1

In the last several decades, vast amounts of effort have been devoted to both theorizing and empirical research concerning various aspects of the teaching and learning of second or foreign language grammar. These endeavors have been undertaken not only in the fields of second language acquisition (SLA) and foreign language teaching, but also in related research areas such as linguistics, cognitive science, or psychology. A few examples of the issues which have been investigated are the sequences and orders of acquisition of different grammati-cal elements (e.g. Dulay and Burt 1974b; Meisel et al. 1981; Klein and Perdue 1992), the processing and storage of the grammatical component in the mind/brain, including explicit and implicit representation of grammatical knowledge (e.g. Levelt 1989; Paradis 2004; Loewen et al. 2009), and the nature and effec-tiveness of various techniques and procedures aimed at developing the mastery of diverse grammatical features (e.g. Smith 1970; VanPatten and Cadierno 1993; Erlam 2003; Nassaji and Fotos 2011). Naturally, all of these issues, and many more, feature to varying degrees in this book, the general interest of which is in the teaching of grammar. Equally relevant to this work, however, is linguistic the-ory. This is because the teaching of grammar cannot do without descriptions of the grammatical elements of the language being taught, which may only be pro-duced with any degree of systematicity with the help of some theoretical assump-tions, if not within the confines of some linguistic theory or theories. In fact, Taylor ([1993] 2008, p. 37) observes that “[a]ny major innovation in linguistic theory is bound, sooner or later, to have an impact on the language teaching profession.”

One such innovation which has been developing quickly over the last two dec-ades or so is cognitive linguistics. This relatively diverse theoretical area is one of the most rapidly expanding currents of contemporary linguistic thought. What tes-tifies to this, in addition to the multitude of various sorts of publications and con-ferences which mark themselves with the label of cognitive linguistics, is the fact that different theoretical developments which have arisen within this field have been applied in a diverse range of other research areas, one of which is foreign

IntroductionChapter 1

J. Bielak and M. Pawlak, Applying Cognitive Grammar in the Foreign Language Classroom, Second Language Learning and Teaching, DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-27455-8_1, © Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

2 1 Introduction

language teaching.1 The potential suitability of cognitive linguistics for language teaching has been premised mainly on its insistence on the meaningfulness of all areas of language, and on the comprehensiveness of its semantic analyses. In fact, the number and breadth of both theoretical proposals and empirical studies con-cerning the application of cognitive linguistics to language teaching has been con-stantly growing for quite a long time now. One symptom of this state of affairs is the appearance and recognition by multiple scholars (e.g. Pütz et al. 2001a, b; Dirven 2005; Boers and Lindstromberg 2006; Niemeier 2008) of the subfield of applied cognitive linguistics. The second fact worth mentioning in this connection is a large (and growing) number of publications featuring both theoretical propos-als and empirical studies concerning the application of cognitive linguistics to lan-guage teaching, which is a powerful indicator of the robustness of the new discipline. These publications include numerous journal articles (e.g. Kövecses and Szabó 1996; Boers 2000; Lindstromberg and Boers 2005) and articles in edited volumes (e.g. Holme and King 2000; Król-Markefka 2006, 2007), devoted to different aspects of language teaching and learning, as well as some single-authored monographs (e.g. Holme 2009; Littlemore 2009). Perhaps the most important of these publications are the following edited volumes dedicated solely to applied cognitive linguistics: Pütz et al. (2001a, b), Achard and Niemeier (2004), Boers and Lindstromberg (2008), De Knop and De Rycker (2008), Robinson and Ellis (2008), De Knop et al. (2010), and Littlemore and Juchem-Grundmann (2010). It appears that Taylor’s (2008) remark (originally made in 1993) that “[n]ow, as the cognitive linguistics movement grows in strength and self confidence, it is only natural that scholars should be turning to the possible pedagogical applications of the approach” captured a real and robust trend of (at least) the following two decades.

It has to be admitted that the majority of applications of cognitive linguistics to language pedagogy attempted so far, especially those which have been subjected to the rigid standards of empirical research, concern the teaching of vocabulary (e.g. Boers 2000), including idioms (e.g. Boers 2001; Csábi 2004) and colloca-tions/phraseology (e.g. Walker 2008), and of some elements at the interface of lexicon and grammar, e.g. phrasal verbs (e.g. Kövecses and Szabó 1996; Csábi 2004) and prepositions (e.g. Piątkowska 2007). The sub-branches of cognitive linguistics which have been subject to pedagogical application the most often include Conceptual Metaphor Theory (e.g. Kövecses and Szabó 1996; Boers 2000, 2001; Condon 2008) and Prototype Theory and Image Schemas (e.g. Boers and Demecheleer 1998; Verspoor and Lowie 2003). While they have been sometimes used in the design of serious proposals to teach certain aspects of second or for-eign language grammar (e.g. Tyler and Evans 2001), it would seem that when it comes to teaching the formal elements of language, the cognitive linguistic the-ory known as Cognitive Grammar should be paramount, as it is devoted to both

1 Applied research with origins in cognitive linguistics has been reported in numerous publi-cations. Prominent among them are the 22, as of July 2012, volumes published (or in print) in Mouton de Gruyter’s series Applications of Cognitive Linguistics.

3

formal and semantic intricacies of the grammatical component of language. While there are numerous theoretically-oriented proposals concerning the harnessing of Cognitive Grammar in the service of grammatical instruction (e.g. Turewicz 2000; Niemeier and Rief 2008), empirical research testing the effectiveness of such applications and comparing their contributions with the effects of using other theo-retical models or traditional descriptions of grammar is currently scant.

Given this state of affairs, the present work is intended as a contribution to the emerging body of research concerned with testing the applications of Cognitive Grammar to the teaching of formal aspects of language. Specifically, its purpose is determining the effectiveness of using descriptions of several grammatical phenomena formulated within the theoretical confines of Cognitive Grammar in grammatical instruction, and comparing this effectiveness with that of grammar teaching relying on traditional pedagogical descriptions found in standard peda-gogical grammars. The grammatical features which have been selected for this research project are selected elements of the English tense/aspect system, namely the so-called present simple and present continuous, and their interplay with sta-tive and dynamic verbs when reference is made to situations unfolding at the time of speaking.

Ronald Langacker, the father of Cognitive Grammar, observes that “the impact of linguistic theory on language pedagogy has been less than miraculous and sometimes less than helpful” (Langacker 2008b, p. 66). This is because

[u]nless they are themselves experienced language teachers, the advice of linguists on lan-guage pedagogy is likely to be of no more practical value than the advice of theoretical physicists on how to teach pole vaulting. What they can offer, qua linguists, is insight into the structure of particular languages and the properties of language in general. But even when limited in this fashion, the input of linguists cannot necessarily be trusted. They quarrel with one another about the most fundamental issues, suggesting that some of them (at least) must be fundamentally wrong (Langacker 2008b, p. 66).

Langacker (2001a, p. 3) also says, “I see the effectiveness of pedagogical appli-cations as an important empirical test for linguistic theories.” For a number of reasons, some of which will be spelled out later in the book (Sect. 4.4.1.1), he adds, “[m]y suspicion is that, in the long run, cognitive grammar will not fare badly in this regard [emphasis original]” (Langacker 2001a, p. 3). It is there-fore not surprising that research efforts aimed at testing the applicability of Cognitive Grammar to language teaching are gaining momentum. If they reveal that Cognitive Grammar may successfully be used in the teaching of at least some aspects of foreign language grammar, they will narrow the gap between theoretical linguistics and language teaching, perhaps lessening the distrust of the teaching profession towards theoretical linguistics. Conversely, if they fail to demonstrate the suitability of Cognitive Grammar for pedagogical application, they will pos-sibly contribute to the introduction of important revisions and improvements to this linguistic theory. Either way, such research seems to be a win-win endeavor. Despite his optimism concerning the usefulness of Cognitive Grammar for lan-guage pedagogy, Langacker (2008b, p. 66) admits that “extensive pedagogical application [of Cognitive Grammar] remains a long-term goal.” This book hopes

1 Introduction

4 1 Introduction

to contribute to achieving that goal, or, should the application of Cognitive Grammar turn out to be premature or ill-advised, to the possible process of modi-fication of the theory itself. Needless to say, it also aims to further to whatever small extent our understanding of how foreign languages, and especially their grammatical systems, are best taught and learned.

In spite of there being a lot of diverse research in this area motivated by dif-ferent theoretical and practical concerns, the view that the understanding of these processes needs refinement is not controversial. As Pawlak (2006, pp. 9–10) says, despite the current general consensus among second language (L2) schol-ars that teaching grammar has a facilitative effect on learning languages in the classroom, there are still numerous disagreements and doubts concerning such essential aspects of grammar teaching as its forms, timing, duration and intensity, among others. It seems to us that, in addition to focusing on the interface between theoretical linguistics and SLA, the present work, which features a thorough description of a quasi-experiment involving some actual language teaching and testing in the classroom, has a definite potential to broaden the understanding of these general issues.

In addition to the introductory (the present chapter) and concluding (Chap. 6) chapters, the book includes four major chapters, the first three of which provide the necessary theoretical background, with the last one (Chap. 5) reporting an empirical study conducted in order to achieve the aforementioned objectives. Chapter 2 intro-duces the theory of Cognitive Grammar by showing its place in and relation with the broader area of cognitive linguistics, by discussing, presenting and exemplify-ing its major principles, constructs, analytical tools, and notational conventions, and by setting it against other cognitive approaches to grammar. Chapter 3 includes two kinds of detailed descriptions of the grammatical items which were the objects of pedagogical intervention in the study constituting the empirical part of the book. As already stated, the grammatical features are selected aspects of the English tense/aspect system including the present tense, the progressive aspect, and the distinction between stative and dynamic verbs. First, these grammatical items are described in considerable detail from the point of view of traditional pedagogical grammars, and from the perspective of the theory of Cognitive Grammar, which is followed by a comparison of these two sorts of description. While Chaps. 2 and 3 deal with issues in the realm of linguistic theory and description, Chap. 4 enters the area of L2 acquisition and foreign language teaching. It presents an array of contempo-rary theoretical positions concerning the teaching of grammar and a wide range of instructional options language teachers have at their disposal with respect to intro-ducing and practicing grammatical structures. The most important SLA theories which are presented include those which advocate the abandonment of the formal teaching of grammar (e.g. the Identity Hypothesis and Monitor Theory), as well as those which recommend certain kinds of teaching in this area (e.g. Skill-Learning Theory and the Output Hypothesis). The instructional options discussed include both methodological options, i.e. various techniques and procedures which may be used to teach grammar, and certain choices in terms of the descriptions of the lan-guage material to be taught. With respect to the latter, Chap. 4 presents the case for

5

using Cognitive Grammar in language instruction, and juxtaposes the potential suit-ability of this theory’s grammatical descriptions with that of traditional pedagogical descriptions. Also, paving the way to the study presented in Chap. 5, the existing research concerning the application of Cognitive Grammar to grammar teaching is reviewed towards the end of Chap. 4. Chapter 5, which is concerned with the teach-ing of the already mentioned area of English tense/aspect, reports the results of a study exploring the effectiveness of grammatical instruction based on Cognitive Grammar descriptions of these grammatical phenomena and comparing it with the effects of instruction based on traditional pedagogical descriptions. Specifically, the study attempts to determine the effectiveness of the two instructional options when it comes to fostering both explicit (both studies) and implicit (one study only) gram-matical knowledge. The possible development of the two kinds of knowledge by employing the two sorts of descriptions is investigated both in the short and in the long run, and the receptive and productive dimensions are also explored in the case of explicit knowledge. In addition, the possible effectiveness of the CG option is analyzed with respect to learners at different levels of advancement. Finally, Chap. 6 offers a number of general conclusions formulated on the basis of the research con-ducted as well as some pedagogic implications that this research supports. It also points to the directions which future research concerning the application of CG to grammar teaching might take.

1 Introduction