Does L2 assessment make a difference? Testing the empirical validity of applied cognitive linguistics in the acquisition of the Spanish/L2 psych-verb construction
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online March, 2026
Does L2 assessment make a difference? Testing the empirical validity of applied cognitive linguistics in the acquisition of the Spanish/L2 psych-verb construction
This article lies within the field of applied cognitive linguistics (ACL) and presents empirical work that addresses overlooked effects of assessment typology in second language (L2) learning. It examines whether pairing a cognitive instructional approach with matching assessment design results in greater learning outcomes over the more pervasive notional-functional approaches. The last two decades have witnessed a proliferation of empirical research measuring the effectiveness of ACL-based teaching approaches, yet studies have only been partly fruitful in eliciting data that truly favors ACL. We argue that this is largely due to assessment design, which typically measures performance via correct vs. incorrect tasks. To overcome this caveat, two studies addressing the complex Spanish psych-verb construction (e.g. gustar ‘to like’) were conducted following a pretest/posttest/delayed-posttest design for three empirical conditions (control, cognitive, and traditional): a pilot study (n = 59) and a larger replication (n = 160). Data collection entailed ACL-based assessment for interpretation and production tasks. Results showed that after instruction, the cognitive group significantly outperformed the traditional counterpart in both tasks. These findings lend support to the effectiveness of pairing cognitive instruction and cognitive assessment for difficult grammatical constructions.
AchardM.NiemeierS. (Eds.). (2004). Cognitive linguistics, second language acquisition, and foreign language teaching. Studies on language acquisition: Volume 18. De Gruyter Mouton.
2.
Alonso-AparicioI.Llopis-GarcíaR. (2019). La didáctica de la oposición imperfecto/perfecto simple desde una perspectiva cognitiva [The didactics of the opposition imperfect/perfect simple from a cognitive perspective]. In Ibarretxe-AntuñanoI.CadiernoT.Castañeda CastroA. (Eds.), Lingüística cognitiva y español LE/L2 (pp. 274–299). Taylor & Francis.
3.
ArnettC.SuñerF. (2019). Using cooperation scripts and animations to teach grammar in the foreign language classroom. Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association, 7, 31–50.
4.
BauerB.L.M. (2000). Archaic syntax in Indo-European: The spread of transitivity in Latin and French. Mouton de Gruyter.
5.
BellettiA.RizziL. (1988). Psych-verbs and θ-theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 6, 291–352.
6.
BielakJ.PawlakM. (2011). Teaching English tense and aspect with the help of cognitive grammar: An empirical study. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 1, 365–400.
7.
BielakJ.PawlakM.Mystkowska-WiertelakA. (2013). Teaching the English active and passive voice with the help of cognitive grammar: An empirical study. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 3, 581–619.
8.
BoersF. (2013). Cognitive linguistic approaches to teaching vocabulary: Assessment and integration. Language Teaching, 46, 208–224.
9.
BoersF.LindstrombergS. (Eds.). (2008). Cognitive linguistic approaches to teaching vocabulary and phraseology. Mouton de Gruyter.
10.
BossongG. (1998). Le marquage différentiel de l’objet dans les langues d’Europe [The differential marking of the object in the languages of Europe]. In FeuilletJ. (Ed.), Actance et valence dans les langues de l’Europe (pp. 193–258). Mouton de Gruyter.
11.
BrewerW.B. (1970). Extent of verbal influence and choice between le and lo in Alphonsine Prose. Hispanic Review, 38, 133–146.
12.
CadiernoT. (2008). Learning to talk about motion in a foreign language. In RobinsonP.EllisN.C. (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition (pp. 249–285). Routledge.
13.
CadiernoT.EskildsenS.W. (Eds.). (2015). Usage-based perspectives on second language learning. De Gruyter Mouton.
14.
CançadoM. (1996). Análise descritiva dos verbos psicológicos do português brasileiro [Descriptive analysis of psychological verbs in Brazilian Portuguese]. Revista de Estudos da Linguagem, 4, 89–114.
15.
Castañeda CastroA. (2014). Cognitive linguistic approaches to second language Spanish. In GeeslinK. (Ed.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 96–110). Wiley & Sons.
16.
ComrieB. (1989). Language universals and linguistic typology: Syntax and morphology. University Press.
17.
CroftW.A. (1986). Surface subject choice of mental verbs. Unpublished paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, New York, USA.
18.
DahlE.FedrianiC. (2012). The argument structure of experience: Experiential constructions in Early Vedic, Homeric Greek, and Early Latin. Transactions of the Philological Society, 110, 342–362.
19.
De KnopS.BoersF.De RyckerA. (Eds.). (2010). Fostering language teaching efficiency through cognitive linguistics: Volume 17. Walter de Gruyter.
20.
De KnopS.De RyckerT. (Eds.). (2008). Cognitive approaches to pedagogical grammar: A volume in honour of René Dirven: Volume 9. Walter de Gruyter.
21.
DörnyeiZ. (2013). Communicative language teaching in the 21st century: The “principled communicative approach.” In ArnoldJ.MurpheyT. (Eds.), Meaningful action: Earl Stevick’s influence on language teaching (pp. 161–171). Cambridge University Press.
22.
DeKeyserR.SokalskiK. (1996). The differential role of comprehension and production practice. Language Learning, 46, 613–642.
23.
DowtyD. (1988). On the semantic content of the notion ‘thematic role’. In ChierchiaG.ParteeB.H.TurnerR. (Eds.), Properties, types, and meaning: Volume 2 (pp. 69–130). Kluwer.
24.
DowtyD. (1991). Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language, 67, 547–619.
25.
EllisN.C. (2019). Essentials of a theory of language cognition. The Modern Language Journal, 103, 39–60.
26.
EllisN.C.CadiernoT. (2009). Constructing a second language: Introduction to the special section. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 7, 111–139.
27.
EllisR. (1990). Understanding second language acquisition. Oxford University Press.
28.
FábregasA.MarínR.McNallyL. (2012). From psych verbs to nouns. In DemonteV.McNallyL. (Eds.), Telicity, change, and state: A cross-categorial view of event structure (pp. 162–184). Oxford University Press.
29.
GasconC.D. (1998). The Spanish psych verb construction: Beginning and intermediate learners’ patterns of usage. Texas Papers in Foreign Language Education, 3, 69–84.
30.
GibbsR.WJr.. (1996). Why many concepts are metaphorical. Cognition, 61(3), 309–319.
31.
GibbsR.WJr.. (2005). Embodiment and cognitive science. Cambridge University Press.
GudmestadA. (2006). L2 variation and the Spanish subjunctive: Linguistic features predicting mood selection. In KleeC.FaceT. (Eds.), Selected proceedings of the 7th conference on the acquisition of Spanish and Portuguese as first and second language (pp. 170–184). Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
34.
HartshorneJ.K.O’DonnellT.J.SudoY., et al. (2017). Psych verbs, the linking problem, and the acquisition of language. Cognition, 157, 268–288.
35.
HolmeR. (2009). Cognitive linguistics and language teaching. Palgrave Macmillan.
36.
Ibarretxe-AntuñanoI.CadiernoT.CastañedaA. (Eds.). (2019). Lingüística cognitiva y español LE/L2. Routledge.
37.
JackendoffR. (1990). On Larson’s account of the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry, 21, 427–456.
38.
JackendoffR. (2007). Language, consciousness, culture: Essays on mental structure. MIT Press.
39.
JelinekE.WillieM.A. (1996). Psych verbs in Navajo. In YoungR.W. (Ed.), Athabaskan Language Studies (pp. 15–34). University of New Mexico Press.
40.
KisslingE.TylerA.WarrenL.NegreteL. (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. 229–259). Mouton de Gruyter.
41.
KleinK.KutscherS. (2002). Psych-verbs and lexical economy. Theorie des Lexikons Nummer. 122. Arbeiten des Sonderforschungsbereichs 282 (Working Paper). Heinrich-Heine-Universität, pp. 1–84.
42.
KleinK.KutscherS. (2015). Lexical economy and case selection of psych-verbs in German. Working Paper. Institut für Deutsche Sprache.
43.
Kohl-DietrichD.Juchem-GrundmannC.SchnotzW. (2016). Conceptual motivation as a tool for raising language awareness in the English as a foreign language classroom – Does it enhance learning outcomes? Insights from an empirical study. Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association, 4, 193–210.
LamY. (2009). Applying cognitive linguistics to teaching the Spanish prepositions por and para. Language Awareness, 18, 2–18.
46.
LangackerR.W. (1999). Assessing the cognitive linguistic enterprise. In JanssenT.RedekerG. (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics: Foundations, scope, and methodology (pp. 13–59). De Gruyter Mouton.
47.
LangackerR.W. (2008). Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford University Press.
48.
LangackerR.W. (2016). Working toward a synthesis. Cognitive Linguistics, 27, 465–477.
LeeJ.F.VanPattenB. (2003). Making communicative language teaching happen. McGraw-Hill.
51.
LevinB. (1993). English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. University of Chicago Press.
52.
LittlemoreJ. (2009). Applying cognitive linguistics to second language learning and teaching. Springer.
53.
LittlemoreJ.Juchem-GrundmannC. (Eds.). (2010). Applied cognitive linguistics in second language learning and teaching. AILA Review, 23(1).
54.
LittlemoreJ.TaylorJ.R. (Eds.). (2014). The Bloomsbury companion to cognitive linguistics. Bloomsbury.
55.
LiuM. (2016). Emotion in lexicon and grammar: Lexical-constructional interface of Mandarin emotional predicates. Lingua Sinica, 2, 1–47.
56.
Llopis-GarcíaR. (in press). Applied cognitive linguistics and L2 instruction. (Elements in Cognitive Linguistics). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
57.
Llopis-GarcíaR. (2010). Why cognitive grammar works in the L2 classroom: A case study of mood selection in Spanish. AILA Review, 23, 72–94.
58.
Llopis-GarcíaR. (2011). Gramática cognitiva para la enseñanza del español como lengua extranjera [Cognitive grammar for teaching Spanish as a foreign language]. Ministerio de Educación, Madrid.
59.
Llopis-GarcíaR. (2021). Plenary: Applied cognitive linguistics for meaningful – and successful! – L2 language teaching. Presented at The 2nd International Conference for Young Researchers in Cognitive Linguistics (YRCL). Available at: https://sites.google.com/view/yrcl2021/plenary-speakers (accessed July 2023).
60.
Llopis-GarcíaR.Alonso-AparicioI. (2018). Enseñanza de L2 de corte cognitivo: ¿Qué apunta la investigación empírica? [Cognitive L2 teaching: What does empirical research show?] In 11th International Conference of the Spanish Cognitive Linguistics Association (AELCO), Universidad de Córdoba.
61.
Llopis-GarcíaR.Alonso-AparicioI. (2019). Cognitive approaches to L2 pedagogy: Challenges and shortcomings of empirical testing. In International Cognitive Linguistics Conference, Nishinomiya, Japan.
62.
Llopis-GarcíaR.Hijazo-GascónA. (Eds.). (2019). Special issue: Applied cognitive linguistics to L2 acquisition and learning: Research and convergence. IRAL – International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 57, i–v.
63.
Llopis-GarcíaR.Real EspinosaJ.M.Ruiz CampilloJ.P. (2012). Qué gramática enseñar, qué gramática aprender [What grammar to teach, what grammar to learn]. Edinumen.
64.
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. 233–254). Mouton de Gruyter.
65.
Martín-GascónB. (2020). Los verbos psicológicos en los manuales de ELE: Un análisis comunicativo-cognitivo [Psychological verbs in ELE manuals: A communicative-cognitive analysis]. RLA – Revista de Lingüística Teórica y Aplicada, 58, 137–166.
66.
Martín-GascónB. (2021). Constructions with verbs of affection in ELE: The void of the cognitive approach in textbooks. Bellaterra Journal of Teaching and Learning Language and Literature, 14, 1–26.
67.
Martín-GascónB. (2023). Developing L2 learners’ metaphoric competence: A case study of figurative motion constructions. IRAL – International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 61, 79–109.
68.
Martín-GileteM. (2021). Aplicación de enfoques lingüístico-cognitivos para la enseñanza de verbos con partículas para el aula ILE [Application of linguistic-cognitive approaches for teaching verbs with particles for the ILE classroom]. Conference presentation. AALiCo online Conference.
69.
Mayoral-HernándezR. (2012). Teaching subject position in Spanish: Gustar verbs, unaccusatives and the impersonal passive. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 3, 321–330.
70.
MiglioV.G.GriesS.T.HarrisM.J.WheelerE.M.Santana-PaixãoR. (2013). Spanish lo(s)–le(s) clitic alternations in psych verbs: A multifactorial corpus-based analysis. In AmaroJ.C.LordG.de Prada PérezA.AaronJ.E. (Eds.), Selected proceedings of the 16th Hispanic linguistics symposium (pp. 268–278). Cascadilla.
71.
MontrulS. (1997a). On the parallels between diachronic change and interlanguage grammars: The L2 acquisition of the Spanish dative case system. Spanish Applied Linguistics, 1, 87–113.
72.
MontrulS. (1997b). Spanish gustar psych verbs and the unaccusative se construction: The case of dative experiencers in SLA. In Pérez-LerouxA.T.GlassW.R. (Eds.), Contemporary perspectives on the acquisition of Spanish (pp. 189–207). Cascadilla Press.
73.
NaceyS. (2017). Metaphor comprehension and production in a second language. In SeminoE.DemjénS. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of metaphor and language (pp. 503–515). Routledge.
74.
OomenM. (2017). Iconicity in argument structure: Psych-verbs in sign language of the Netherlands. Sign Language and Linguistics, 20, 55–108.
75.
Piquer-PírizA.M.Castellano-RiscoI.Martín-GileteM. (2022). Cognitive linguistics-oriented teaching activities in real L2 classrooms: Design, implementation and assessment. Paper presented at the 12th International Conference of the Spanish Cognitive Linguistics Association, Logroño, Spain. University of La Rioja.
76.
PützM.NiemeierS.DirvenR. (Eds.). (2001). Applied cognitive linguistics: Volume 2: Language pedagogy. Walter de Gruyter.
77.
Reif-HülserM. (2012). Making progress simpler? Applying cognitive grammar to tense–aspect teaching. Peter Lang.
78.
RobinsonP.EllisN. (Eds.). (2008). Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition. Routledge / Taylor & Francis.
79.
SlobinD.I. (1996). From ‘thought and language’ to ‘thinking for speaking’. In GumperzJ.J.LevinsonS.C. (Eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity (pp. 70–96). Cambridge University Press. (Reprinted in modified form from Pragmatics, 1, 1991, pp. 7–26).
80.
SuñerF.RocheJ. (2021). Embodiment in concept-based L2 grammar teaching: The case of German light verb constructions. IRAL – International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 59, 421–447.
81.
TalmyL. (1985). Lexicalization patterns: Semantic structure in lexical forms. Language Typology and Syntactic Description, 3, 36–149.
82.
TalmyL. (2000). Toward a cognitive semantics: Volume II: Typology and process in concept structuring. MIT Press.
83.
TaylorJ.R. (1993). Some pedagogical implications of cognitive linguistics. In GeigerR.A.Rudzka-OstynB. (Eds.), Conceptualizations and mental processing in language: Volume 3 (pp. 201–226). De Gruyter Mouton.
84.
TomaselloM. (2005). Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Harvard University Press.
85.
TylerA. (2008). Cognitive linguistics and second language instruction. In RobinsonP.J.EllisN.C. (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition (pp. 456–488). Routledge.
86.
TylerA. (2012). Cognitive linguistics and second language learning: Theoretical basics and experimental evidence. Routledge.
87.
TylerA.HuangL.JanH. (Eds.). (2018). What is applied cognitive linguistics: Answers from current SLA research: Volume 38. Walter de Gruyter.
88.
TylerA.MuellerC.HoV. (2011). Applying cognitive linguistics to learning the semantics of English to, for and at: An experimental investigation. Vigo International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 8, 180–205.
89.
Van ValinR.DJr. (1990). Semantic parameters of split intransitivity. Language, 66, 221–260.
90.
Van ValinR.DJr. (2005). Exploring the syntax–semantics interface. Cambridge University Press.
91.
VanPattenB. (Ed.). (2004). Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary. Lawrence Erlbaum.
92.
VanPattenB. (2015). Foundations of processing instruction. IRAL – International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 53, 91–109.
93.
Vázquez-RozasM.V. (2006). Gustar-type verbs. In Clancy ClementsJ.YoonJ. (Eds.), Functional approaches to Spanish syntax (pp. 80–114). Palgrave Macmillan.
94.
Vázquez-RozasM.V. (2012). Construyendo emociones: Sintaxis, frecuencia y función comunicativa [Building emotions: Syntax, frequency and communicative function]. In JiménezT.López MeiramaB.Vázquez RozasM.V.VeigaA. (Eds.), Cum corde et in nova grammatical: Estudios ofrecidos a Guillermo Rojo (pp. 841–854). USC Editor.
95.
ZaenenA. (1993). Unaccusativity in Dutch: Integrating syntax and lexical semantics. In PustejovskyJ. (Ed.), Semantics and the lexicon (pp. 129–161). Kluwer.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
