More research has been coming out that has a focus on applying cognitive linguistic (CL) analysis to language instruction. A great deal of this has been on phrasal verbs and figurative language. However, there is still a lack of empirical research in this field. The following study aims to fill in the gaps in both the areas in which CL is applied and the lack of empirical research by looking at the ways CL can enhance instruction of English conditionals. The following post explains the CL approach, details the research study, and discusses its implications. In general, it was found that a CL approach coupled with explicit instruction and pedagogic tasks is effective.

Article

Dolgova Jacobsen, N. (2016). The best of both worlds: Combining cognitive linguistics and pedagogic tasks to teach English conditionals. Applied Linguistics. Retrieved from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2016/10/06/applin.amw030.full.

Supplementary Materials

The following materials were used to present grammar information about conditionals and were enhanced with student-friendly cognitive linguistic explanations. These can help you better understand the cognitive linguistic approach to language instruction.

• Day 1: Speaker’s Background Knowledge/Mental Spaces
• Day 2: Tenses
• Day 3: Context
• Other supplementary materials (CL conditional flow chart, study design overview)

What is a Cognitive Linguistics Approach

Rather than a traditional descriptive view of how grammar works, CL takes a more meaning-focused and usage-based view in which meaning is intimately related for form and is conceptualized in that way. This mental conceptualization is where the cognitive part comes from and why there has been such a focus on figurative and metaphoric language uses in applied CL research.

How does Cognitive Linguistics View Conditionals

The traditional view of conditionals is form based (1st, 2nd, 3rd). However, this may cause difficulties due to the complexity of subordinating clauses, the need for numerous other grammar points to be mastered (tense, negation, modals), and lack of contextualization. In addition, conditionals contain a great deal of variety that often violate the traditional rules of grammar. According to Dolgova Jacobsen (p. 4):

the CL approach has the tools to address conditional meaning and context usage, and make them fully observable and salient for the learner.

Drawing on previous research, Dolgova Jacobsen describes the CL view of conditionals to be that of looking at “mental space structures” that use form and structure to convey context and the speaker’s perspective (p. 4). Both regular and irregular conditionals have been analyzed to tease out the constructions that convey this type of conceptualization that CL highlights. in other words, CL conditionals look at how form and meaning interact in different situations.

One way to understand the CL view of conditions is to look at the following (copied verbatim, p. 12):

• Tenses in surrounding sentences.
• Perspective of speaker who is narrating: is it the same person as a given character? Is s/he still within the zone of control or already outside it?
• Time markers such as adverbs, adjectives, providing an idea of what time is referenced.
•  Appropriateness of forms for corresponding discourse context.

Applied Cognitive Linguistics

Dolgova Jacobsen argues that CL fits in with both notions of explicit instruction, focus on form, noticing, and consciousness raising. This is because it involves learners in deliberate mental conceptualization of grammar and language. In addition, Dolgova Jabobsen states that a task-based language (TBLT) approach is also compatible with CL, especially where TBLT shifts focus from practice to a focus on form (see Cadierno, 2008 for further readings on this). However, due to time and curricular restraints, Dolgova Jacobsen used a modified version of TBLT called task-supported language teaching.

The Study

• Graduate EAP program at large US university
• Total of 57 participants
• Instruments: pre, post, and delayed (10 days) written tests that consisted of production
  • controlled production: fill-in the blank
  • free production: picture description
  • comprehension/grammar judgement: sentences and pictures
  • validity of sentences as unambiguous were judged by native speakers in a pilot study
• Three groups: cognitive, task-supported, control
  • A three-week treatment
    • One day for grammar presentation and one pedagogic task
    • One day for grammar review and second pedagogic task
  • Cognitive and task-supported groups received an explicit 50-minute language presentation once per week
    • Cognitive group received their explicit instruction with added CL explanations (see supplementary materials, above)
  • Complete two pedagogic tasks per week
    • Not clear if the pedagogic tasks occurred after or during the presentations
• Pedagogic tasks
  1. sentence strips: matching of clause parts and then discussion of meaning
  2. background knowledge: looked at 4 conditional sentences and discussed situation that inspired sentence
  3. hypotheses: formed hypotheses from data
  4. global warming causes: discussion
  5. break-up letter: error correction of a letter
  6. seating chart task: discussion task to seat people around a table following different conditions
• Cognitive group
  • Based on the combination of CL presentation of language and pedagogic tasks
  • Week 1: expose students to “meaning-centered and compositional reality of language” (p. 11). Students did this by thinking about how conditionals are created (copied verbatim from p. 11):
    1. Start with thinking about the background knowledge in question. What is
       realistic?
    2. What is the possible or projected time of condition (if-clause)?
    3. What is the possible or projected time of result (main clause)?
    4. Pick the tenses that will reflect such an arrangement.
    5. Check if your sentence makes sense in the given context?
  • Week 2: focus on how tenses convey meanings
  • Week 3: focus on how context shapes form
• Task-supported group
  • Use of traditional grammar materials plus the pedagogic tasks
  • Week 1: overview of the three conditionals
  • Week 2: tense combinations
  • Week 3: explanations and descriptions of tense combinations
• Control group
  • No instruction on conditionals

The Findings

• Both cognitive and task-supported groups outperformed the control group, with the cognitive group having overall greater gains
  • Cognitive group increased from the pre-test scores and fell a little on the delayed post, but still higher than the pre-test
  • Task-supported scores did the same as the cognitive group
  • Control: little change
  • All differences on the mean scores were statistically significant
  • Controlled production scores were found to be significant for the cognitive and task-supported group, and the cognitive and control group, but not the task-supported and control group
  • Free production scores were found to be significant for the cognitive and control groups, and the task-supported and control groups, but not the cognitive and task-supported groups
  • Comprehension pictures scores were not found to be significant while comprehension sentences were but with very marginal effect sizes

Discussion/Limitations/Conclusion

The CL presentation of language certainly played a role in the gains on the tests, especially in its productive aspects. However, the fact that both groups (cognitive and task-supported) gained shows that pedagogic tasks also played a role in the outcome. A study that focused on explicit grammar instruction or CL instruction with no pedagogic tasks would be necessary to isolate which variables are truly at play. This study gave further evidence that both explicit grammar instruction and CL instruction are effective pedagogical practices. In addition, it confirmed that CL can enhance instruction, especially because “CL provides a framework for raising metalinguistic awareness” and it is this very mental conceptualization that is attributed to both CL analysis and applied CL effectiveness.

Takeaway

The meaning-form perspective that CL takes towards grammar can clearly aid teachers and learners in understanding language and language usage from a more mental (and thus visualizable) perspective. This approach, coupled with pedagogic tasks that direct students awareness to the forms and to thinking about how the forms are used is a key aspect of the CL approach and one which can be easily incorporated into any grammar instruction. This is what makes CL very applicable and appealing to many. Dolgova Jacobsen states that CL is not yet part of mainstream teaching and has not been researched enough. The research shows it is based on sound theoretical underpinnings and there is some empirical validity to support it. While it may be difficult to grasp at first, using CL to enhance language instruction requires no great changes in instruction, and no vast time investments. Therefore, CL-informed teaching is the perfect addition to any teacher who is interested in grounding their instruction in both theory and interesting praxis.

References

Cadierno T.  (2008). Learning to talk about motion’. In Robinson P., Ellis N. (eds):Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition. Routledge.

Thank you very much to Natalia Dolgova Jacobsen, who read over my summary and graciously provided the PowerPoints she used in her research!