Cognitive Linguistics and L2 Instruction

Andrea Tyler

2008-12-03Jiyun Kim & Sungwoo Kim

APLNG 597C: Language AnalysisProfessor James P. Lantolf

Page 2

Cognitive Linguistics and L2 Instruction

Table of Contents

1. Traditional view of modal verbs

2. Cognitive linguistic view of modal verbs

3. Visual representation of cognitive linguistic perspective on English modal verbs

4. Support for the cognitive linguistic view

5. Further issues

Page 3

Background

WANTED: ENGLISH MODAL VERBS

Some look like brothers (may/might, can/could…) even though they appear in quite different places.

Extremely hard to understand

Even harder to use them properly

Everyone hates them.

Question: How did you catch English modal verbs?

Page 4

Traditional Approach

http://www.englishpage.com/modals/modalintro.html

Page 5

Traditional (Cont’d)

http://www.englishpage.com/modals/may.html

http://www.englishpage.com/modals/might.html

Page 6

Traditional (Cont’d)

http://www.englishpage.com/modals/may.html

http://www.englishpage.com/modals/might.html

Page 7

Problems of Traditional View

1. Failure to address any systematic patterning found in the modal system as a whole

2. Relationship between the root uses and epistemic uses is completely ignored. (e.g. Mother said I should be home by 10:00. (Root) Door bell rings. Speaker: That should be John now. (Epistemic))

3. Subtle but fundamental differences in speaker attitudes are obscured.

As a result, the only approach to mastering modals is to memorize formulaic expressions for each speech act.

Page 8

Cognitive Linguistics

“Real world” observations of basic force dynamics provide important event schemas we use to talk about the non-physical

e.g. I see your point. I hear what you’re saying.

I have a good grasp of the issues. I am well grounded in the theory. His argument forced me to move from my original

position.

This theory has run into a major obstacle.

Page 9

Modal Verbs: Metaphoric extension of force dynamics into the domain of logic

1. Origin:

Non-modal lexical items Root Epistemic

magan (“be strong”) may / might

moste (past form of mot; “obliged”) must

2. Root meanings from physical forces, barriers, and paths“…we view our reasoning processes as being subject to compulsions, obligations and barriers just as our real-world actions are subject to modalities of the same sort” (Sweester, 1990)

Page 10

Modal Verbs: Metaphoric extension of force dynamics into the domain of logic (Cont’d)

a. You may now kiss the bride.

[no parental, social or institutional barrier now prevents

the bride from being kissed by the groom]

b. John can throw a javelin over 20 metres.

[he is physically capable of doing this]

c. You must move your foot or the car will crush it.

[physical necessity]

Page 11

Tense: Proximal – distal metaphor (NOW IS HERE – THEN IS THERE)

1. Present tense – Proximal

e.g. “In 1859, Charles Darwin’s The Origin of Species was published in London. The central idea in this book is the principle of… In the sixth edition Darwin wrote…” <foregrounded ideas>

2. Past tense - Distal

e.g. Receptionist: Good morning, Doctor Kim’s office.

Patient: Yes, I wanted to ask you a question.

e.g. I was hoping you were free for lunch.

<politeness>

Page 12

Match each modal with its visual representation

MUST

SHOULD

SHALL

Page 13

Match each modal with its visual representation

MUST

SHOULD

SHALL

Page 14

Support for the CL View: Abbuhl (2005)

Participants1. LL. M. students in the U.S. who have been using English for

professional work for several years

2. Continued difficulty producing appropriate modals in their written English discourse

3. Importance of using modals correctly

E.g. If the court finds this argument persuasive, it will find in your favor. vs If the court finds this argument persuasive, it could find in your favor.

Page 15

Abbuhl (2005) – cont’d

THE FEEDBACK GROUP THE MINIMAL FEEDBACK GROUP

10-week writing instruction

Written and oral feedback on both the content and form

Feedback mainly on content

Focus of analysis: their use of hedges and boosters to signal the writer’s stance towards the strength of the arguments

1st draft: no differences in each group’s use of hedges and boosters (Mann Whitney U Test)

30-minute teacher-fronted presentation on the semantics of

modals, followed by pair work based on modal charts

Encouraged to read legal documents extensively

2nd draft: The difference between two groups’s appropriated use of hedges and boosters was statistically significant. (Mann Whitney U Test / Wilcoxon Signed Ranks test)

Page 16

Further Issues

1. Methods to develop visual representation

Conceptualization & Corpus-based approach

2. How to incorporate diverse language users’ different encyclopedic knowledge in different contexts in developing the visual schema

Visual conceptualization for lawyers vs for EFL learners in secondary school

3. How to use gestures to enhance learners’ conceptualization of modal verbs

Thank you.