Teaching English tense and aspect with the help of cognitive grammar: An empirical study
PDF

Keywords

cognitive grammar
pedagogical grammar
traditional descriptions
tense
aspect

How to Cite

Bielak, J., & Pawlak, M. (2011). Teaching English tense and aspect with the help of cognitive grammar: An empirical study. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 1(3), 365–400. https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2011.1.3.4

Number of views: 1370


Number of downloads: 661

Abstract

Form-focused instruction is usually based on traditional practical/pedagogical grammar descriptions of grammatical features. The comparison of such traditional accounts with cognitive grammar (CG) descriptions seems to favor CG as a basis of pedagogical rules. This is due to the insistence of CG on the meaningfulness of grammar and its detailed analyses of the meanings of particular grammatical features. The differences between traditional and CG rules/descriptions are exemplified by juxtaposing the two kinds of principles concerning the use of the present simple and present progressive to refer to situations happening or existing at speech time. The descriptions provided the bases for the instructional treatment in a quasi-experimental study exploring the effectiveness of using CG descriptions of the two tenses, and of their interplay with stative (imperfective) and dynamic (perfective) verbs, and comparing this effectiveness with the value of grammar teaching relying on traditional accounts found in standard pedagogical grammars. The study involved 50 participants divided into three groups, with one of them constituting the control group and the other two being experimental ones. One of the latter received treatment based on CG descriptions and the other on traditional accounts. CG-based instruction was found to be at least moderately effective in terms of fostering mostly explicit grammatical knowledge and its effectiveness turned out be comparable to that of teaching based on traditional descriptions.

https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2011.1.3.4
PDF

References

Achard, M. (2008). Teaching construal: Cognitive pedagogical grammar. In P. Robinson & N. C. Ellis (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition (pp. 432-455). New York: Routledge.

Bielak, J. (2007). Applying Cognitive Grammar in the classroom: Teaching English possessives. In M. Pawlak (Ed.), Exploring focus on form in language teaching [Special issue]. Studies in Pedagogy and Fine Arts, 7, 113-133.

Bielak, J., & Pawlak, M. (in press). Applying Cognitive Grammar in the foreign language classroom: Teaching English tense and aspect. Heidelberg: Springer.

Boers, F., & Lindstromberg, S. (2006). Cognitive linguistic applications in second or foreign language instruction: Rationale, proposals and evaluation. In G. Kristiansen, M. Achard, R. Dirven, & F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics: Current applications and future perspectives (pp. 305-355). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Celce-Murcia, M., & Larsen-Freeman, D. (1999). The grammar book: An EFL/ESL teacher’s course (2nd ed.). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.

Chalker, S. (1994). Pedagogical grammar: Principles and problems. In M. Bygate, A. Tonkyn, & E. Williams (Eds.), Grammar and the language teacher (pp. 31-44). New York: Prentice Hall.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Eastwood, J. (1999). Oxford practice grammar (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ellis, R. (1997). SLA research and language pedagogy. Oxford: Oxford Universi-ty Press.

Huddleston, R., & Pullum, G. K. (2002). The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Huong, N. T. (2005). Vietnamese learners mastering English articles (Doctoral dissertation, University of Groningen). Retrieved from http://dissertations.ub.rug.nl/FILES/faculties/ppsw/2005/h.n.thu/thesis.pdf

Król-Markefka, A. (2010). Metalinguistic knowledge and the accurate use of English articles: The effects of applying Cognitive Grammar in second language teaching (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Jagiellonian University, Cracow.

Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar: Vol. 1. Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Langacker, R. W. (1991). Foundations of cognitive grammar: Vol. 2. Descriptive applications. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Langacker, R. W. (2002). Concept, image, and symbol: The cognitive basis of grammar (2nd ed.). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Langacker, R. W. (2008). Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Littlemore, J. (2009). Applying cognitive linguistics to second language learning and teaching. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Mańczak-Wohlfeld, E., Niżegorodcew, A., & Willim, E. (2007). A practical gram-mar of English (10th ed.). Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.

Niemeier, S. (2005). Boundedness/unboundedness: Blick durch das Schlüsselloch. Angewandte kognitive Linguistik für den Englischunterricht. Zeitschrift für Angewandte Linguistik, 43, 3-31.

Niemeier, S., & Reif, M. (2008). Making progress simpler? Applying cognitive grammar to tense-aspect teaching in the German EFL classroom. In S. De Knop & T. De Rycker (Eds.), Cognitive approaches to pedagogical gram-mar (pp. 325-356). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.

Swan, M. (1994). Design criteria for pedagogic language rules. In M. Bygate, A. Tonkyn, & E. Williams (Eds.), Grammar and the language teacher (pp. 45-55). New York: Prentice Hall.

Turewicz, K. (2000). Applicability of cognitive grammar as a foundation of pedagogical/reference grammar. Łódź: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego.

Tyler, A. (2008). Cognitive linguistics and second language instruction. In P. Robinson & N. C. Ellis (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition (pp. 456-488). New York: Routledge.

Tyler, A., & Evans, V. (2001). The relation between experience, conceptual structure and meaning: Non-temporal uses of tense and language teaching. In M. Pütz, S. Niemeier, & R. Dirven (Eds.), Applied cognitive linguistics I: Theory and language acquisition (pp. 63-105). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Tyler, A., & Evans, V. (2004). Applying cognitive linguistics to pedagogical grammar: The case of over. In M. Achard & S. Niemeier (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics, second language acquisition, and foreign language teaching (pp. 257-280). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Tyler, A., Mueller, C. M., & Ho, V. (2010). Applying cognitive linguistics to instructed L2 learning: The English modals. In J. Littlemore & C. Juchem-Grundmann (Eds.), Applied cognitive linguistics in second language learning and teaching [Special issue]. AILA Review, 23, 31-49.

Vendler, Z. (1957). Verbs and times, The Philosophical Review, 66, 143-160.