes.

In other contexts involving predictions based on inferences could works, but can
does not:

(1.8) a. I’ve just seen the lights go on; John could be home.
b. *I’ve just seen the lights go on; John can be home.

When indicating a hypothetical situation, in certain instances, commonly

referred to as the Conditional uses, can and could can both appear:

(1.9) a. If you can meet me at the corner, I can/could give you a lift.
b. If you could meet me at the corner, I can/could give you a lift.

However, in other hypothetical situations, only could is acceptable:

(1.10) a. If turtles could fly, they could travel a lot faster.

b. *If turtles can fly, they can travel a lot faster.

These last examples are commonly labeled the Unreal or Counterfactual uses.
 Introduction 11

In addition, there is a difference in terms of what has been called “tentativeness”

or politeness, with could being understood as being more polite.

(1.11) a. Could I borrow some money?

b. Can I borrow some money?

Clearly, sorting out the complex patterns of usage involved with the pair can
and could presents a real challenge for both the language learner and the teacher,
who must accurately present the complexity while offering an accessible account
which emphasizes any points of systematicity. As if this were not enough, when
the entire modal system is taken into account the situation is even more com-
plicated, as the exact pattern exhibited by can and could is not replicated. For
instance, while could constitutes the past time form of can in certain contexts, might
and should do not currently form the past time counterparts of may and shall.
Moreover, the interpretation of various modals changes when they occur in
negation and interrogative constructions.
A representative approach to the teaching of modals is provided in Werner
and Nelson’s (1996) Mosaic two: a content-based grammar. Like many others, they
categorize the modals in terms of a number of broad functions or speech acts. For
instance, may/might/could are represented as relating to ability and possibility;
may/can as relating to granting permission; may/could/can as relating to asking for
permission; would/could/will/can as relating to asking for assistance. Other categories
include advice, suggestions, lack of necessity, prohibition and expressing prefer-
ences. An example of Werner and Nelson’s presentation, which concerns how
modals are used for advice and suggestions, is given in Table 1.1.

TABLE 1.1 Modals Used to Give Advice and Make Suggestions

Advice and Suggestions

Present
Had better You had better study more
Should You should try harder
Ought to You ought to go
Past (Unfulfilled)
Should not have You should (not) have helped us
Ought not to have You ought (not) to have gone earlier
Present
Could You could hire a tutor
Might If your cold doesn’t get better, you might see a doctor
Past (unfulfilled)
Could (not) have You could (not) have gotten up earlier
Might (not) You might (not) have gotten up earlier

Source: after Werner and Nelson (1996, p. 163).

12 The Basics of Cognitive Linguistics

Students are given practice manipulating the forms through short dialogues and
fill-in-the-blank exercises. A consequence of this approach, in which a wide range
of meanings represented by modals are presented in relation to isolated speech acts,
is that there is no attempt to relate the various meanings. Moreover, gaps in the
paradigm are introduced without any explanation; notice, for instance, that the
appearance of “had” (typically understood as the past tense form of have) in the
present form of “had better” goes unexplained as does the absence of a past form
with “had better.” Hence, any systematicity between the multiple functions
remains unexplored. This results in a fragmented picture of the lexical class in
question, leaving the learner with the impression that the various uses are arbitrary
and with the learning strategy of rote memorization.
Perhaps even more problematic is the inaccuracy introduced by presenting the
modals in this particular paradigmatic fashion. Such broad functional categoriza-
tions lead to the inaccurate impression that the modals within each category, as in
the examples from Werner and Nelson, had better, should, ought to, could and might,
are largely interchangeable. That this is inaccurate is illustrated in the following
sentences, in which the modals have clearly distinct interpretations:

(1.12) a. You could use an ATM card instead of traveller’s checks.

b. You should use an ATM card instead of traveller’s checks.
c. You might use an ATM card instead of traveller’s checks.

The informed teacher, of course, might be able to make the functional approach
work, but this presupposes an accurate and systematic understanding of the modal
system. Unfortunately most pedagogical grammars, even the more recent ones,
simply do not provide such an overview.
In contrast, a CL approach offers an analysis of the modals based on general
concepts from the realm of force dynamics, such as force used to propel motion
along a path and barriers to forward motion. An analysis of modals grounded in
force dynamics allows CL to offer not only a principled, explanatory representation
of the semantics of these modals, but also a more accurate and complete one. Thus,
a CL approach provides a motivated explanation for the patterns of usage that is
not captured by the overly general functional representation. We will consider this
more thoroughly in Chapter 5.
Celce-Murcia and Larsen-Freeman (1999) provide an important exception to
this general pattern among pedagogical grammars. They offer several important
insights into modal usage by attempting to sort out some of the meaning differ-
ences associated with each of the modals. They do so primarily by providing scales
of strength in both root and epistemic uses. However, even their more sophisti-
cated account relies primarily on unmotivated lists and fails to give a full accounting
of the semantics of each of the modals.
As we will see in Chapter 4, by grounding its analysis in general cognitive
principles, such as embodied experience and force dynamics, a CL approach
 Introduction 13

provides a way of seeing the multiple functions associated with the modals as being
related in a systematic fashion. A CL approach to modals offers the teacher a unified
explanation that the experimental evidence suggests facilitates more effective teach-
ing and learning.
Perhaps a partial explanation for the continued domination of the traditional
view is that most of the language teaching methodologies and much of the research
in Second Language Acquisition (SLA) have tended to have their sources in
psychology, sociology, or educational psychology rather than theoretical linguistics
(Larsen-Freeman, 1996). An important exception to this trend was the so-called
“cognitive,” with a small c, approach, which was influenced by early Chomskian
linguistics. However, as Chomskian theory has explicitly claimed to be creating
an abstract, formal (mathematically based) model of language without any direct
link to psychological reality, finding connections between the tenets of this
particular theory of grammar and practical applications to language learning and
teaching has proved elusive. Since the dominant trends in L2 language learning
and teaching have focused on more effective methods of presentation of language
materials or psychological conditions for enhanced learning, the traditional
representation of language has gone largely unchallenged.
We see this same reliance on the traditional perspective in even the newest,
most comprehensive corpus-based grammars such as the Collins cobuild English
language grammar (1990) or Biber et al. (1999) – grammars which explicitly claim
applicability to ELT textbooks and teachers. For instance, the full range of
functions associated with tense are not presented, or else presented in non-unified
fashion, with no attempt to relate the various functions. This will be discussed
more fully in Chapter 2. The key point is that the infusion of a massively larger
database, with its obvious potential insights into how particular language patterns
function and the relationship between the functions, does not in and of itself
fundamentally affect the underlying view of language and the nature of its
representation.
To this point, I have sketched a general picture of the traditional view and
indicated some of its limitations. Now I turn to a more detailed characterization
of the basic concepts that make up this view:

• Language is understood as a separate system made of up a number of com-

partmentalized subsystems, i.e., phonology, morphology, syntax, the lexicon,
and semantics. More recent versions of this approach have also assumed an
independent pragmatics component. The language system is treated as being
uninfluenced by ordinary human interaction with and experience of the
spatio-physical world. (By this I do not mean that all previous approaches have
ignored the communicative and pragmatic aspects of language use, but they
do not represent pragmatic aspects, such as the forms politeness phenomena
actually take, as being a systematic representation of our general understanding
of the world.)
14 The Basics of Cognitive Linguistics

• Language is acquired, not learned. This is a central claim arising from the tenet
that language represents an encapsulated component in the brain which has
no interaction with other cognitive processes. Basic to this perspective is the
hypothesis that the language module is evolutionarily set to particular para-
meters. Once the young child has been exposed to the appropriate language,
the morpho-syntactic parameters are set. Because the possible morpho-
syntactic configurations of language are biologically preset, no actual learning
of syntax occurs. Chomsky and his followers refer to this as language acquisi-
tion. Tomasello (e.g. 2003, 2008), in particular, has critiqued this view and
has emphasized the importance of distinguishing between constructing (or
learning) a language and “acquiring” a language.
• One consequence of the traditional view is the representation of syntax as
being separate from the lexical and semantic components and therefore as
having no independent meaning in its own right. So, linear arrangement and
closed-class (or so-called functional) elements are seen as not contributing to
the meaning of the sentence. Linear ordering and closed-class (functional)
elements simply provide a structuring framework for lexical items. For
instance, Mary gave the coat to John is represented as having the same (truth
conditional) meaning as Mary gave John the coat, although a number of the
more sophisticated accounts do acknowledge important discourse or
functional differences. As we will see in the following section, and later in the
book, this representation results in a number of unexplained exceptions or
inaccuracies. For instance, representing these two sentences as semantically
equivalent does not account for why I taught Lou Italian and I taught Italian to
Lou have somewhat different interpretations, i.e., I taught Lou Italian entails
that Lou actually learned Italian, while I taught Italian to Lou does not.
• The many meanings associated with a particular form are largely unrelated
and must be learned one by one. This is reflected in the traditional dictionary
view of word-meaning in which each meaning is listed, without any attempt
to identify recurring patterns of meaning extension.
• Non-literal language is peripheral. Metaphor and other figurative language
are seen as being part of the poetic use of language, rather than as a funda-
mental property of human thought, reasoning and understanding. Thus, under
the traditional view, the use of up to convey the notion of an increase in
amount is either not addressed at all, or else is treated as arbitrary.

As I have already intimated, a CL approach offers a radically different

perspective. CL constitutes a more humanistic, holistic approach by virtue of
viewing language as an integrated aspect of human cognition. As we will see in
detail throughout this book, this is an approach that has a great deal to offer L2
researchers and teachers. CL is an approach to language that is in many respects
compatible with current L2 teaching practices and findings in L2 research. The
emphasis on form–meaning linkage, which is foundational to CL, places it squarely
 Introduction 15

in line with recent trends in L2 learning, such as focus on form (e.g. Doughty &
Long, 2003; Long, 1991) and task-based learning (e.g. Robinson & Gilabert,
2007). Over the last 15 years several publications have appeared which suggest
how CL may benefit second language teaching. Even though Nick Ellis pointed
out that CL insights were potentially useful for the field of SLA in 1998 and 1999,
SLA researchers are only now beginning to discover CL: thus research applying
CL insights to L2 teaching is in its infancy. However, no approach arises in
isolation. The general perspective of CL as we will apply it to pedagogical grammar
in this book has had a number of notable precursors. I briefly detail these below
and comment on how they prefigure the CL approach to language teaching.
The first important precursor has been the Communicative Approach. This
derived from Hymes’ (e.g. 1972, 1974) construct of communicative competence
– reinterpreted for second language learning by Canale and Swain (1981). This
approach to language teaching recognized the importance of the contextualized
functions of language use. It emphasized that a fundamental aspect of knowing a
language includes knowing a particular speech community’s conventionalized
ways of achieving particular communicative ends, e.g., being polite when making
a particular request. Importantly Hymes, as well as Canale and Swain, assumed a
separate grammatical level of representation which was seen as interacting with
communicative competence. The model of language represented in this grammati-
cal component presupposed the traditional view sketched above. Hence, the focus
of these researchers was not to radically reconceptualize the nature of the gram-
matical component but rather to give due emphasis to the communicative nature
of language and the importance of language use.
An important offshoot of the communicative approach has been the develop-
ment of English for Specific Purposes (ESP), for example in the work of Swales
(1990, 1995). This body of research provides detailed examinations of naturally
occurring language. Specifically, it examines how language is used in very par-
ticular contexts to accomplish particular functions or communicative ends. In so
far as the Communicative Approach and ESP have taken account of language in
use, they constitute important precursors to the CL approach, which, as we will
see, also constitutes what Langacker (1987, 2008) has termed a usage-based
model.
A second important precursor is represented by scholars such as Celce-Murcia
and Larsen-Freeman (1999), Cohen (1999), McCarthy and Carter (1994) etc., who
have been influenced by functionalist theoretical linguists such as Givón (e.g.,
1995, 2001) and Halliday (e.g., 1983; Halliday & Matthiessen, 2004) and dis-
course analysts such as Gumperz (e.g., 1982), Schiffrin (e.g., 1987), Scollon and
Scollon (e.g., 1995) and Tannen (e.g., 1989), etc. They have written pedagogical
grammars or teacher’s handbooks that emphasize the discourse-based, functional
usage of particular grammatical structures. These researchers, who build on a
communicative approach, attempt to reconceptualize the role of grammar within
such a framework. This involves treating grammatical form as more closely related
16 The Basics of Cognitive Linguistics

to meaning and its functions of use. In spirit, this approach represents a significant
break with the traditional view that conceived of language structure independent
of meaning and language use. For instance, scholars such as McCarthy and Carter
(1994) note that preposed conditional clauses tend to refer to events or conditions
which occurred several clauses earlier in the discourse (i.e., they have wide scope),
while postposed conditional clauses tend to refer to events or states in the imme-
diately preceding main clause (i.e., they have narrow scope), or that certain modals,
such as will and should, for example, tend to appear in horoscopes because they
have a future or predictive function. Emphasizing the importance of discourse
context and communicative functions represents a major advance in our general
understanding of the nature of language. Nevertheless these approaches have
tended to be heavily influenced by the traditional view in their actual represen-
tations of linguistic structures in practice, e.g., the grammatical patterns, the
morphology, the lexicon, etc. One representative consequence is that a particular
lexical class, the modals, is still presented in a piecemeal fashion.
Stemming from a very different tradition, the work of the psychologist Lev
Vygotsky (1987) and those scholars such as Bruner (1983) who have been influ-
enced by his research, also has important connections with CL. The application
of Vygotsky’s ideas to language teaching by researchers such as Donato (1989),
Hall (1995), Lantolf (2002, 2007, 2009) and van Lier (1998) provides an important
link to a CL approach. Vygotsky noted the fundamental role of interaction
between an expert, or knower, and a novice in learning a range of sociocultural
activities, one of which is language. Of particular importance is his observation
that cultural knowers provide precise, step-by-step modeling of the fundamental
concepts and skills needed to undertake a particular activity. He observed that
learners were encouraged to contribute to the enactment of a particular activity to
the limits of their current ability (zone of proximal development); the knowers
consistently provided guidance and support in accomplishing the action
(scaffolding). Specifically in terms of language, Bruner observed that parents
created and frequently repeated what he termed language frames, which served as
scaffolding to support the child’s language learning. For instance, Bruner found
that parents frequently asked the young child a question such as “What’s this?” and
then supply the answer “This is a ____.” These frames are repeated hundreds, even
thousands of times, thus providing the child numerous instances of a particular
interactional, grammatical pattern involving only slight changes. The child is
hypothesized to generalize over multiple exposures of contextualized use of such
language frames, eventually recognizing a flexible pattern from which to create
new utterances. Further, the child is hypothesized to build an extensive inventory
of such frames as their language skills develop. Importantly, the frames are always
tied to particular patterns of use, or to meaningful communication. This view of
language learning as being (1) crucially embedded in “scaffolded” knower–
novice interaction whose purpose is to create meaningful communication, and (2)
the child acquiring language through accumulation of an inventory of frames
 Introduction 17

represents a radical departure from the traditional view. These constructs are
consonant with key aspects of a CL approach.

3. Where Would We Like To Go and What Do We Need

To Get There?
No matter what method of language teaching one advocates, the researcher
and the teacher are best served by a clear, accurate understanding of how the
grammatical aspects of language are structured and organized. Even in the most
inductive approaches, a fuller understanding of language on the part of the L2
professional is vital to experimental, material and curriculum design. And, as all
practicing language teachers know, learners inevitably ask for explanations of
various grammar points; the teacher needs to be ready to respond to these queries.
Furthermore, as Norris and Ortega (2000) show in their review of studies which
have investigated the effectiveness of implicit versus explicit approaches to L2
instruction, explicit grammar explanations, coupled with more communicative
activities, are consistently more effective than totally inductive approaches in which
the learner is given no explicit explanation (at least in the relatively brief
interventions represented by the experiments reviewed by Norris and Ortega).
In short, L2 researchers and teachers need to be able to have as complete an
understanding of grammar and lexis, and the motivated ways in which they are
used within communication, as possible. In order to do this, they are best served
by a pedagogical grammar that is accurate, accessible and complete. Ideally, we
want a pedagogical grammar that is based on a model of language that provides
the necessary tools and insights to provide such an account of the language and,
additionally, suggests ways in which this information can be used in language
teaching presentations, materials and curriculum.
The CL approach meets the criterion of accuracy because it is based on careful
observation of how grammatical constructions are manipulated by language users
in contexts of language use. Moreover, rather than relying on a list of overly broad
rules, which are assumed to be unique to language and which are inevitably riddled
with exceptions, which in turn encourage the learner to form inaccurate over-
generalizations, a CL approach looks to recurrent cognitive principles evidenced
in many areas of cognition and reflected throughout all levels of the linguistic
system. CL further assumes that the traditional “exceptions” often provide valuable
insights into the true workings of the system. Rather than placing the “excep-
tional” in the periphery, the analytic focus is on understanding the motivation
behind the exceptional and how this fits with the overall system. Thus, CL
provides a more nuanced, detailed description by representing language as an
inventory of interrelated, systematically motivated units which take account of the
relationships between the units and groupings of units. To be sure, parts of all
languages are conventional, retaining remnants of arbitrary historical accidents and
unique cultural conceptualization, and so must be learned. For instance, there is
no system that will allow learners to predict irregular past tense forms of particular
18 The Basics of Cognitive Linguistics

English verbs or all the uses of English prepositions. However, a CL approach

offers a motivated account for a much larger part of the language than represented
by earlier, alternative accounts.
As noted at the outset of this chapter, any language is highly complex and
cannot be mastered without recourse to many years of exposure and learning
form–meaning relationships. A CL approach cannot offer a guaranteed, effortless
path to L2 learning. Recognizing this inevitable limitation, CL can offer an
approach to L2 learning with far fewer garden paths and needless dead ends.
A CL approach meets the criterion of accessibility because it views language as
being a function of general interaction with other cognitive abilities and our
interaction with the world. Thus, explanations stemming from a CL approach
draw on learners’ everyday real world experience by tapping into an intuitive
reservoir of knowledge that facilitates an understanding of the systematic
relationships among the units of language. This is the same reservoir of experiential
knowledge of the world which underpins the human conceptual system and hence
language itself. A CL approach exploits this implicit knowledge by highlighting
recurrent, meaningful linguistic patterns and organizing principles. Again, we note
that each language potentially highlights slightly different aspects of human
experience and conceptualization of the spatio-physical world and thus learners
will face certain challenges mapping the differences between their L1 and the L2.
CL is a theoretical approach to language that is in many respects compatible with
current L2 teaching practices and findings in L2 research.
In later chapters I will explain more fully how the notions from the area of force
dynamics, such as enablement and barriers to forward motion, are key to semantic
extensions of prepositions and modals. Here, consider Pinker’s (1989) observation
that what appear to be many, idiosyncratic “narrow classes” of verbs occur in the
double object construction while others are arbitrarily excluded. For instance, give
is generally considered the most prototypical verb to occur in the double object
construction, as in sentences such as Mary gave Jane the cake. The meaning seems
to be something like “Mary caused Jane to receive the cake.” However, verbs that
mean the opposite such as refuse and deny also occur, as in Mary denied Jane the
maternity leave. Under a traditional account, the verbs that can occur in this syntactic
construction have to be memorized. However, under a CL approach, refuse and
deny can be seen as indicating barriers to Mary causing Jane to receive the leave;
the notion of a barrier to forward motion is a basic aspect of force dynamics seen
recurrently throughout various “levels” of the language. Under a CL approach,
the student is not asked to memorize a general rule converting sentences like Mary
gave the cake to Jane to Mary gave Jane the cake along with a list of words which can
fit into these “alternating” patterns. Rather, students are encouraged to see the
recurring patterns of meaning extension (such as force dynamics) and how they
apply to syntactic–semantic templates. This approach does not eliminate the need
to learn the templates in the first place. For instance, students must learn the tem-
plate or construction:
 Introduction 19

X cause-receive Y Z

Giver Recipient Thing Received

The basic meaning associated with this construction is “X caused Y to receive Z.”
However, the most challenging part of remembering just which verbs can occur
in this pattern is largely alleviated through understanding the recurrent principles
that organize our understanding of the world and our conceptualization of seman-
tic classes. In contrast to the traditional approach, the CL approach represents the
grammatical patterns or constructions themselves as meaningful and the verbs that
occur in those constructions as having semantic properties which are consistent
with the meaning of the construction. Moreover, the meanings of the con-
structions have been systematically extended through processes that are parallel to
those governing the systematic extensions of individual lexical items. This includes
metaphorical extension.
Finally, a CL approach constitutes the most complete model of language
currently available in that it includes many more phenomena than other models.
A fundamental aspect of the approach is an emphasis on the relations between
form, function and meaning. In fact, form is seen as inseparable from meaning.
Elements that have traditionally been treated as literal versus figurative are viewed
as not being separate; thus figurative language, which has generally not been under
the purview of theoretical linguistics, is seen as an integral part of the linguistic
system. Taking advances in psychology and neuroscience into account, it adopts
an encyclopedic view of lexical items, seeing words as access points to
organized complexes of knowledge (i.e., domains and frames of knowledge), not
simply truncated dictionary entries. A fundamental aim within the approach is to
describe not only the elements that make up language but also the systematic
relationships among those elements. Indeed, the systematic relations are understood
as an essential aspect of the description of linguistic elements. Language is
understood as part and parcel of general cognitive organization and processes. As
such, language, including grammar, is seen as reflecting our understanding of the
world and our interactions with it.
For the L2 researcher and teacher, then, this approach has the potential to
provide rich insights into the relatedness of, organization of and motivation for the
core and many “exceptional” uses associated with aspects of lexis and grammar.
Ultimately, these insights offer language learners a more coherent and explanatory
description of the language.
I now turn to a more detailed consideration of the guiding principles that
underpin the CL approach advanced in this book.
20 The Basics of Cognitive Linguistics

a. There is no Sharp Distinction Between the Lexicon

and the Grammar
What this means is that linguistic units comprise a conventional form–meaning
pairing. It is an unremarkable observation that a word such as cat [kaet] constitutes
a particular form (as opposed to French chat, German Kätze, etc.) conventionally
paired with a conceptual representation or meaning (furry, four-legged mammal
which makes the sound “meow,” catches mice, is a domesticated pet, etc.). Other
examples of commonly recognized form–meaning pairs include bound mor-
phemes, e.g., -er [as in teacher versus teach], fixed expressions [as in How do you do?
On the one hand . . . on the other. . . ], and idioms [as in kick the bucket]. Importantly,
under a CL analysis, grammatical constructions (i.e., word order configurations,)
such as those represented by:

(1.13) a. John bought the book.

b. John is interested in this book.
c. This book interests John.
d. This book is interesting.

are also represented as distinct forms which are linked to meaning (although they
are clearly more abstract and schematic than the meaning associated with a lexical
item). In a typical transitive sentence as in sentence 1.13a, the subject of the
sentence, here John, is a prototypical agent, i.e., animate, intentional and the
initiator of action. In sentence 1.13b, John is not a prototypical agent, but rather
an experiencer; while we still understand the subject to be animate, John is not
understood to be acting with volitional intention or initiating the action. The sense
is that John is being acted on or influenced by the book. In sentence 1.13c, the entity
in subject position, this book, bears only the agentive quality of initiator or cause.
In sentence 1.13d, the entity in subject position is simply being described; it has
no typical agent qualities. If we look carefully at how English speakers use these
syntactic patterns, we see that they provide different perspectives on the event
being talked about. While the transitive construction is focusing on John, the agent
of an action, the others are focusing to varying degrees on the book. In other words,
there is a conventional interpretation or meaning linked to the syntactic forms.
Furthermore, only verbs whose semantics match the semantics of the construction
occur in these constructions.
In sum, under a CL analysis the syntax, as well as morphology and lexical items,
is meaningful. These elements interact in motivated ways that provide an explana-
tion for the seemingly narrow class restrictions between lexical items and the
grammatical patterns in which they occur.
 Introduction 21

Why Should a Language Professional Care Whether or not There

is a Sharp Distinction Between the Lexicon and the Grammar?
As we will see, viewing the lexicon and grammar as forming a continuum and
linked to meaning allows us to systematize our representation of language. We can
use the same models and principles for representing and presenting lexical patterns,
morphological patterns and sentential grammar to the language learner. This results
in a more motivated and less idiosyncratic account. It provides the language teacher
with explanatory tools with which to analyze and present aspects of the language.
Presumably a more complete and systematic explanation will result in less recourse
to rote memorization on the part of the learner, with the salutary effect of more
effective and enjoyable language learning.

b. Meaning is Grounded in Our Everyday Interactions

with the World Around us and the Nature of Our Bodies
From this it follows that meaning arises from embodied interaction in the world.
For example, our eyes are located in our faces, on what we label the front part of
our heads. An important consequence of this is that our vision is limited to that
part of the landscape with respect to which the front of our head is oriented. This
physical arrangement is distinct from other organisms. For instance, horses have
eyes located in the sides of their heads allowing a wider range of vision; owls can
rotate their heads with greater facility to allow a range of vision close to 360 degrees
without having to reorient their bodies. A fundamental consequence for human
beings is that we have an asymmetrical, front/back orientation to the world. For
instance, we travel in the direction we face, rather than traveling sideways like a
crab. Front/back asymmetry is meaningful because of how we experience the
world in general and interact with other humans in particular. For example, when
we physically turn our backs on someone or something, we are no longer focusing
on the situation or entity and hence that particular interaction is over for us.
Hence, front/back orientation is meaningful for human beings by virtue of its
consequences for the way in which we interact with the world and with others.
This meaningfulness finds many linguistic expressions. One simple example is
our interpretation of the expression turn one’s back on X, as in the sentence The
president tried to turn his back on the growing scandal, which means something like,
“The president tried to ignore the growing scandal.” Another example involves
the semantic extension of the lexical item head in the phrase head in the right direction.
Here we understand head in terms of a front/back orientation rather than, say, an
up/down orientation. In a physical sense heading in the right direction has to do with
aligning our bodies such that our line of visual perception is appropriately
positioned, thus allowing our forward motion towards a physical goal. The
meaning can be extended metaphorically to include proceeding appropriately in
any activity, as in, You are heading in the right direction in your analysis of this problem.
22 The Basics of Cognitive Linguistics

Why Should a Language Professional be Interested in the

Notion that Meaning is Grounded in Embodied Experience?
Most fundamentally, the notion of embodied meaning is important because it
pervades all aspects of language from the lexical to the syntactic. Being able to see
these patterns gives the language professional and language learner important
insights into a whole host of otherwise perplexing aspects of language. For
instance, having ready explanations for how new meanings are derived from
existing meaning, by virtue of embodiment, provides a tool for learning and
teaching the multiple meanings associated with words, including closed-class
functional elements, such as prepositions and modals. In addition, it allows us to
view syntactic constructions as being grounded in human experience. For example,
one of the most difficult aspects of a language to learn is the relationship between
particular syntactic constructions and the verbs that appear in those constructions.
Viewing syntactic constructions as deriving from recurring interactions with the
world, e.g., someone physically transferring something to someone, in conjunction
with basic force dynamics, such as enablement and barriers to forward motion,
allows us to explain the relations between particular verbs and the grammatical
constructions in which they are permitted, e.g., which verbs participate in the
double object construction (Goldberg, 1995). Understanding the semantic classes
of verbs in terms of metaphoric applications of force dynamics and human inten-
tion provides a unified account missed by even the most detailed lexical semantic
accounts, such as Pinker’s (1989) narrow class listings of groups of verbs which
occur in the double object construction, e.g.,

Mary baked Joan a cake.

c. Linguistic Units Constitute Categories

This entails that linguistic units, i.e., lexical items, morphemes and syntactic con-
structions, can subsume a range of distinct but related meanings organized with
respect to a central meaning. In other words, a linguistic category, such as a word,
constitutes a motivated semantic network of related meanings. Recall the
examples of the many meanings of over shown in example 1.1. A CL approach
represents these many meanings as being organized in a systematic way with respect
to a central sense. For prepositions, this is the meaning most directly grounded in
embodied experience. Many, and perhaps most, grammatical constructions also
subsume a range of distinct but related senses (Goldberg, 1995). As we will see in
Chapter 4, it is this property of language that will also help us explain the various
meanings of each of the modal verbs and how each of the modals relates to the
overall system of modal verbs.
 Introduction 23

Why Should Language Professionals be Interested in Treating

Linguistic Units as Categories?
As our examples above indicate, understanding language from this perspective
offers insights into some of the most difficult aspects of the English language. These
insights will allow us to develop teaching materials and presentations that empha-
size the meaningful relationships among members of a particular category, e.g., the
modal verbs or the prepositions, rather than emphasizing the idiosyncratic and
arbitrary nature of language.

d. Language is Usage-Based
Language always occurs in a context of use. One important consequence of this
position is understanding that the particular linguistic forms that occur in particular
contexts of use give rise to particular inferences. As Ron Langacker, one of the
founders and leading thinkers in the field of CL argues:

It is not the linguistic system per se that constructs an understanding of novel

expressions, but rather the language user, who marshals for this purpose the
full panoply of available sources. In addition to linguistic units, these resources
include such factors as memory, planning, problem solving ability, general
knowledge, short and long term goals, as well as full apprehension of the
physical, social, cultural, and linguistic context. An actual instance of language
use, resulting in all these factors, constitutes what I will call a usage event.
Langacker (2008, pp. 9–10)

It is a fair assumption that a stable lexical unit has a conventionally accepted

meaning within the discourse community. Presumably a speaker would only use that
lexical unit in a new way if she believed her interlocutor had a reasonable chance of
interpreting the form as the speaker intends. This suggests that meaning extension,
which results in a single phonological form having many meanings, is grounded in
situated communication. It further suggests that meaning extension is motivated and
likely to follow some systematic patterns which guide speakers’ inferences.
These inferences are constrained not only by social conventions but also by
general cognitive processes and knowledge of the physical–spatio–social world.
For instance, our knowledge of animacy and basic force dynamics allows us to infer
that if we see a running horse approach a hedge and then jump such that its body
is higher than the hedge, the horse will come down to earth beyond the hedge.
Tyler and Evans (2003) have argued that this very inferencing has given rise to
several extensions of the preposition over. When the inferences are recurrent, they
become strongly associated with the linguistic form. These inferences are often the
basis of a new extended meaning. Through repeated usage, and the process of
grammaticalization (e.g., Traugott & Dasher, 2002) these extended meanings
24 The Basics of Cognitive Linguistics

become entrenched in the language and the original situations and inferences that
first gave rise to them may no longer be salient. In other words, the new meanings
gain a certain independence from the original scenarios that first brought them
about (Tyler & Evans, 2003).
Over time, native language users may no longer be aware of the original context
of use that gave rise to the inference, and at first glance the many meanings asso-
ciated with a form may appear to be unrelated or arbitrary. However, the systema-
ticity of such semantic extension can be exploited by L2 teachers as a useful rubric
for presenting the range of uses as a motivated system.
A usage-based approach, then, offers principled explanations for how meaning
is extended from a central sense. The several meanings associated with the English
present tense versus the past tense – to indicate not only time-reference, but also
foreground versus background information, to signal hypothetical or realis (“could
be true”) versus counterfactual or irrealis (“could not be true”) situations, and to
mark certain politeness phenomenona – are excellent examples of this principle.
(The multiple uses of tense are discussed more fully in Chapter 2.)

Why Should Language Professionals be Interested in the Notion that

Language is Usage-Based?
To make this point more concrete consider the following examples which again
make use of the preposition over:

(1.14) a. The picture is over the mantelpiece.

b. Joan nailed the board over the hole in the ceiling.

The sentence in 1.14a depicts a spatial scene in which the element in focus, the
picture, is located higher than a background landmark or locating element, here the
mantelpiece. There is a good deal of evidence that this represents the central meaning
of over. However, in the sentence in 1.14b, the element in focus, the board, is located
below the landmark, the ceiling. Moreover, the conventional reading associated with
over in 1.14b relates to the notion of covering, rather than a particular geometric
spatial relation between the element in focus and the landmark. Clearly, these two
sentences display two very different meanings of over. The difficulty for the language
teacher is how to teach these distinct meanings without resorting to simply asking
students to memorize these apparently distinct, and on the face of it, unrelated
meanings. This is where the usage-based view of language comes in.
Given the way we use language and the way in which we interact with the
world, a common inference associated with contexts of use associated with the
“higher than” meaning associated with over is that a “covering” meaning is implied.
Consider the following example:

(1.15) The tablecloth is over the table.

 Introduction 25

In this sentence the tablecloth, the element in focus and in the above position, is
larger than the table, the landmark; additionally, tablecloths tend to be made of
opaque material. Given the way we ordinarily interact with tables, i.e., we look
down at them, or are seated at them such that they are located lower than our line
of vision, an inevitable consequence is that we understand the tablecloth to be
covering the table and obscuring the table from our vision. Through the recurrent
use of over in such contexts, the covering meaning can become represented in
memory as a distinct meaning associated with over. Once the covering meaning
has become associated with over, it can be used in situations that do not pertain to
the original “above” spatial configuration between the element in focus and the
element in background.
By understanding, and so being able to explain the usage-based nature of
meaning development in this way, language teachers are likely to be in a better
position to assist their students in learning what, on the face of it, appear to be
unrelated and seemingly arbitrary meanings, associated with an English preposition
such as over.
Such processes of meaning extension are not limited to prepositions. As we
will see in Chapters 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, English modals, grammatical constructions,
content words and tense morphemes all have multiple meanings or uses that can
be accounted for by the same principles of extension. Many of these uses have
been represented as exceptions to the general rules under traditional analyses.
Understanding the processes of inferencing and meaning extension which occur
when a linguistic unit is used in context allows us to uncover and hence represent
many more aspects of language as being systematic and motivated. This will
presumably assist language learning because teachers will be able to provide mean-
ingful explanations for many apparent exceptions.

4. About This Book

Although CL is a relatively new framework, it is now sufficiently developed to
be usefully applied to language learning. Indeed, several researchers have begun
to apply CL to language pedagogy. For instance, as we will see in detail in Chapter
3, Boers and Lindstromberg (e.g. 2006) have demonstrated the usefulness of
raising learners’ awareness of conceptual metaphor in the acquisition of vocabu-
lary, Cadierno and Robinson (2009) have investigated L1 transfer effects using
CL analyses (e.g.,Talmy, 2000a, b; Slobin, 1994) of typologies of motion events,
and Verspoor and Lowie (2003) have shown the effectiveness of teaching vocabu-
lary using the concepts of prototypes and radial categories. However, there has
been no concerted attempt to experimentally investigate the efficacy of apply-
ing insights from CL to L2 research or teaching of grammar or other complex
lexical classes, such as modals. Moreover, no concise introduction to the paradigm
exists specifically aimed at L2 professionals. The purpose of this book is to fill
that gap.
26 The Basics of Cognitive Linguistics

To this end, Chapter 2 provides an overview of several fundamental com-

ponents of the CL model are explored. First, I explore the central role of meaning
in a CL approach and the tenet that all aspects of language represent form-meaning
pairings. Second, I address more fully the usage-based nature of language. In
particular, I investigate the essential relationship between conceptualization and
embodied experience, mental imagery, conceptual metaphor and categorization.
Third, I discuss some of the fundamental aspects of human cognition. Finally, I
end with an overview of first language (L1) learning within a CL-based model.
The second part of this book examines a CL approach in the context of L2
research and learning. In Chapter 3 I take a closer look at research aimed at
investigating the usefulness of a cognitive perspective for L2 research and learning.
The chapter reviews select studies which illustrate the potential for application of
five basic notions presented in Chapter 2 – construal, conceptual metaphor,
category formation, embodiment and the usage-based nature of language. In
addition, I discuss how a CL analysis relates to current issues in the field of L2
research and learning.
The next three chapters of the book provide a series of experimental studies of
three areas of English that have been identified as problematic for L2 learners –
modals, prepositions and sentence structure. For each area, I present a CL-based
analysis of the linguistic phenomena and original effects-of-instruction experi-
mental findings showing the efficacy of taking a CL approach. The materials
developed for each experiment are described in some detail and thus serve as
models for developing research and instructional materials.
Chapter 4 focuses on the modal verbs. Central to my pedagogically oriented
description of modals is the insight that humans regularly use knowledge from the
physical–spatial domain to think and communicate about non-physical/spatial
domains. I present evidence from developmental psychology that early childhood
experiences with basic events involving gravity, transfer of objects, movement along
a path and barriers to movement are fundamental not only to our understanding of
the physical world, but also provide the key event schemas we use to reason and
think about the non-physical. These schemas are reflected in the modal system.
Many of the apparent quirks of meaning found with modals, particularly the
relationship between the root (social) uses and the logical prediction use, fall away
under this analysis. Three effects of instruction studies are presented.
In Chapter 5 the constructs introduced in part 1 of the book, e.g., the semantic
network model and the bodily basis of meaning, which we term embodiment,
are applied as I sketch an account of the lexicalization patterns exhibited by English
prepositions (e.g., Tyler & Evans, 2003), elucidating the systematic way in which
meanings are extended. I illustrate the approach through an analysis of three
prepositions – to, for, and at. Three effects of instruction experiments are presented
that demonstrate the efficacy of using this approach to teaching prepositions.
In Chapter 6, I present a pedagogically oriented account of basic sentential
syntax, with a special focus on the double object and prepositional dative con-
 Introduction 27

structions. I provide evidence that grammatical constructions themselves (word

order and function elements such as prepositions) are meaningful. Particularly
important is the tenet that each construction presents a particular perspective on
an event and that there is no synonymy between sentences. I also present recent
work in discourse analysis and sentence processing that supports this account. The
heart of the chapter is a detailed account of recent effects of instruction experi-
mental research that demonstrates a CL approach to sentence structure facilitates
L2 learners’ learning of these constructions.
Finally, Chapter 7 provides a summary of the main findings of the book. I also
indicate additional concepts from CL that offer potential for further experim-
entation and applications. Specifically, I offer a brief overview of mental space and
blending theory (e.g. Fauconnier & Turner, 2002) and its application to an analysis
of English conditionals. I conclude by advocating that L2 researchers and teachers
inform themselves about the theoretical adequacy and pedagogical utility of the
descriptive grammar which underpins their view of language and inevitably
influences the materials and approach they employ in L2 experiments and in the
L2 classroom.