Given the immense potential of cognitive linguistics for second language teaching and the need to produce more robust empirical evidence of its effectiveness for a range of learners in real classrooms, the current study set out to investigate the effectiveness of a novel cognitive linguistics-inspired approach for teaching Spanish prepositions and aspect to novice learners (n = 30). Animated videos, which were created collaboratively with students to ensure their comprehensibility, presented Principled Polysemy Networks for the prepositions por and para and the concept of boundedness for aspect (preterite and imperfect). After presentation, practice, and feedback cycles, learners made significant gains on controlled production tasks and performed as well as more advanced learners recruited in prior studies, suggesting that the cognitive linguistics approach was effective for these novices. The study found no statistically significant correlations between learning outcomes and individual difference measures of executive function, working memory, motivation, or learning style, which was cautiously interpreted as suggesting that the applied cognitive linguistics approach benefited all learners, not just a subset with particular abilities.
AchardM. (2008). Teaching construal: Cognitive pedagogical grammar. In RobinsonP.EllisN.C. (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition (pp. 432–455). Routledge.
2.
AchardM.NiemeierS. (2004). Introduction: Cognitive linguistics, language acquisition, and pedagogy. In AchardM.NiemeierS. (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics, second language acquisition, and foreign language teaching (pp. 1–11). Mouton De Gruyter.
3.
Al-HoorieA.H. (2018). The L2 motivational self-system: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 8, 721–754.
4.
Alonso-AparicioI.Llopis-GarcíaR. (2019). La didáctica de la oposición imperfecto/perfecto simple desde una perspectiva cognitive [The didactics of the imperfect/perfect simple opposition from a cognitive perspective]. In Ibarretxe-AntuñanoI.CadiernoT.Castañeda CastroA. (Eds.), Lingüística cognitiva y español LE/L2 (pp. 274–299). Routledge.
5.
AndreouA.AndreouG.VlachosF. (2008). Learning styles and performance in second language tasks. TESOL Quarterly, 42, 665–674.
6.
BaileyP.OnwuegbuzieA.DaleyC. (2000). Using learning style to predict foreign language achievement at the college level. System, 28, 115–133.
7.
BielakJ. (2011). Cognitive linguistics and foreign language pedagogy: An overview of recent trends and developments. In PawlakM. (Ed.), Extending the boundaries of research on second language learning and teaching (pp. 241–262). Springer.
8.
BoersF. (2011). Cognitive semantic ways of teaching figurative phrases: An assessment. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 9, 227–261.
BoersF.Piquer PírizA.M.StengersH.EyckmansJ. (2009). Does pictorial elucidation foster recollection of idioms?Language Teaching Research, 13, 367–382.
11.
BowdenH. (2016). Assessing second-language oral proficiency for research: The elicited imitation task. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38, 647–675.
12.
BrownH.D. (2014). Principles of language learning and teaching. 6th edition.Pearson.
13.
CarrollJ.B. (1981). Twenty-five years of research in foreign language aptitude. In DillerK.C. (Ed.), Individual differences and universals in language learning aptitude (pp. 83–118). Newbury House.
14.
Castañeda CastroA. (2006). Aspecto, perspectiva y tiempo de procesamiento en la oposición imperfecto/indefinido en español: Ventajas explicativas y aplicaciones pedagógicas [Aspect, perspective and processing time in the imperfect/indefinite opposition in Spanish: Explanatory advantages and pedagogical applications]. RAEL – Revista Electrónica de Lingüística Aplicada, 5, 107–140.
15.
CoffieldF.MoseleyD.HallE.EcclestoneK. (2004). Learning styles and pedagogy in post-16 learning: A systematic and critical review. Learning and Skills Research Centre.
Comajoan ColoméLl. (2014). Tense and aspect in second language Spanish. In GeeslinK.L. (Ed.), The Handbook of Spanish second language acquisition (pp. 235–252). Wiley Blackwell.
18.
CurryK. (2010). ¿Pero para? ¿Por qué? The application of the principled polysemy model to por and para. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, USA.
DąbrowskaE.DivjakD. (2015). Handbook of cognitive linguistics. De Gruyter Mouton.
21.
DarcyI.MoraJ.C.DaidoneD. (2014). Attention control and inhibition influence phonological development in a second language. Concordia Working Papers in Applied Linguistics, 5, 115–129.
22.
de GraaffR. (1997). Differential effects of explicit instruction on second language acquisition. Holland Institute of Generative Linguistics.
23.
DoizA. (2013). The Spanish preterite and imperfect from a cognitive point of view. In SalaberryR.M.Comajoan ColoméL. (Eds.), Research design and methodology in studies on L2 tense and aspect (pp. 57–88). De Gruyter.
24.
DomínguezL.Tracy-VenturaN.ArcheM.J.MitchellR.MylesF. (2013). The role of dynamic contrasts in the L2 acquisition of Spanish past tense morphology. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 16, 558–577.
25.
DornyëiZ. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second language acquisition. Lawrence Erlbaum.
26.
DornyëiZ. (2009). The psychology of second language acquisition. Oxford University Press.
27.
DornyëiZ. (2012). Motivation in language learning. Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
28.
DornyëiZ.RyanS. (2015). The psychology of the language learner revisited. Routledge.
29.
DrożdżG. (2020). The cognitive grammar-based pedagogical grammar: Tenses as coherent categories. In DrożdżG.Taraszka-DrożdżB., (Eds.), Foreign language pedagogy in the light of cognitive linguistics research (pp. 29–48). Springer.
30.
DrożdżG.Taraszka-DrożdżB. (2020). Foreign language pedagogy in the light of cognitive linguistics research. Springer.
31.
ErlamR. (2005). Language aptitude and its relationship to instructional effectiveness in second language acquisition. Language Teaching Research, 9(2), 147–171.
32.
FábregasA. (2015). ‘Imperfecto’ and ‘indefinido’ in Spanish: What, where and how. Borealis – An International Journal of Hispanic Linguistics, 4, 1–70.
33.
Gánem-GutiérrezG.A. (2016). Enhancing metalinguistic knowledge: Preterite and imperfect in L2 Spanish. Language and Sociocultural Theory, 3, 27–54.
34.
GanjooeiB.A.RahimiA. (2008). Language learning strategy use for EFL e-learners and traditional learners: A comparative study. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 5, 3–22.
35.
GarcíaP.N. (2017). A sociocultural approach to analyzing L2 development in the Spanish L2 classroom. Vigo International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 14, 99–124.
36.
Goodin-MayedaC.RothmanJ. (2007). The acquisition of aspect in L2 Portuguese and Spanish: exploring native/nonnative performance differences. In BaauwS.DrijkoningenF.PintoM. (Eds.), Romance languages and linguistic theory (pp. 131–148). John Benjamins.
37.
GranvikA. (2012). De de: Estudio histórico-comparativo de los usos y la semántica de la preposición de en español[On de: Historical-comparative study of the uses and semantics of the preposition of in Spanish]. Société Néophilologique.
38.
GriffithsC.SoruçA. (2020). Individual differences in language learning: A complex systems theory perspective. Springer Nature.
39.
GuntermannG. (1992). An analysis of interlanguage development over time: Part 1, por and para. Hispania, 75, 177–187.
40.
HolmeR. (2009). Cognitive linguistics and language teaching. Palgrave MacMillan.
41.
Hong-NamK.LeavellA.G. (2007). A comparative study of language learning strategy use in an EFL Context: Monolingual Korean and bilingual Korean–Chinese university students. Asian Pacific Education Review, 8, 71–88.
42.
Ibarretxe-AntuñanoI.CadiernoT.Castañeda CastroA. (2019), Lingüística cognitiva y español LE/L2 [Cognitive linguistics and Spanish as a foreign/second language]. Routledge.
43.
JacobsenN.D. ( 2018 ). The best of both worlds: Combining cognitive linguistics and pedagogic tasks to teach English conditionals. Applied Linguistics, 39, 668–693.
44.
JandaL.A. (2015). Tense, aspect and mood. In DąbrowskaE.DivjakD. (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 616–634). De Gruyter Mouton.
45.
JuffsA.HarringtonM. (2011). Aspects of working memory in L2 learning. Language Teaching, 44, 137–166.
46.
Kappler MikkB.CohenA.D.PaigeR.M. (2009). Learning style survey: Assessing your own learning styles. In Maximizing study abroad: An instructional guide to strategies for language and culture learning and use (pp. 153–161). Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition. Available at: http://carla.umn.edu/maxsa/documents/LearningStyleSurvey_MAXSA.pdf (accessed November 2022).
47.
KisslingE.M. (2021). From rule-based explicit instruction to explicit knowledge: A pilot study on how L1 English speakers interpret pedagogical rules about Spanish preterite and imperfect. Instructed Second Language Acquisition, 5, 40–68.
48.
KisslingE.M. (2022). More evidence that a usage-based, applied cognitive linguistics approach is effective for teaching the Spanish prepositions por andpara. Pedagogical Linguistics. Epub ahead of print 8September2022. DOI: 10.1075/pl.22005.kis
49.
KisslingE.M.MuthusamyT. (2022). Exploring ‘boundedness’ for concept-based instruction of aspect: Evidence from novice L1 English speakers learning the Spanish preterite and imperfect. The Modern Language Journal, 106, 371–392.
50.
KisslingE.M.NegreteL.WarrenL.TylerA. (2018). Reexamining por and para in the Spanish foreign language intermediate classroom: A usage-based, cognitive linguistic approach. In TylerA.HuangL.JanH. (Eds.), What is applied cognitive linguistics? Answers from current SLA research (pp. 229–256). De Gruyter Mouton.
51.
Kohl-DietrichD. (2019). Cognitive linguistics in the English as a foreign language classroom: An empirical study on teaching phrasal verbs. Waxmann.
52.
LaffordB.RyanJ. (1995). The acquisition of lexical meaning in a study abroad context: The Spanish prepositions por and para. Hispania, 78, 528–547.
53.
LamY. (2009). Applying cognitive linguistics to teaching Spanish prepositionspor and para. Language Awareness, 18, 2–18.
54.
LangackerR.W. (2008). Cognitive grammar as a basis for language instruction. In RobinsonP.EllisN.C. (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition (pp. 66–88). Routledge.
55.
LeeA.H. (2021). The effects of proactive form-focused instruction and individual differences on second language acquisition. Language Teaching Research. Epub ahead of print 13October2021. DOI: 10.1177/13621688211051032
56.
LiS. (2015). The associations between language aptitude and second language grammar acquisition: A meta-analytic review of five decades of research. Applied Linguistics, 36, 385–408.
57.
LiS. (2016). The construct validity of language aptitude: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38, 801–842.
58.
LiS.HiverP.PapiM. (2022). The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and individual differences. Routledge.
59.
LinckJ.A.OsthusP.KoethJ.T.BuntingM.F. (2014). Working memory and second language comprehension and production: A meta-analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 21, 861–883.
60.
Liskin-GasparroJ. (2000). The use of tense-aspect morphology in Spanish oral narratives: exploring the perceptions of advanced learners. Hispania, 83, 830–844.
61.
LittlemoreJ. (2009). Applying cognitive linguistics to second language learning and teaching. Palgrave Macmillan.
62.
LiuD.TsaiT. (2021). Cognitive linguistics and language pedagogy. In LuoH. (Ed.), Routledge handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 543–555). Routledge.
63.
Llopis-GarcíaR. (2010). Why cognitive grammar works in the L2 classroom: A case study of mood selection in Spanish. AILA Review, 23, 72–94.
64.
Llopis-GarcíaR.Real EspinosaJ.M.Ruiz CampilloJ.P. (2012). Qué gramática aprender, qué gramática enseñar [What grammar to learn, what grammar to teach]. Edinumen.
65.
LuoH. (2021). Cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition. In LuoH. (Ed.), Routledge handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 556–567). Routledge.
66.
MaldovanI. (2010). Análisis de la preposición hacia y establecimiento de sus equivalentes en fines [Analysis of the preposition to and establishment of its equivalents in Finnish]. Unpublished Master’s thesis, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
67.
MarrasV.CadiernoT. (2008). Spanish gustar vs. English like: A cognitive analysis of the constructions and its implication for SLA. In TylerA.KimY.TakadaM. (Eds.), Language in the context of use: Discourse and cognitive approaches to language (pp. 233–252). Mouton De Gruyter.
68.
McCabeD.P.Roediger IIIH.L.McDanielM.A.BalotaD.A.HambrickD.Z. (2010). The relationship between working memory capacity and executive functioning: Evidence from a common executive attention construct. Neuropsychology, 24, 222–243.
69.
Mendo MurilloS. (2019). El significado de las preposiciones en la enseñanza del español LE/L2 [The meaning of prepositions in the teaching of Spanish as a foreign/second language]. In Ibarretxe-AntuñanoI.CadiernoT.Castañeda CastroA. (Eds.), Lingüística cognitiva y español LE/L2 (pp. 220–234). Routledge.
70.
NiemeierS. (2008). The notion of boundedness/unboundedness in the foreign language classroom. In BoersF.LindstrombergS. (Eds.), Cognitive linguistic approaches to teaching vocabulary and phraseology (pp. 309–327). Mouton De Gruyter.
OrtegaL.IwashitaN.NorrisJ.RabieS. (2002). An investigation of elicited imitation tasks in crosslinguistic SLA research. Paper presented at the Second Language Research Forum, Toronto.
73.
OxfordR.L. (1995). Style analysis survey. In ReidJ. (Ed.), Learning styles in the ESL/EFL classroom (pp. 208–215). Heinle & Heinle / Thomson International.
74.
OxfordR.L.Burry-StockJ.A. (1995). Assessing the use of language learning strategies worldwide with the ESL/EFL version of the strategy inventory for language learning (SILL). System, 23, 1–23.
75.
Oyarce PiraudM. (2008). Grammatical sensitivity: correlational-explanatory study on brain dominance and EFL training to improve gains. Colombian Applied Linguistics Journal, 10, 93–111.
76.
Palacio AlegreB. (2013). Un estudio sobre la enseñanza de la oposición imperfecto–indefinido a estudiantes malteses de ELE [A study on the teaching of the imperfect–indefinite opposition to Maltese students of Spanish as a foreign language]. Revista Nebrija de Lingüística Aplicada, 13.
77.
PaliczukA. (2020). A cognitive approach to teaching Italian prepositions to Polish students. In DrożdżG.Taraszka-DrożdżB. (Eds.), Foreign language pedagogy in the light of cognitive linguistics research (pp. 85–112). Springer.
78.
PintoD.RexS. (2006). The acquisition of the Spanish prepositions por and para in a classroom setting. Hispania, 89, 611–622.
79.
ReidJ. (1995). Learning styles in the ESL/EFL classroom. Heinle & Heinle.
80.
RidingR. (2002). School learning and cognitive style. David Fulton.
81.
RobinsonP. (2001). Individual differences, cognitive abilities, aptitude complexes and learning conditions in second language acquisition. Second Language Research, 17, 368–392.
82.
RobinsonP. (2003). Attention and memory during SLA. In DoughtyC.J.LongM.H. (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 631–678). Wiley-Blackwell.
83.
RobinsonP. (2005). Cognitive abilities, chunk-strength and frequency effects in implicit artificial grammar and incidental L2 learning: Replications of Reber, Walkenfield and Hernstadt (1991) and Knowlton and Squire (1996) and their relevance for SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 235–268.
84.
RobinsonP. (2012). Individual differences, aptitude complexes, SLA processes, and aptitude test development. In PawlakM. (Ed.), New perspectives on individual differences in language learning and teaching (pp. 57–75). Springer.
85.
RobinsonP.EllisN.C. (2008). Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition. Routledge.
86.
Roehr-BrackinK.Gánem-GutiérrezG.Olivera-SmithL.Torres-MarínM.T. (2021). Are individual differences in cognitive abilities and stylistic preferences related to multilingual adults’ performance in explicit learning conditions?Language Awareness, 30, 391–412.
87.
Ruiz CampilloJ.P. (2005). Instrucción indefinida, aprendizaje imperfecto: Para una gestión operativa del contraste imperfecto/indefinido en clase [Indefinite instruction, imperfect learning: For an operational management of the imperfect/indefinite contrast in class]. Mosaico, 15, 9–17.
88.
RuizS.RebuschatP.MeurersD. (2021). The effects of working memory and declarative memory on instructed second language vocabulary learning: Insights from intelligent CALL. Language Teaching Research, 25, 510–539.
89.
SalaberryM.R. (2003). Tense aspect in verbal morphology. Hispania, 86, 559–573.
90.
SchmidtR. (2001). Attention. In RobinsonP. (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3–32). Cambridge University Press.
91.
SegalowitzN.Frenkiel-FishmanS. (2005). Attention control and ability level in a complex cognitive skill: Attention shifting and second-language proficiency. Memory and Cognition, 33, 644–653.
92.
SerafiniE.J.SanzC. (2016). Evidence for the decreasing impact of cognitive ability on second language development as proficiency increases. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38, 607–646.
93.
SkehanP. (1989). Individual differences in second-language learning. Taylor and Francis.
94.
SkehanP. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford University Press.
95.
SkehanP. (2002). Theorising and updating aptitude. In RobinsonP. (Ed.), Individual differences and instructed language learning (pp. 69–95). John Benjamins.
96.
SkehanP. (2016). Foreign language aptitude, acquisitional sequences, and psycholinguistic processes. In GranenaG.JacksonD.O.YilmazY. (Eds.), Cognitive individual differences in second language processing and acquisition (pp. 17–41). John Benjamins.
97.
SnowR.E. (1994). Abilities in academic tasks. In SternbergR.WagnerR. (Eds.), Mind in context: Interactionist perspectives on human intelligence (pp. 3–37). Cambridge University Press.
98.
Spanish Learner Language Oral Corpora (SPLLOC) project (n.d.). Spanish Learner Language Oral Corpora: Linguistics development in L2. SPLLOC. Available at: http://www.splloc.soton.ac.uk/index.html (accessed November 2022).
99.
TaylorJ.R. (1993). Some pedagogical implications of cognitive linguistics. In GeigerR.Rudzka-OstynB. (Eds.), Conceptualizations and mental processing in language (pp. 201–223). Cambridge University Press.
100.
ThompsonA.S.SylvénL.K.LiuY.AlharbiF. (2021). Psychological aspects of self across contexts: A comparison of China, Saudi Arabia, Sweden, Turkey, and the United States. In PawlakM. (Ed.), Investigating individual learner differences in second language learning (pp. 23–48). Springer.
101.
TomakI.Roehr-BrackinK. (2017). The role of language learning aptitude and type of instruction in the development of explicit and implicit knowledge of L2 English articles. Paper presented at the Thinking, Learning, Doing: Usage-Based Perspectives on L2 Learning (TDL3) Conference (pp. 19–21). Munich.
102.
TurkerS.Seither-PrieslerA.ReitererS.M. (2021). Examining individual differences in language learning: A neurocognitive model of language aptitude. Neurobiology of Language, 2, 389–415.
103.
TylerA. (2008). Cognitive linguistics and second language instruction. In RobinsonP.EllisN.C. (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition (pp. 456–488). Routledge.
104.
TylerA. (2012). Cognitive linguistics and second language learning: Theoretical basics and experimental evidence. Routledge.
105.
TylerA.EvansV. (2001). Reconsidering prepositional polysemy networks: The case ofover. Language, 77, 724–765.
106.
TylerA.EvansV. (2004). Applying cognitive linguistics to pedagogical grammar: The case ofover. In AchardM.NiemeierS. (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics, second language acquisition, and foreign language teaching (pp. 257–280). Mouton De Gruyter.
107.
TylerA.HuangL. (2018). What is applied cognitive linguistics? Answers from current SLA research. De Gruyter Mouton.
108.
TylerA.MuellerC.HoV. (2010). Applying cognitive linguistics to learning the semantics of English to, for, and at: An experimental investigation. Vigo International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 8, 181–206.
109.
UllmanM.T. (2015). The declarative/procedural model: A neurobiologically-motivated theory of first and second language. In VanPattenB.WilliamsJ. (Eds.), Theories of second language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 135–158). Lawrence Erlbaum.
110.
UnsworthN.HeitzR.P.SchrockJ.C.EngleR.W. (2005). An automated version of the operation span task. Behavior Research Methods, 37, 498–505.
111.
VandeloiseC. (2003). Containment, support and relativity. In CuyckensH.DirvenR.TaylorJ.R. (Eds.), Cognitive approaches to lexical semantics (pp. 393–425). Mouton.
112.
Van PattenB.CollopyE.PriceJ.E.BorstS.QualinA. (2013). Explicit information, grammatical sensitivity, and the first-noun principle: A cross-linguistic study in processing instruction. The Modern Language Journal, 97, 506–527.
113.
WescheM.B. (1981). Language aptitude measures in streaming, matching students with methods, and diagnosis of learning problems. In DillerK.C. (Ed.), Individual differences and universals in language learning aptitude (pp. 119–154). Newbury House.
114.
WongM.H.I.ZhaoH.MacWhinneyB. (2018). A cognitive linguistics application for second language pedagogy: The English preposition tutor. Language Learning, 68, 438–468.
115.
Yáñez PrietoM. (2008). On literature and the secret art of (im)possible worlds: Teaching literature through language. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Pennsylvania State University, State College, PA, USA.
116.
Yáñez PrietoM. (2014). Sense and subjectivity: Teaching literature from a sociocultural perspective. Language and Sociocultural Theory, 1, 179–203.
117.
YashimaT.NishidaR.MizumotoA. (2017). Influence of learner beliefs and gender on the motivating power of L2 selves. The Modern Language Journal, 101, 691–711.
118.
ZalbideaJ.SanzC. (2020). Does learner cognition count on modality? Working memory and L2 morphosyntactic achievement across oral and written tasks. Applied Psycholinguistics, 41, 1171–1196.
119.
ZhaoH.HuangS.ZhouY.WangR. (2020). Schematic diagrams in second language learning of English prepositions: A behavioral and event-related potential study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 42, 721–748.
