Hunting for a missing link: between cognitive framework and classroom practicies

Kamila Turewicz. Academy of Humanities and Economics in Łódź.Hunting for a ‘missing link’: between cognitive theories and classroom practices.

Kamila Turewicz.Academy of Humanities and Economics in Łódź.

Hunting for a ‘missing link’: between cognitive theories and classroom practices.

(A draft of workshop proposal)

Part 1

INTRODUCTION

The proposal of the workshop can be seen as a follow –up of PACL 2014 Conference’s

session devoted to research on relevance of cognitive linguistics for language pedagogy, in

particular, the presentations by Jakub Bielak (co-authors Mirosław Pawlak i Anna

Mystkowska-Wiertelak): “Teaching the English voice with the help of Cognitive Grammar

revisited” and Franka Kermer: “Cognitive Grammar and Foreign Language Pedagogy:

Evidence from an Experimental Study”. My subsequent study of the (relatively scarce)

literature reporting experimental investigation into effectiveness of adopting CG for foreign

language classroom (Bielak (2007), Bielak, Pawlak, Mystkowska – Wiertelak (2013), Kermer

(2014)) brought me to the conclusion that inconclusive character of results of the

experimental study, obtained in spite of high methodological standards, may point to a

‘missing link’ between the conceptualizations available within Cognitive Grammar (as this

cognitive theory was the theoretical basis for the experiments) and reality of a ‘foreign

language classroom’ of both practical language and descriptive grammar courses.

STATE OF THE ART -- CLASSROOM PERSPECTIVE

I tend to think that the crux of the issue is some disparity between the conceptualization of

language postulated within cognitive linguistics framework on the one hand, and the

nature of classroom related grammatical discourse, on the other one. Indeed, phrases

from the theoretical discourse on language didactics such as: ‘form-meaning mapping’, ‘form

– meaning pairings’, ‘effectiveness of rules based on Cognitive Grammar’, ‘semantic

descriptions of selected grammatical items’ imply duality of language structure into grammar

and meaning, even if the author accepts/subscribes to the 'generalisation commitment' and,

accordingly, the assumption that "… there are common structuring principles that hold across

different aspects of language and an important function of linguistics is to identify these

common principles." (Evans and Green 2006:28). Evidently, the metalanguage of

1


grammatical discourse accords with the students’ opinions about duality of language,

reflected in the study by Pawlak & Droździał – Szelest (2007). As follows from the research,

advanced students of English (and the teachers –to –be) tend to “view grammar as a static

body of knowledge that has to be mastered in much the same way as any other factual

information” (Pawlak & Droździał – Szelest 2007:309). The type of conceptualisation of

language is reflected in such statements as: ‘vocabulary much more important’, ‘the

knowledge of rules does not guarantee that they will be effectively used in communication’,

‘communication is feasible with only rudiments of grammar’.

Clearly, the relatively recent, by no means gone, and definitely overestimated

communicative language teaching is responsible for the learners' and, subsequently, students'

and teachers' attitude to 'grammar' being somehow different from language proper and hardly

relevant for communication. Agreeably, if communication is reduced to 'face to face'

exchange of basic information, one might even say that mimicry of one's face, hand

movements and, generally, body language suffice for the communicative needs, and are thus

more important than words. However, when communication is understood as an exchange of

information on / about 'beyond now and here / beyond perceptually available reality', drawing

on more abstract meaning patterns is an indispensable must if the exchange of utterances is to

meet what the speaker intends to convey via communicative act, i.e. if the speaker uses

language as the most effective though sophisticated cognitive skill.

Considering the above, I would argue that an important but underappreciated obstacle

that up to date research into effectiveness of implementing elements of cognitive grammar

into foreign language didactics had to face was the learners' conceptualisation of language as

consisting of form / grammar and meaning /vocabulary/ lexis/, of which the latter is essential

for communication and thus is a priority in foreign language didactics, whereas the more

abstract meaning patterns thought of as 'grammar' are thought of by the learner as a kind of

troublesome surplus to what really matters. Should that be the case, the learners might have

viewed the attempts to implement CG based instructions as a matter of different theory and

different explanations, only, rather than an opportunity to get introduced into a radically

new conception of language as a meaningful system designed in the process of evolution

to perform communicative function. Fortunately, the 'zero option' (Ellis 1990)

communicative approach to foreign language teaching, whose proponents must have assumed

the narrower definition of communication, is being replaced by 'focus on form' approach to

language teaching as a compromise between explicit instruction and communicative practices.

2


LINGUIST'S PRSPECTIVE

For a cognitive linguist interested in applicability of cognitive grammar to language pedagogy

the idea of FonF oriented instruction in the foreign language classroom sounds really

promising. Let us, however, analyse the following fragment from Kermer (2015: 74) when

she discusses advantages of FonF instructions combined with the approach to language form

as existing in three dimensions: form, meaning and use; the case referred to is the English

progressive tense.

For example, learners could be made aware of the prototypical use of the progressive

-- i.e., current ongoingness -- in the beginning. Gradually, then, other usage types,

such as the modal usage type, could be introduced to the learners, thereby placing the

focus on how the shift in usage is connected to the shift in meaning. Learners could

also be made aware of the use of the progressive with imperfectives, not, as is often

part of operation in line with many textbooks grammars, be presented with a statement

that rules out the occurrence of progressive with stative verbs. (Kermer ( 2015: 74)

Basically, I could agree that the above path for introducing the learners to peculiarities of

usage of English progressive promises successful acquisition / learning of the aspect of the

language, except that I have no idea of who could be the guide and what didactic materials

could support the teacher / guide, as, in spite of my deep appreciation of the works by Achard

and Niemeier, I disagree with their belief that cognitive grammar is applicable to language

pedagogy "because the kinds of generalisations it posits to describe linguistic organisation can

easily [emphasis mine] be made explicit, and thus incorporated into classroom practices"

((Achard and Niemeier (2004:7) in Kermer (2015:74)).

The issue of incorporating into classroom practices explanatory potential of CG does

not boil down to whether or not respective linguistic organisation can be made explicit.

Indeed, the problem with applicability of cognitive grammar and, more generally, cognitive

linguistics to language pedagogy lies in its radically unorthodox conceptualization of

language as an organic, meaningful structure organised by cognitive structures rooted in

bodily experience, hence, the conceptualisation which is completely incompatible with the

metalanguage predominating language pedagogy discourse either on the theoretical or

classroom practice level. We can possibly introduce some cognitive terminology and explain

some difficult structures, as illustrated by the research I refer to. Still, as long as the language

pedagogy researchers and teachers overlook the learning context built on the learners' pre-

3


assumptions about what language is, implementing selected aspects of the theory for the need

of specific language practice may not really bring reliable results, nor affect the learners

competence. Regardless of how bizarre it may sound, I argue that attempts to implement CG

inspired instruction into the classroom reality must be preceded by a kind of priming classes

that will help the learners to 'cross the Rubicon' to understand cognitive basis of all language

structure.

What I mean by understanding cognitive nature of all language structure is

understanding that, on the one hand, all language structure conveys meanings rooted directly

or indirectly in perceptive / somatic experience, whereas on the other one, the language user

can use the resources of language structure to create images of both reality and irreality. In

other words, language has imagistic function that allows to construe different images of some

real world situation, but language also has imaginary function, as it allows for construing

scenes from irreality. The scenes referring to matters outside of imaginable reality are

meaningful, can be understood by the addressee and comprehended, as long as the meanings

conveyed evoke cognitive patterns shared by the language community, fundamental for the

language structure..

A possible solution to the problem signalled above can be a kind of ‘priming activity’,

possibly a workshop, that would familiarise the learners with radically new conception of the

nature of language structure prior to the cognitive grammar based instructions. My proposal is

meant as an example of such a workshop whose title could be: From what we experience to

what we say. The activities in the workshop are based on the concepts of image schemata

(Johnson 1987), conceptual metaphor, metonymy and metaphorical projections ( Lakoff and

Jonson 1980), minimal, primitive and configurational concepts (Langacker 2008).

The activities aim at:

(i) helping the students discover embodied nature of language;

(ii) helping the students realize that all facets of language are rooted in patterns of mental

activities – image schemata – encoding all types of bodily experience;

(iii) making the learners aware of the role of sensory/bodily experience for the

construction of both concrete and abstract meanings;

(iv)helping the learners understand that lexis / grammar / usage are ‘the same kind of

thing’ and thus grammar is inherent in all language structure.

4


WORKSHOP: FROM WHAT WE EXPERIENCE TO WHAT WE SAY:

The aim of the workshop is to discover the meaning of a fundamental commitment of

cognitive linguistics, the commitment that can be formulated as follows:

Language is embodied in the sense that there is nothing in the language that has not been

experienced by the speakers of the language.

In other words, language is a cognitive faculty -- a cognitive ability, which is intelectual but

with roots in sensual / bodily / somatic perception. To discover the sense of the claim /

statement, we shall engage in a number of tasks.

Task 1. Describe activities you undertake when you want to make a cup of coffee . (10

minutes)

END OF PART 1

5


PART 2

My proposal is as follows:

I approach the kitchen board with an electric kettle;

reach out towards the equipment.

open it by removing the lid to pour some water into,

reach out for a bottle of water,

keep it with one hand and unscrew it with the other one;

raise my arm with the bottle, turn it and pour water into the kettle,

fix the lid:

switch the kettle on by pressing a button:

While the water is boiling

I reach out towards the cupboard,

open the door of the cupboard,

select a mug among other mugs from it,

place it on the kitchen board

take a jar with ground coffee and open it taking off the lid of the jar;

take a tea spoon,

dip it into the coffee powder,

take as much as the spoon can hold,

transmit it to 'above' the mug, (is 'over the mug' possible?)

turn the spoon to let the coffee powder pour into the mug;

reach out for the kettle with boiling water

pour the boiling water into the mug

There is coffee beverage in the mug.

Prior to drinking

I take the mug in my hand, keep it;

walk towards the table,

place the mug on the table;

Reach out for the chair,

push it away from the table so that I can sit on it;

I sit on the chair;

6


To drink coffee

I reach out for the mug;

Raise it to my lips

take a sip:

Put it back

Raise it to my lips

Take a sip

Put it back

Raise it to my lips

Take a sip

Put it back.

Comparing other proposals (5 minutes)

THE ANALYSIS:

Have we ever thought how come we know what to do to achieve the intended effect? For

example, why do we normally know which way to go to reach the intended goal? What

directs our bodily behavior so that we know how to handle an empty mug/ cup and how to

handle it when full, what makes it possible for us to decide whether we can reach an object

without moving and when we have to move to reach it. I predict, few of us ask themselves

similar questions, we simply know what to do. The body of knowledge that guides us

throughout our interactions with the world is built/formed of what has been called image

schemata (Johnson, Lakoff and Johnson, Lakoff) patterns for mental activities that represent

types of somatic / perceptual and cognitive behaviors that get activated whenever we

undertake an activity. Let us now see if and what image schemata organize our actions

involved in preparing a morning coffee.

I approach the kitchen board with an electric kettle; to perform this action I have to: (i)

localize the object with respect to my location, hence, organizing the space around into the

center (my own location) and periphery (the space extending around the center) (ii) estimate

the existing distance between where I am and the location of the goal, hence decide how near

7


or how far the object is; (iii) to approach the kitchen board (at the periphery), I have to move

on, and to do so, I define the goal and design a path to the goal from the perspective of the

source position, my initial location, because approaching the board involves 'knowing that to

reach a goal one has to travel some path from the initial position source.

We have the 'knowledge' described by (i) - (iii) because we've been practicing the physical

experience in 3D since our earliest childhood, running to one's father or mother, walking to

school, driving to some destination; we are able to function properly because these periphery

-- center, near -- far and source - path - goal mental patterns representing types of bodily

experience have developed throughout our lives into concepts that are - beyond awareness -

activated whenever we decide to move somewhere; the periphery -- center, near -- far and

source - path - goal patterns are very schematic concepts called image-schema (Mark

Johnson ( 1987)). The mental patterns, concepts represent types of physical experience and at

the same time 'help' in /support our everyday cognitive functioning: whenever you think

about getting to the university/ school -- the goal, you design a route -- the path, appropriate

to your actual position -- the source because you have conceived of the peripheral position of

the goal with respect to your initial position -- center, and the distance near or far. Summing

up, to reach the kitchen board with the kettle I am guided by a configuration of at least three

image schemata: periphery -- center, near -- far and source - path - goal.

Reach out towards the equipment. To reach out for the equipment periphery -- center, near

-- far and source - path - goal are activated to direct the hand movement. Additionally, as our

hand /arm normally is kept down, arm muscles lax, the reaching movement involves upward

movement, which in turn involves activating muscles to perform forceful activity overcoming

the weight of the arm and passivity of the arm muscles, which otherwise bar the reaching

movement. In other words, the up - down image schema directs the upward movement

whereas the force - barrier image schema informs about the need to induce force to activate

muscles to overcome the arm's passivity constituting the barrier for the arm's movement. All

in all, the reaching movement activates additionally such image schemata (patterns for

cognitive functioning) as up - down dimension, and force - barrier interaction.

Open it by removing the cover to pour some water into. To perform this activity a number

of image schemata are activated in addition to the ones already mentioned. To begin with, the

image schemata container is activated and, accordingly, information about features of

containers. The image schemata container is presumably one of the earliest image schemata,

8


being related to one of the earliest somatic experiences, such as the baby's being placed into a

pram / cradle, being taken into the arms when hugged, but also being fed, when a mass from

the outside fills in the baby's body. The type of bodily experience informs about essential

features of the container, such as inside - outside of the container or 'an object capable of

accommodating other objects'. The experience of inside and outside of the container develops

into an image schema inside-outside with the information that what is in can be brought out,

and what is out can get in; in other words, manipulating the container allows emptying or

filling the container, unless there is a blockage / restraint preventing the emptying / filling of

the container, which must be removed if the container is to be emptied / filled in. All in all,

the cognitive activity towards opening the kettle is directed / organized by the configuration

of image schemata discussed earlier and those of container, inside - outside, blockage /

restraint and hence, removal of restraint (the blockage), which in turn activates the force -

barrier image schema, as we need some forceful action to remove the lid. Additionally, as the

handling the kettle involves grasping, the contact image schema is also activated. Indeed,

opening of an electric kettle activates the whole configuration of image schemata.

Reach out for a bottle of water. The activity is organized by a configuration of the following

image schemata: source-path goal, force - barrier

Keep it with one hand and unscrew it with the other one. Apart from the force-barrier and

contact image schemata, the configuration of image schemata involved in the cognitive

activities are, at least, equilibrium / balance for safe handling of the bottle and removal of

restraint for removing the cap.

Raise my arm with the bottle, turn it and pour water into the kettle. The image schemata

configuration activated for the activities are: contact (holding), up - down, force - barrier,

container, inside - outside, source-path goal and end of path schema, as pouring the water

requires, apart source path goal schema making sure the water is in the container - end of

path - not around it.

Fix the lid of the kettle. To perform the activity the force - barrier, schema combines with

contact and superimposition, i.e., the schema directing the action of placing an object 'on top

of something else' (the definition based on CALD 2003)

9


Switch it on by pressing a button. The activity is organized at least by contact, force -

barrier and up-down image schemata

Task 2 Identify image schemata that organize subsequent activities.


I reach out towards the cupboard,

open the door of the cupboard,

select a mug among other mugs from it,

place it on the kitchen board

take a jar with ground coffee and open it taking off the lid of the jar;

take a tea spoon,

dip it into the coffee powder,

take as much as the spoon can hold,

transmit it to 'above' the mug, (is 'over the mug' possible?)

turn the spoon to let the coffee powder pour into the mug;

reach out for the kettle with boiling water

pour the boiling water into the mug

There is coffee beverage in the mug.

Prior to drinking

I take the mug in my hand, keep it;

walk towards the table,

place the mug on the table;

Reach out for the chair,

push it away from the table so that I can sit on it;

I sit on the chair;

[For the purposes of today's workshop, I will focus on the analysis of image schemata

organizing the process of 'drinking'. ]

10


Drinking coffee

Reach out for the mug. The configuration of image schemata organizing the activity

incorporates force-barrier,(the activation of arm muscles) source-path goal (the trajectory the

hand 'travels'), contact (grasping, holding)

Raise it to my lips. The configuration of image schemata organizing the activity incorporates

force-barrier (the action of arm muscles), source-path goal, up - down, (the trajectory the hand

'travels'), full - empty, equilibrium (for a safe manipulation of a full container).

Take a sip. The configuration of image schemata organizing the activity incorporates:

contact, (grasping, holding of the mug and the contact between the container and the lips)

container, full - empty, inside - outside, motion of mass as the beverage is the mass moving

from one container to the other one.

Put it back. The configuration of image schemata organizing the activity incorporates: force-

barrier, source-path goal, surface, contact, full - empty, equilibrium.

Raise it to my lips. The configuration of image schemata organizing the activity incorporates

force-barrier (the action of arm muscles), source-path goal, up - down, (the trajectory the hand

'travels'), full - empty, equilibrium (for a safe manipulation of a full container).

Take a sip. The configuration of image schemata organizing the activity incorporates:

contact, (grasping, holding of the mug and the contact between the container and the lips)

container, full - empty, inside - outside, motion of mass. .

Put it back. The configuration of image schemata organizing the activity incorporates: force-

barrier, source-path goal, surface, contact, full - empty, equilibrium.

The follow up analysis.

The gestures involved in emptying the mug and filling up the body are repeated a number of

times and each time the same activities are repeated in an established order. In other words,

11


the process of drinking coffee consists of a sequence of activities to be repeated a few times:

(i) reaching out for the mug, (ii) raising the mug to the lips (iii) taking a sip of the beverage

and (iv) putting the mug back. In terms of image schemata analysis, each of the activities of

(i) - (iv) is organized by a configuration of image schemata as characterized above.

Simultaneously, for the four activities to become the process of drinking coffee, they have to

be organized by higher level image schemata: iteration, cycle and reflexivity. Unless the

drinking reduces to continuous pouring the coffee into the mouth/ body, which is rather

unusual, iteration schema organizes the drinking into a number of cycles. Drawing on CALD

definition of a cycle, let us assume that the image schema cycle organizes a number of

cognitive events / activities to be repeated into a specific order in which one follows the other.

In the case of drinking coffee, the cycle schema organizes the activities (i)-(iv) into order (i)

→(ii)→(iii)→(iv).

Interestingly, the component activities within a cycle are organized by a configuration of

source-path goal schema. In the phase reaching out for the mug/cup the hand follows a path1

form its initial position source1 - the human body to where the mug goal1, is located. The

'travelling of one's hand' involves the force-barrier schema, as to activate the hand movement

some force is necessary to overcome its stativity. The activity bringing the mug with coffee to

one's mouth from its initial location, is also organized by the source-path goal schema, where

the source2 is the initial location of the mug, the path2 is the distance between the location and

the mouth, and the goal2 is the mouth. Interestingly, taking a sip / absorbing a portion of the

beverage in one's mouth to the effect the amount of coffee in the mug diminishes by the

portion, is also organized, among others, by the source-path goal schema for the beverage to

'travel', or the beverage will get splashed all over the face / place. Hence, the source3 is the

inside the mug, the path3 is the trajectory between the inside of the mug and the mouth / lips,

the goal3 / end of path is the mouth. The final phase of the process (iv) is also organized

(among others) by source-path goal schema, where the goal4 is the initial position of the mug

/ container, the source4 is the lips and the path4 is the route between the lips and the position of

the mug on the surface of the table.

Importantly, each of the activities organized by source-path goal, schema involves energy

transfer as without energy no movement is possible. Thus, for phases (i), (ii), (iii), (iv) of the

process, the force-barrier schema induces energy transfer necessary for the arm movements

and the arm/hand's reaching the goal and handling / manipulating the container. Additionally,

12


in (iii) the 'travelling' of the beverage along the path3 from the inside of the mug (source3) to

the mouth (goal3) results in energy transfer from the mug to the mouth. Indeed, the mouth

(goal3) is a part of the human body, hence the energy from source3 (the mug) gets absorbed by

the human body, which is the initial source1 of energy transfer induced to perform hand

movements.

In other words, the configuration of schemata organizing the process of drinking coffee

incorporates energy transfer from the human body (an overall source of the energy and the

primary source1 for source-path goal1), to a location of an object and the primary goal1 of the

source-path-goal1, and from the location of the object (the primary goal1 and the secondary

source2) to the lips (goal2), and from the inside of the mug (source3) to the mouth / human

body (source1 and goal3), hopefully to the effect the amount of energy absorbed by the

tertiary goal3 (the human body) is bigger than the one 'invested' into reaching for the mug

(source-path goal1), bringing it to the lips (source-path goal2) handling while taking a sip

(source-path goal3). Indeed, the activities (i) -(iv) are organized, apart from repetition and

cycle image schemata, also by a reflexivity image schema, by which the energy emitted from

source1 travels to the goal1 which becomes source3 of energy that is absorbed by the goal3

which is identical to the initial source1, to the effect the accomplished cycle 'leaves' the initial

source1 correlating with goal3 'richer' or, at least affected.

As I tried to demonstrate, drinking morning coffee is cognitively a very complicated activity.

Subsequent behaviors are governed by configurations of image schemata that, on the one

hand, represent types of bodily experience, whereas on the other one guide our cognitive

functioning helping to recognize the situation and 'telling' how to react, what to do.

END OF PART 2

13


PART 3

Follow up discussion on the outcome of Task 1 and Task 2 :

From bodily experience to semantic structure

Sharing the proposals of the image - schemata analysis of Task 2 assignment.

Comment on Task 2 :

The aim of the task is to inspire the students' thinking in terms of image schemata. Not all

phrases describing activities have to be used. Depending on which image schemata are to be

discussed in relation to meaning structure, the teacher can select the ones that are most

appropriate.

The phrases describing the activities are presented to the students on separate slips of

paper to choose. The inventory of image schemata is available on the screen. source-path

goal, end of the path, force-barrier, contact, container, inside - outside, full - empty,

blockage / restraint, removal of restraint, periphery -- center, near -- far.

My own proposal:


I reach out towards the cupboard, to open the door of the cupboard. The configuration of

image schemata organizing the action consists of, at least, source-path - goal, contact, force -

barrier, removal of restraint.

Select a mug among other mugs. The cognitive activity consists in identification of a

number of objects from which one is to be selected, thus it is organized by a configuration of

such image schemata as mass - count, center - periphery, container, inside - outside, force -

barrier, source-path goal,

Place it on the kitchen board. To perform the activity the activated configuration of image

schemata consists of contact, source-path goal, force - barrier, up - down, equilibrium /

balance and surface;

Take a jar with ground coffee and open it taking off the lid of the jar . The activities are

organized by a configuration of image schemata, which incorporates, at least: center -

14


periphery, source-path goal, contact, force - barrier, blockage, removal of restraint, inside -

outside, part - whole, mass - count;

Take a tea spoon and dip it into the coffee powder. The configuration of image schemata

organizing the activities incorporates: contact, count - mass, source-path goal, container,

inside - outside, force - barrier.

Take as much as the spoon can hold. The configuration of image schemata organizing the

activity incorporates: container, contact, inside - outside, mass - count.

Transmit it to 'above' the mug, The configuration of image schemata organizing the activity

incorporates: source-path goal, force - barrier, above, equilibrium;

Turn the spoon to let the coffee powder pour into the mug. The configuration of image

schemata organizing the activity incorporates: force - barrier, contact, container, inside -

outside, source-path goal, mass - count.

Reach out for the kettle with boiling water. The configuration of image schemata

organizing the activity incorporates source-path goal, container, force - barrier.

Pour the boiling water into the mug. The configuration of image schemata organizing the

activities incorporates: container, contact, inside - outside, force - barrier, up - down, source-

path goal, equilibrium.

There is coffee beverage in the mug. Understanding the state of affairs involves activation

of the configuration of image schemata incorporating: inside - outside, container, full - empty,

contact, mass - count.

Prior to 'drinking we usually take the mug in hands and walk to the table to sit, placing the

mug on the table.

I take the mug in my hand, keep / hold it. The configuration of image schemata organizing

the activity incorporates: force-barrier, source-path goal, contact, container, equilibrium, for

hand movement, grasping the mug and holding it up the surface.

15


Walk towards the table holding the mug in my hand. The configuration of image

schemata organizing the activity incorporates contact, source-path goal, force - barrier,

equilibrium

Place the mug on the table. The configuration of image schemata organizing the activity

incorporates force-barrier, contact, source-path goal, up - down, surface, equilibrium (full -

empty as information about how carefully to place the mug)

Reach out for the chair. The configuration of image schemata organizing the activity

incorporates: center - periphery, near-far, source-path goal, end of the path, contact.

Push it away from the table so that I can sit on it . The configuration of image schemata

organizing the activity incorporates: contact, source-path goal, force - barrier, center -

periphery.

I sit on the chair. The configuration of image schemata organizing the activity incorporates

contact, surface, fitting, end of the path, up - down,

Supposing, the workshop guided the students into the idea of image schemata and their role /

importance for cognitive functioning, Task 3 should help them uncover the organizing role of

image schemata for the construction of meaning structure at various levels of schematicity.

Task 3: The configurations of image schemata organizing our everyday cognitive functioning

organize / stand behind meanings of language structures, because language is also a cognitive

faculty. For example, the meaning of words such as go incorporates, among others, the image

schema source - path -goal, the meaning of mug incorporates the image schema container, the

meaning of the word push incorporates the image schema of force - barrier. Informally, we

can say that the role of image-schemata as foundational elements in the meaning structure of

the words is to help us understand and comprehend their meanings by evoking respective

types of bodily experience. The presence of source - path -goal in go induces an image of an

object moving along a certain route. The presence of container in mug induces an image of an

object with an inside and outside, to be handled carefully when full, etc. The presence of force

16


- barrier in push informs about the need to use power, energy to overcome some difficulty,

obstacle.

Select five English words and identify image schemata that are inherent in their meanings. As

a word meaning usually is based on a configuration of image schemata, try to identify as

many image schemata as possible.

Discussion of the outcome of the workshop.

END OF PART 3

17


PART 4

Sample analysis of image schemata organizing semantic structure of linguistic units of

various levels of schematicity and closing up discussion

WORDS

Let us assume that the image schemata analysis of language structures can help students of

English grasp subtle differences among meanings of words that appear to be similar, when the

similarity blurs differences in usage. Examples of such words are: see, watch and look (at).

The meaning of each of the words is related to the ability to see. CALD defines the meaning

of see as: "to be aware of what is around you by using your eyes". What the definition implies

is that to see one does not have to do anything but have their eyes open as only then the visual

information about the surroundings can get into the brain/mind to be interpreted into an image

of respective fragment of reality. Simultaneously, if the eyes are closed, no visual input can

reach the brain / mind, no visual input can 'get into' the brain / mind, which encourages

viewing the brain / mind as a kind of container and the eyes, more specifically, the eyelids, as

a potential blockage / restraint to the flow of input into the container. The restraint / blockage

can be removed if the eyes are opened, i.e., eyelids are raised up. If so, we can argue that the

meaning of see is organized by a configuration of image schemata serving the removal of

restraint: (i) force - barrier schema informs about the need to overcome the relaxing position

of the eyelid when the eyes are closed to remove the blockage; (ii) the up-down schema

initiates the upward movement of the eyelids thus opening the eyes; (iii) as see depends on

whether the input can get through the opened eyes to the brain / mind, the brain / mind in the

act of seeing functions as a container that can be opened or closed. In view of the above, the

meaning of see is founded on such image schemata as: container, removal of restraint, force -

barrier and up -down and can be paraphrased as: to see means to let the visual input enter the

brain/ mind by opening the eyes and keeping the eyes open.

Let us now look for similarities and differences between see vis a vis watch and look (at).

CALD defines the meaning of look (at) as follows: direct your eyes in order to see, whereas

watch is defined as: to look at something for a period of time, especially something that is

changing or moving.

18


As the definitions imply, the meaning of watch incorporates the meaning of look (at), which

incorporates the meaning of see. Thus, we can assume that the meaning of see is present in

both look at and watch, and hence the configuration of image schemata container, removal of

restraint, force - barrier and up -down is what the three words share. To identify the

differences among the meanings of the words, let us try to discover image schemata that are

absent from the see configuration. To begin with, according to the definition and examples

illustrating the usage, look (at) incorporates in its meaning intentional activity of directing the

eyes towards a particular object. This element in the meaning of look (at) points to the

presence of source - path -goal image schema in its meaning structure, where the source is the

opened eyes (opened container), the goal is the object(s) the seeing is intentionally directed at

and the path is the route between the eyes and the object(s). Indeed, the configuration of

image schemata organizing the meaning of look (at) incorporates container, removal of

restraint, force - barrier and up -down and additionally source - path -goal image schema.

The presence of source - path -goal implies motion, real or abstract, of something towards the

goal. What is it that 'travels' the route in the meaning of look (at)? Obviously, the 'traveler' is

not an object, physical entity, however, if focusing one's eyes on a specific object could be

imagined as sending an abstract 'arrow' from the eyes to the object, the presence of source -

path - goal schema informs that the meaning of look (at) incorporates intentional establishing

a link between the eyes and a specific, selected fragment of reality -- target. All in all, while

in see the configuration of image schemata implies passivity on the part of the brain / mind,

in look at the source - path -goal schema informs that there is an active source establishing

visual contact with a certain goal.

Let us recall that CALD defines the meaning of watch as: to look at something for a period of

time, especially something that is changing or moving. Following the path of reasoning let us

assume that the configuration of image schemata organizing the meaning of watch also

incorporates container, removal of restraint, force - barrier, up -down and source -path - goal

image schemata. Right as we may be, we still need to identify the difference between the

meaning of look (at) and watch. CALD definitions that we base our analyses on imply that the

goals of the source path goal schema are different in nature for look (at) and watch. Precisely,

in the case of watch the goal is something that is changing or moving. Bodily experience of

change in one's location as well as the ability to register a change in the location of moving

objects leads to the formation of image schemata moving object / motion / change. Motion

and change are inseparable from the experience of passage of time, hence, the presence of the

19


two image schemata in defining the goal of the source-path goal schema in watch implies that

the link between the brain / mind container and the goal defined as moving object extends

through time.

Summing up, meanings of the three words share the configuration of image schemata defining

the semantic structure of see. The difference between see on the one hand and look (at) and

watch on the other one is motivated by the presence of source path goal image schema in the

meaning / semantic structures of the latter ones. Moreover, the difference between watch and

look (at) can be explained with reference to the image schemata defining the goals of the

source - path goal schema: for watch it is a moving object / motion schema construing the

source path goal link as extending through time.

A more insightful analysis of the differences would consider presence of other image

schemata in the configurations organizing meanings of the three words. I believe, however,

that modest as the analysis is, it allows to explain such nuances of usage as, for example, that

look does not allow 'extending in time' complements, while watch is incompatible with

momentary objects of no temporal extension.

*We looked at the film for a few minutes.

*All of the sudden the policeman watched the woman.

PREPOSITIONS

As Lakoff, Brugman, Langacker, Evans and Tyler, and a number of other linguists have

shown, the image schemata are central for the meanings of prepositions. In other words,

prepositions as language expressions encode configurations of image schemata in the most

evident way. Indeed, an image schema can be the element in the meaning of a preposition that

is shared by the preposition in all its uses. Let us take at.

Central to the meaning of the preposition at is the center - periphery image schema. In other

words, the speakers select the preposition for their communicative needs when the situation

they want to linguistically describe agrees with the image represented by the schema center -

periphery. An example of such a situation is localizing exact position of somebody's house

when you give an address. The house is usually surrounded by other buildings, hence we have

20


a situation with an object we focus upon center and the surroundings - periphery. It is

important to realize that the schema defines the center as a part of the surroundings that is

selected as central figure for the specific communicative situation. For a different speaker, the

same street surroundings can be the periphery for locating a different house, hence a different

part of the street will be reflected in the center - periphery image schema. In short, the center

periphery schema imposes on an area the particular organization of its elements, which

otherwise form a whole: houses and street are one thing, what the schema center periphery

does when we use at is selecting the central point through which one has access to the whole

area: both the center and the periphery.

There are examples of English sentences which allow both at and in in virtually identical

context. Still, as we all know, the sentences differ in meaning and the native speakers of

English know exactly when which of them should be used. I will try to explain the 'native

intuition' referring to image schemata discussed so far as the meaning elements that

differentiate between the two prepositions. For at we decided that it is based on center -

periphery, as for in, its meaning is founded on the container image schema.

Let me call your attention to the fact that the container has inside and the outside, and

whatever is placed into the container, it cannot be found outside the container, thus the

container schema implies the restricted area of occurrence to the area of the container, (with

such other implications as inaccessibility from the outside).

Let us analyze some examples of English sentences with the preposition at and in that can be

troublesome for non-native speakers.

1. John is at the hospital.

2. John is in the hospital.

The first sentence activates for the hearer / the addressee of the utterance -- information that

I would paraphrase as: hospital is the center of some periphery -- physical surroundings but

also administrative issues. Thus, if John's location is described by at, he can be found at the

area as a whole, though the center is the reference point for the area. In practical /

communicative terms, the image schema in at 'tells' you that John is related to the hospital

building -- center -- and its periphery: physical and administrative surroundings.

21


In 2 the image schema container in in activates the information that the area of John's

occurrence is restricted to the building only. Selecting in the speaker wants to stress that

John's relations with the hospital are that of being separated from the outside of the container,

his occurrence is limited to the building.

Summing up, the meanings of prepositions also incorporate image schemata, and the

differences between the semantic structures of the language expressions can be explicated by

reference to the patterns of mental activities rooted in bodily experience that organize

respective meanings: container for in and center -periphery for at.

GRAMMAR

Pawlak and Droździał -Szelest's research referred to above imply that for learners / students/

teachers-to-be the most intriguing among CL claims could be the one that all language

structure is meaningful, hence 'grammar' is also meaningful. The present workshop has been

designed to help the students discover what it means that meaning is embodied. Examples of

words and prepositions hopefully illustrated the relationship between meaning and bodily

experience. If meaning is embodied and traditionally understood grammar is meaningful, the

meanings of grammatical morphemes, indeed, grammatical constructions should also be

characterizable with reference to image schemata.

SIMPLE VERB FORMS / INFINITIVES

In classroom situation the activities of Task 4 could guide the students to discovering the

meanings of the perfective and imperfective profiles of verbs.

Task 4

Imagine the following words / phrases are titles of film scenarios: eat an apple, be a girl.

Think about the scenes to be shot for the viewers to guess the titles.

The expected outcome of the workshop is the discovery of internal structure of each of verbs'

types / subcategories: the changing configuration of objects from the beginning to the end of

the activity (perfective) and no change to be registered among / between elements of a certain

situation, so that no beginning nor end can be identified -- (imperfective). Verbs are words

that describe situations evolving through time in space, hence, whatever details of the

situations are, they are organized along a source - path - goal schema coordinated with a

22


passage of time. For example, eat in eat an apple encodes a sequence of different situations

organized along time axis, from the first bite of the apple to swallowing the last one. At each

point of time the situation of the apple is different to the effect that the situations of the apple

at any two points within the time span contrast. Accordingly, to understand the meaning of

the eat an apple one has to re-construe an image comprising all subsequent, contrasting

changes in the situation of an apple, from the first bite to swallowing of the last one within

limits of the time span necessary for the contrasting phases to occur so that none of them gets

out of the span of time. Should the mode of reasoning be correct, we can say that the meaning

of simple forms of perfective verbs like eat is organized by a configuration of the following

image schemata: source-path - goal schema, moving object(s) schema, contrast schema and

container schema imposed on the source-path - goal to guarantee none of the phases falls out

of the internal structure of the action / process.

As for the situations encoded by imperfective verbs, their content is also distributed along a

source-path - goal schema correlating with a passage of time. Consider, however, the meaning

of be a girl. The situation encoded in be is stable, unchanging, regardless of what the girl

does, where she is, etc., at any point of time for someone who is a girl the fact obtains. Thus

the situation is inherently homogenous / unchanging. It resembles mass in that at any point in

time it is the same, regardless of how long it lasts, its quality is the same. Indeed, it might be

reasonable to argue that the content of the imperfective verbs is defined by the mass schema,

while its unchanging through time by the continuity one. Possibly, then, the meanings of

verbal categories: perfective - imperfective are organized, by configurations of image

schemata: source-path goal, moving object(s), container for the former, and source-path goal,

mass, continuity for the latter.

THE PARTICIPLES

If configurations of image schemata encoded in the Infinitive organize the meanings of the

verbs, let us look for image schemata that organize the meanings of participial forms.

Traditional grammars are not helpful, as -ing ending to of the verb was not supposed to carry

any meaning. Langacker's analysis of participles allows to view the meaning of -ing as based

on configuration of such image schemata as: part-whole and center-periphery imposed on

source - path - goal of moving object whereas -en participle conveys meaning founded on the

configuration of part -whole and end of path imposed on source-path-goal of moving object /

moving mass. Importantly, the integration of the participles with verbs is organized by the

imposition image schema.

23


TENSES

The meanings that tense structure contributes to the utterance derive from, are motivated by

the perspective of the speaker from his location in time and space, i.e. here and now.

Accordingly, while construing an utterance the speaker is guided by center-periphery image

schema, where the center is verifiable reality here and now, whereas the periphery is the past

reality and irreality including the probable future. The center - periphery image schema is in

the configuration of source-path-goal, as the now and here keep moving from the past source

to the future goal along the time axis path. The time span here and now, the center in the

configuration, defines the meaning of present, and separates the past time from the future

time. Bearing in mind that the center - periphery schema does not separate the center from its

periphery, to convey information that some past reality has no connection with the center now

and here, an image schema separation can be activated. Language data indicate that meaning

of past tense -ed is motivated by the separation schema, which would explain the 'unreality

function' of 'simple past' forms. The absence of -ed, and hence separation schema in the

structure of the present perfect tenses would account for their 'present relevance' meanings.

Thus, the meaning of the present perfect tense structure is organized by a configuration of -

en : part -whole, end of path, source-path-goal of moving object / moving mass. What

remains to discover is what is the contribution of have to the structure of perfect tenses. At

this point I can tentatively postulate that the image schema that have contributes to the whole

configuration is the reflexivity, which informs that the 'end of path' is brought to the center

now and here .

CLOSE UP

It remains to be seen whether cognitive linguistics framework will prove applicable to the

area of foreign language pedagogy. What I tried to share today is far from offering any

answers. Rather I hope, the workshop has inspired serious discussion on how to get ready to

meet the challenge of guiding the learners and teachers into the unorthodox conceptualization

of what language is.

24


Image Schemata

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_schema#Lists_of_image_schemas

Spatial motion group

Containment

Path

Source-Path-Goal

Blockage

Center-Periphery

Cycle

Cyclic Climax

Force Group

Compulsion

Counterforce

Diversion

Removal of Restraint

Enablement

Attraction

Link

Scale

Balance Group

Axis Balance

Point Balance

Twin-Pan Balance

Equilibrium

Listed but unsketched and undiscussed in Johnson

Contact

Surface

Full-Empty

Merging

Matching

Near-Far

Mass-Count

Iteration

Object

25

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_schema#Lists_of_image_schemas


Splitting

Part-Whole

Superimposition

Process

Collection

Additional schemas discussed in Lakoff 1987:

Spatial group

Above

Across

Covering

Contact

Vertical Orientation

Length (extended trajector)

Transformational group

Linear path from moving object (one-dimensional trajector)

Path to endpoint (endpoint focus)

Path to object mass (path covering)

Multiplex to mass (possibly the same as Johnson's undefined Mass-Count)

Reflexive (both part-whole and temporally different reflexives)

Rotation

26


References:

Bielak, Jakub, Mirosław Pawlak, Anna Mystkowska-Wiertelak (2013) Teaching the English

active and passive voice with the help of cognitive grammar: An empirical study. Studies in

Second Language Learning and Teaching. Kalisz: Department of English Studies, Faculty of

Pedagogy and Fine Arts, Adam Mickiewicz University,

Bielak, Jakub, (2007) Applying Cognitive Grammar in the classroom: Teaching English

possessives. In Mirosław Pawlak (ed.)

Johnson, Mark. (1987) The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination and

Reason. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

Kermer, Franka. (2014) A Cognitive Grammar Approach to the Instruction of English Tense

and Aspect in the L2 Context. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Joensuu: University of

Eastern Finland, Philosophical Faculty.

Lakoff, George, (2011) Kobiety, ogień i rzeczy niebezpieczne. Co kategorie mówią nam o

umyśle. Kraków: Universitas.

Langacker, Ronald. W. (2008) Cognitive Grammar: a Basic Introduction. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Pawlak, Mirosław -- Krystyna Droździał-Szelest (2007) When I think about grammar…

Exploring English Department students’ beliefs about grammar, grammar learning and

grammar teaching . In Mirosław Pawlak (ed.)

Pawlak, Mirosław (ed.), (2007) Studies in Pedagogy and Fine Arts. Exploring Focus on Form

in Language Teaching. Poznań-Kalisz: Faculty of Pedagogy and Fine Arts in Kalisz, Adam

Mickiewicz University in Poznań

27

Documents

Hunting for a missing link: between cognitive framework and classroom practicies