Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Learning: Theoretical Basics and Experimental Evidence

Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Learning: Theoretical Basics and Experimental Evidence

Volumn , Issue , 2012, Pages 1-253

  Tyler, Andrea ^a  

^a GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84909253002     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4324/9780203876039     Document Type: Book

References (266)

1. Abbuhl, R. J. (2005). The effect of feedback and instruction on writing quality: Legal writing and advanced L2 learners. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Georgetown University, Washington, DC.
2. Achard, M. (2004). Cognitive grammar and communicative grammar instruction. In M. Achard, & S. Niemeier (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics, second language acquisition, and foreign language teaching (pp. 167-197). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
3. 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.
4. Achard, M., & Niemeier, S. (Eds.) (2004). Cognitive linguistics, second language acquisition, and foreign language teaching. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
5. Amoroso, L. (2009). Noun classifiers in Chinese: Prototypes, peripheries and function. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Linguistics, Georgetown University, Washington, DC.
6. Azar, B. S. (2002). Fundamentals of English grammar. White Plains, NY: Longman.
7. Bates, E., & MacWhinney, B. (1982). Functionalist approaches to grammar. In E. Wanner & L. Gleitman (Eds.), Child language: The state of the art (pp. 173-218). New York: Cambridge University Press.
8. Bates, E., & MacWhinney, B. (1987). Competition, variation, and language learning. In B. MacWhinney (Ed.), Mechanisms of language acquisition (pp. 157-193). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
9. Bates, E., Bretherton, I., & Snyder, L. (1988). From first words to grammar: Individual differences and dissociable mechanisms. New York: Cambridge University Press.
10. Bencini, G. M. L., & Goldberg, A. E. (2000). The contribution of argument structure constructions to sentence meaning. Journal of Memory and Language, 43, 640-651.
11. Berendi, M., Csabi, S., & Kovecses, Z. (2008). Using conceptual metaphors and metonymies in vocabulary teaching. In F. Boers & S. Lindstromberg (Eds.), Cognitive linguistic approaches to teaching vocabulary and phraseology (pp. 65-100). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
12. Bergen, B., & Chen, N. (2005). Embodied construction grammar in simulation-based language lerning. In J. Oston & M. Fried (Eds.), Construction grammars: Cognitive grounding and theoretical extensions (pp. 147-221). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
13. Berman, R. & Slobin, D. (1994). Relating events in narrative: A crosslinguistic development study. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
14. Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London: Longman.
15. Bley-Vroman, R., & Yoshinaga, N. (1992). Broad and narrow constraints on the English dative alteration: Some fundamental differences between native speakers and foreign language learners. University of Hawaii working papers in ESL, 11, 157-199.
16. Bloomfield, L. (1933). Language. New York: Holt, Reinhart, and Winston.
17. Boers, F. (2000a). Metaphor awareness and vocabulary retention. Applied Linguistics, 21, 553-571.
18. Boers, F. (2000b). Enhancing metaphoric awareness in specialised reading. English for Specific Purposes, 19, 137-147.
19. Boers, F. (2011). Applied Cognitive Linguistics. Plenary address to American Association of Applied Linguists annual conference. Chicago, March 2011.
20. Boers, F., & Demecheleer, M. (1998). A cognitive semantic approach to teaching prepositions. English Language Teaching Journal, 53, 197-204.
21. Boers, F., & Lindstromberg, S. (2006). Cognitive linguistic applications in second language or foreign language instruction: Rationale, proposals, and evaluation. In G. Kristiansen, M. Achard, R. Dirven, & F. Ruiz de Mendoza (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics: Current applications and future perspectives (pp. 305-355). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
22. Boers, F., & Lindstromberg, S. (Eds.) (2008a). Cognitive linguistic approaches to teaching vocabulary and phraseology. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
23. Boers, F., & Lindstromberg, S. (2008b). From empirical findings to pedagogical practice. In F. Boers, & S. Lindstromberg (Eds.), Cognitive linguistic approaches to teaching vocabulary and phraseology (pp. 375-394). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
24. Boers, F., Demecheleer, M., & Eyckmans, J. (2004). Etymological elaboration as a strategy for learning figurative idioms. In P. Bogaards & B Laufer (Eds.), Vocabulary in a second language: Selection, acquisition, and testing (pp. 53-78). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
25. Boers, F., Eyckmans, J., & Stengers, H. (2007). Presenting figurative idioms with a touch of etymology: More than mere mnemonics? Language Teaching Research, 11, 43-62.
26. Boers, F., Lindstromberg, S., Littlemore, J., Stengers, H., & Eyckmans, J. (2008). Variables in the mnemonic effectiveness of pictorial elucidation. In F. Boers & S. Lindstromberg (Eds.), Cognitive linguistic approaches to teaching vocabulary and phraseology (pp. 65-100). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
27. Boroditsky, L. (2000). Metaphoric structuring: Understanding time through spatial metaphors. Cognition, 75, 1-28.
28. Bowerman, M., & Choi, S. (2003). Space under construction: Language-specific spatial categorization in first language acquisition. In D. Gentner, & S. Goldin-Meadow (Eds.), Language in mind (pp. 387-427). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
29. Brennan, S., & Clark, H. (1996). Conceptual pacts and lexical choice in conversation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22(6), 1482-1493.
30. Bresnan, J. & Nikitina, T. (2003). On the gradience of the dative alternation. (Unpublished Stanford University paper.)
31. Brugman, C. (1988). The story of over: Polysemy, semantics and the structure of the lexicon. New York: Garland Press.
32. Bruner, J. S. (1983). Child’s talk: Learning to use language. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
33. Bybee, J. (2003). Mechanisms in change in grammaticalization: The role of repetition. In R. Janda, & B. Joseph (Eds.), Handbook of historical linguistics (pp. 602-623). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
34. Bybee, J. (2006). Frequency of use and the organization of language. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
35. Bybee, J., & Hopper, P. (Ed.). (2001). Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
36. Bybee, J., & Moder, C. (1983). Morphological classes as natural categories. Language, 59, 251-270.
37. Bybee, J. L., & Slobin, D. I. (1982). Rules and schemas in the development and use of the English past tense. Language, 58, 265-289.
38. Cadierno, T. (2004). Expressing motion events in a second language: A cognitive typological approach. In M, Achard, & S. Neimeier (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics, second language acquisition and foreign language pedagogy (pp. 13-49). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
39. Cadierno, T. (2008a). Learning to talk about motion in a foreign language. In P. Robinson, & N. C. Ellis (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition (pp. 239-275). New York: Routledge.
40. Cadierno, T. (2008b). Motion events in Danish and Spanish: A focus on form pedagogical approach. In S. De Knop, & T. De Rycker (Eds.), Cognitive approaches to pedagogical grammar (pp. 259-294). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
41. Cadierno, T., & Lund, K. (2004). Cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition: Motion events in a typological framework. In B. VanPatten, J. Williams, S. Rott, & M. Overstreet (Eds.), Form - meaning connections in second language acquisition (pp. 139-154). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
42. Cadierno, T., & Robinson, P. (2009). Language typology, task complexity and the development of L2 lexicalization patterns for describing motion events. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 7, 245-276.
43. Cadierno, T., & Ruiz, L. (2006). Motion events in Spanish L2 acquisition. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 4, 183-216.
44. Cameron, L. (2008). A discourse approach to metaphor: Explaining systematic metaphors for literacy processes in a school discourse community. In A. Tyler, Y. Kim, & M. Takada (Eds.), Language in the context of use: Discourse and cognitive approaches to language (pp. 321-338). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
45. Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1981). A theoretical framework for communicative competence. In A. Palmer, P. Groot, & G. Trosper (Eds.), The construct validation of test of communicative competence (pp. 31-36). Washington, DC: TESOL.
46. Carston, R. (2002). Thoughts and utterances: The pragmatics of explicit communication. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
47. Carter, R., Hughes, R., & McCarthy, M. (2000). Exploring language in context. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
48. Casasanto, D. (2011). Different bodies, different minds: The body specificity of language and thought. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20 (6), 378-383.
49. Celce-Murcia, M., & Larsen-Freeman, D. (1999). The grammar book: An ESL/EFL teachers course. Boston, MA: Heinle and Heinle.
50. Chen, L, & Oller, J. W., Jr. (2008). The use of passives and alternatives in English by Chinese speakers. Invited contribution to Sabine De Knop & Teun De Rycker (Eds.), Cognitive approaches to pedagogical grammar - A volume in honour of Rene Dirven (pp. 385-410). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
51. Cheng, Y. (2009). Using old words for new uses: Fuzzy boundaries and the case of Chinese che and ji. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Linguistics, Georgetown University, Washington, DC.
52. Cohen, A. D. (1999). Language learning strategies instruction and research. In S. Cotterall & D. Crabbe (Eds.), Learner autonomy in language learning: Defining the field and effecting change (pp. 61-68). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
53. Condon, N. (2008). How cognitive linguistic motivations influence the learning of phrasal verbs. In Boers, F., & Lindstromberg, S. (Eds.), Cognitive linguistic approaches to teaching vocabulary and phraseology (pp. 133-158). New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
54. Condon, N., & Kelly, P. (2002). Does cognitive linguistics have anything to offer English language learners in their efforts to master phrasal verbs? ITL Review of Applied Linguistics, 137/138, 205-231.
55. Coulson, S. (1996). The Menendez brothers virus: Blended spaces and internet humor. In A. Goldberg (Ed.), Conceptual structure, discourse, and language (pp. 67-81). Palo Alto, CA: CSLI Publications.
56. Coulson, S., & Oakley, T. (2000). Blending basics. Cognitive Linguistics, 11 (3/4), 175-196.
57. Coventry, K. R., & Garrod, S. (2004). Saying, seeing and acting: The psychological semantics of spatial prepositions. New York: Psychology Press.
58. Coventry, K. R., & Guijarro-Fuentes, P. (2008). Spatial language learning and functional geometry. In P. Robinson, & N. C. Ellis (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition (pp. 114-138). London: Routledge.
59. Croft, W. (2001). Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
60. Croft, W. & Cruse, D. A. (2004). Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
61. Csabi, S. (2004). A cognitive linguistic view of polysemy in English and its implications for teaching. In M. Achard, & S. Niemeier (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics, second language acquisition, and foreign language teaching (pp. 233-256). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
62. Dancygier, B. (2008). Personal pronouns, blending, and narrative viewpoint. In A. Tyler, Y. Kim, & M. Takada (Eds.), Language in the context of use: Discourse and cognitive approaches to language (pp. 167-183). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
63. Dancygier, B., & Sweetser, E. (2005). Mental spaces in grammar: Conditional constructions. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
64. De Knop, S., & De Rycker, T. (Eds.) (2008). Cognitive approaches to pedagogical grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
65. De Knop, S., Boers, F., & De Rycker, T. (Eds.). (2010). Applications of cognitive linguistics: Exploring the lexis-grammar continuum in second language pedagogy. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
66. Dewell, R. (1994). Over again: Image-schema transformations in semantic analysis. Cognitive Linguistics, 5(4), 351-380.
67. Dirven, R. (1993). Dividing up physical and mental space into conceptual categories by means of English prepositions. In C. Zelinsky-Wibbelt (Ed.), The semantics of prepositions: From mental processing to natural language (pp. 73-97). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
68. Dirven, R., & Verspoor, M. H. (2004). Cognitive explorations of language and linguistics, 2nd edn. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
69. Donato, R. (1989). Beyond group: A psycholinguistic rationale for collective activity in second-language learning. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Delaware, Newark.
70. Doughty, C. & Long, M. (Eds.) (2003). The handbook of second language acquisition. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
71. Eigen, M. and Winkler, R.(1983). The laws of the game: How the principles of nature govern chance. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
72. Ellis, N. C. (1998). Emergentism, connectionism and language learning. Language Learning, 48, 631-664.
73. Ellis, N. C. (1999). Cognitive approaches to SLA. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 19, 22-42.
74. Ellis, N. C. (2002a). Frequency effects in language processing: A review with implications for theories of implicit and explicit language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 143-188.
75. Ellis, N. C. (2002b). Reflections on frequency effects in language processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 297-339.
76. Ellis, N. C. (2006a). Selective attention and transfer phenomena in l2 acquisition: Contingency, cue competition, salience, interference, overshadowing, blocking, and perceptual learning. Applied Linguistics, 27(2), 164-194.
77. Ellis, N. C. (2006b). Language acquisition as rational contingency learning. Applied Linguistics, 27(1), 1-24.
78. Ellis, N. C. (2008a). Usage-based and form-focused SLA: The implicit and explicit learning of constructions. In A. Tyler, Y. Kim, & M. Takada (Eds.), Language in the context of use: Discourse and cognitive approaches to language (pp. 93-121). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
79. Ellis, N. C. (2008b). Usage-based and form-focused language acquisition: The associative learning of constructions, learned attention and the limited L2 end state. In P. Robinson, & N. C. Ellis (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition (pp. 372-406). London: Routledge.
80. Ellis, N. C. (2008c). The psycholinguistics of the interaction approach. In A. Mackey, & C. Polio (Eds.) Multiple perspectives on interaction: Second language research in honor of Susan M. Gass (pp. 11-40). New York: Routledge.
81. Ellis, N.C., & Cadierno, T. (2009). Constructing a second language: Introduction to the special section. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, Special Section: Constructing a Second Language, 7, 111-139.
82. Ellis, N. C., & Ferreira-Junior, F. (2009). Constructions and their acquisition: Islands and the distinctiveness of their occupancy. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 7, 188-221.
83. Elman, J. L., Bates, E. A., Johnson, M. H., Karmiloff-Smith, A., Parisi, D., & Plunkett, K. (1996). Rethinking innateness: A connectionist perspective on development. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
84. Erteschik-Shir, N. (1979). Discourse constraints on dative movement. In T. Givon (Ed.), Syntax and Semantics 12: Discourse and Syntax (pp. 441-467). New York: Academic Press.
85. Evans, V. (2009). How words mean: Lexical concepts, cognitive models, and meaning construction. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
86. Evans, V., & Green, M. (2006). Cognitive linguistics: An introduction. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
87. Evans, V., & Tyler, A. (2004a) Rethinking English ‘prepositions of movement’: The case of to and through. In H. Cuyckens, W. De Mulder, & T. Mortelmans (Eds.), Adpositions of Movement Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 18 (pp. 247-270). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
88. Evans, V., & Tyler, A. (2004b). Spatial experience, lexical structure and motivation: The case of in. In G. Radden & K. Panther (Eds.), Studies in linguistic motivation (pp. 157-192). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
89. Evans, V., Bergen, B. K., & Zinken, J. (2007). Cognitive linguistic reader. London: Equinox.
90. Fauconnier, G. (1994). Mental spaces: Aspects of meaning construction in natural languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
91. Fauconnier, G. (1997). Mappings in thought and language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
92. Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (1998). Conceptual integration networks. Cognitive Science, 22(2), 133-187.
93. Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (2002). The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.
94. Fillmore, C. J. (1975). An alternative to checklist theories of meaning. Proceedings of the first annual meetings of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (BLS) (pp. 123-131). Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.
95. Frank, M. (1972). Modern English: A practical reference guide. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice- Hall.
96. Fujii, A. (2008). Meaning construction in humorous discourse: Context and incongruities in conceptual blending. In A. Tyler, Y. Kim, and M. Takada (Eds.), Language in the context of use: Discourse and cognitive approaches to language (pp. 183-198). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
97. Geeraertz, D. (Ed.) (2006). Cognitive linguistics: Basic readings. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
98. Geeraertz, D., & Cuyckens, H. (Eds.) (2007). The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
99. Gentner, D., & Bowdle, B. (2008). Metaphor as structure-mapping. In R. Gibbs (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (pp. 109-128). New York: Cambridge University Press.
100. Gibbs, R. W. (1994). The poetics of mind: Figurative thought, language, and understanding. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
101. Gibbs, R. W. (2006). Embodiment and cognitive science. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
102. Givon, T. (1995). Functionalism and grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
103. Givon, T. (2001). Syntax: An introduction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
104. Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.
105. Goldberg, A. E. (2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
106. Goldberg, A., Casenhiser, D., & Sethuraman, N. (2004). Learning argument structure generalizations. Cognitive Linguistics, 14, 289-316.
107. Grady, J. (1997). Theories are buildings revisited. Cognitive Linguistics, 8, 267-290.
108. Grady, J. (1999). A typology of motivation for conceptual metaphor: Correlation vs. resemblance. In R. W. Gibbs, & G. Steen (Eds.), Metaphor in cognitive linguistics (pp. 79-100). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
109. th annual International Conference of Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 99-124). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
110. Grady, J., Oakley, T., & Coulson, S. (2007). In R. Gibbs & G. Steen (Eds.), Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics: Selected papers from the 5th annual International Conference of Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 99-124). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
111. Green, G. (1989). Pragmatics and natural language understanding. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
112. Gries, S. T., & Wulff, S. (2005). Do foreign language learners also have constructions? Evidence from priming, sorting, and corpora. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 3, 182-200.
113. Gries, S. T., & Wulff, S. (2009). Psycholinguistic and corpus-linguistic evidence for L2 constructions. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 7, 164-187.
114. Gumperz, J. (1982). Discourse Strategies. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
115. Hall, J. K. (1995). (Re)creating our worlds with words: A sociohistorical perspective of face-to-face interaction. Applied Linguistics, 16(2), 206-232.
116. Halliday, M. A. K. (1983). On the transition from child tongue to mother tongue. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 3, 201-216.
117. Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. (2004). An introduction to functional grammar. London: Edward Arnold.
118. Hama, M. (2005). The effects of the minilesson on advanced learners’ acquisition of English modals: A case study. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Linguistics, Georgetown University, Washington, DC.
119. Hawkins, B. (1988). The category MEDIUM. In B. Rudzka-Ostyn (Ed.), Topics in cognitive grammar (pp. 231-270). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
120. Herskovits, A. (1986). Language and spatial cognition: An interdisciplinary study of the prepositions in English. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
121. Herskovits, A. (1988). Spatial expressions and the plasticity of meaning. In B. Rudzka- Ostyn (Ed.), Topics in cognitive grammar (pp. 271-298). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
122. Ho, V. (2008). Semantic network for a Vietnamese preposition. Unpublished manuscript, Georgetown University.
123. Holme, R. (2009). Cognitive linguistics and language teaching. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.
124. Huong, N. T. (2005). Vietnamese learners mastering English articles. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands.
125. Hymes, D. H. (1972). On communicative competence. In J. B. Pride, & J. Holmes (Eds.), Sociolinguistics (pp. 269-293). Baltimore, MD: Penguin Education, Penguin Books Ltd.
126. Hymes, D. H. (1974) Foundations in sociolinguistics: An ethnographic approach. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
127. Inagaki, S. (1997). Japanese and Chinese learner’s acquisition of the narrow-range rules for the dative alteration in English. Language Learning, 47(4), 637-669.
128. Jacobsen, N. (2010). Applying cognitive linguistics and task-based language teaching to instruction of English conditional constructions. Doctoral dissertation proposal, Georgetown University.
129. Johnson, M. L. (1987). The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination and reason. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
130. Juffs, A. (2000). An overview of the second language acquisition of links between verb semantics and morpho-syntax. In J. Archibald (Ed.), Second language acquisition and linguistic theory (pp. 187-227). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers Inc.
131. Juffs, A. (2001). Verb classes, event structure, and second language learners’ knowledge of semantics-syntax correspondence. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23, 305-313.
132. Kemmer, S., & Barlow, M. (2000). Introduction: A usage-based conception of language. In M. Barlow, & S. Kemmer (Eds.), Usage-based models of language (pp. vii-xxviii). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
133. Kim, Y. (2005). Learning L2 Argument Structure: The role of construction grammar- based L2 instruction in the acquisition of English dative constructions. Doctoral dissertation proposal, Georgetown University.
134. Kim, Y. (2007). Learning L2 argument structure: The role of construction grammar-based L2 instruction in the acquisition of ditransitive construction. Paper presented at Annual ICLC. Krakow, Poland.
135. Kim, Y. (2010). Applying construction grammar to Korean speakersr learning of the English dative construction. Paper presented at AAAL. Atlanta, GA.
136. Kosslyn, S. (1980). Image and Mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
137. Kosslyn, S. M. (2006). Mental image. In C. A. Jones (Ed.), Sensorium: Embodied experience, technology, and contemporary art (pp. 169-170). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
138. Kovecses, Z. (1986). Metaphors of anger, pride and love: A lexical approach to the study of concepts. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
139. Kovecses, Z., & Szabo, P. (1996). Idioms: A view from cognitive semantics. Applied Linguistics, 17(3), 326-355.
140. Lado, R. (1957). Language across cultures: Applied linguistics for language teachers. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
141. Lakoff, G. (1990). The invariance hypothesis: Is abstract reason based on image schemas? Cognitive Linguistics, 1, 39-74.
142. Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
143. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
144. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh. New York: Basic Books.
145. Lam, Y. (2009). Applying cognitive linguistics to the teaching of the Spanish prepositions por and para. Language Awareness, 18(1), 2-18.
146. Langacker, R. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar, vol. I. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
147. Langacker, R. (1991). Foundations of cognitive grammar, vol. II. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
148. Langacker, R. (2008). Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
149. Lantolf, J. P. (2002) Sociocultural theory and second language acquisition. In R. Kaplan (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of applied linguistics (pp. 104-114). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
150. Lantolf, J. P. (2007). Sociocultural sources of thinking and its relevance for second language acquisition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 10, 31-33.
151. Lantolf, J. P. (2009). Knowledge of language in teacher education. The Modern Language Journal, 93, 271-274.
152. Larsen-Freeman, D. (1996). The role of linguistics in language teacher education. In J. Alatis, C. Straehle, B. Gallenburger, & M. Ronkin (Eds.), Proceedings of the 1995 Georgetown Roundtable. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
153. Larsen-Freeman, D. (Ed). (2000). Grammar dimensions: Form, meaning, and use. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.
154. Larsen-Freeman, D. (2000). The grammar of choice. In E. Hinkle, & S. Fotos (Eds.), New perspectives on grammar teaching in second language classrooms (pp. 103-118). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
155. Levinson, S. (Ed.). (2006). Grammar of space. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
156. Levinson, S. C. (2000). Presumptive meanings: The theory of generalized conversational implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
157. Liamkina, O. A. (2006). The role of explicit meaning-based instruction in foreign language pedagogy: Applications of cognitive linguistics to teaching the German dative case to advanced learners. Dissertation Abstracts International, 66(10), 3627.
158. Liamkina, O. A. (2008). Making dative a case for semantic analysis: Differences in use between native and non-native speakers of German. In A. Tyler, Y. Kim, & M. Takada (Eds.), Language in the context of use: Discourse and cognitive approaches to language (pp. 145-166). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
159. Lieven, E., & Tomasello, M. (2008). Children’s first language acquisition from a usage-based perspective. In P. Robinson, & N. C. Ellis (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition (pp. 168-198). New York: Routledge.
160. Lindner, S. (1981). A lexico-semantic analysis of English verb particle constructions with out and up. Doctoral thesis, University of California, San Diego, Department of Linguistics. Distributed [1983] by the Indiana Linguistics Club.
161. Lindstromberg, S., & Boers, F. (2005). From movement to metaphor with manner-of- movement verbs. Applied Linguistics, 26, 241-261.
162. Littlemore, J. (2010) Applying cognitive linguistics to second language learning and teaching. Houndsmills, UK: Palgrave.
163. Littlemore, J., & Low, G. (2006). Metaphoric competence, second language learning, and communicative language ability. Applied Linguistics, 27(2), 268-294.
164. Long, M. H. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In K. de Bot, R. B. Ginsberg, & C. Kramsch (Eds.), Foreign language research in cross- cultural perspective (pp. 39-52). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
165. Lowry, C. A., Lightman, S. L., & Nutt, R. S. (2009). That warm fuzzy feeling: Brain serotonergic neurons and the regulation of emotion. Journal of Psychopharmacology, 23(4), 392-400.
166. Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
167. MacLennan, C. H. G. (1994). Metaphors and prototypes in the teaching and learning of grammar and vocabulary. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 32, 97-110.
168. MacWhinney, B. (Ed.). (1987a). Mechanisms of language acquisition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
169. MacWhinney, B. (1987b). The competition model. In B. MacWhinney (Ed.), Mechanisms of language acquisition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
170. Mandler, J. (2004). The foundations of mind: Origins of conceptual thought. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
171. Marras, V., & Cadierno, T. (2008). Spanish gustar vs. English like: A cognitive analysis of the constructions and its implication for SLA. In A. Tyler, Y. Kim, & M. Takada (Eds.), Language in the context of use: Discourse and cognitive approaches to language (pp. 233-254). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
172. Mazurkewich, I. (1984). Acquisition of dative alteration by second language learners and linguistic theory. Language Learning, 34, 91-109.
173. McCarthy, M., & Carter, R. (1994). Language as discourse: Perspectives for language teachers. London: Longman.
174. Mendoza Ibanez, F. (2008). Cross-linguistic analysis, second language teaching and cognitive semantics: The case of Spanish diminutives and reflexive constructions. In S. De Knop, & T. De Rycker (Eds.), Cognitive approaches to pedagogical grammar (pp. 121-155). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Merriam Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary 2000
175. Meunier, F. (2008). Corpora, cognition and pedagogical grammars: An account of convergences and divergences. In S. De Knop, & T. De Rycker (Eds.), Cognitive approaches to pedagogical grammar (pp. 91-120). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
176. Moder, C. L. (2004). Ice box moms and hockey dads: Context and the mapping of N-N metaphorical expressions. In M. Achard, & S. Kemmer (Eds.), Language, culture and mind (pp. 109-121). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
177. Moder, C. L. (2008). It’s like making a soup: Metaphors and similes in spoken news discourse. In A. Tyler, Y. Kim, & M. Takada (Eds.), Language in the context of use: Discourse and cognitive approaches to language (pp. 301-320). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
178. Moder, C. L. (2010). To learn effectively: Grammatical constructions for second language grammar instruction. Paper presented at AAAL: Atlanta, GA.
179. Montrul, S. (2000). Transitivity alterations in SLA: Toward a modular view of transfer. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 229-273.
180. Newman, J. (1996). Give: A cognitive linguistic study. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
181. Niemeier, S. (2008). The notion of boundedness/unboundedness in the foreign language classroom. In F. Boers, & S. Lindstromberg (Eds.), Cognitive linguistic approaches to teaching vocabulary and phraseology (pp. 309-327). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
182. Niemeier, S., & Reif, S. (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 grammar (pp. 325-356). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
183. Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50(3), 417-528.
184. Nuyts, J., & Pederson, E. (Eds.) (1997). Language and conceptualization. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
185. Palmer, F. (1986). Mood and modality. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
186. Papafragou, A. (2000). Modality: Issues in the semantics-pragmatics interface. Amsterdam and New York: Elsevier Science.
187. Perdue, C. (1993). Adult language acquisition: Cross-linguistic perspectives. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
188. Pinker, S. (1989). Learnability and cognition: The acquisition of argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
189. Pinker, S. (1984). Language learnability and language development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
190. Putz, M., Niemeier, S., & Dirven, R. (Eds.) (2001a). Applied cognitive linguistics I: Theory and language acquisition. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.
191. Putz, M., Niemeier, S., & Dirven, R. (Eds.) (2001b). Applied cognitive linguistics II: Language pedagogy. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.
192. Reddy, M. (1993). The conduit metaphor: A case of frame conflict in our language about language. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 164-201). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
193. Riddle, E. (1985). The meaning and discourse function of the past tense in English. TESOL Quarterly, 20(2), 267-286.
194. Robinson, P., & Ellis, N. C. (Eds.). (2008a). Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition. New York: Routledge.
195. Robinson, P., & Ellis, N.C. (2008b) Conclusion: Cognitive linguistics, second language acquisition, and L2 instruction-issues for research. In P. Robinson & N. C. Ellis (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition, (pp. 489-545). New York: Routledge.
196. Robinson, P., & Gilabert, R. (2007). Task complexity, the cognition hypothesis and second language instruction. Special Issue of International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching (IRAL), 45, 161-176. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.
197. Rosch, E. (1975). Cognitive representations of semantic categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 104, 192-233.
198. Rosch, E. (1978). Principles of categorization. In E. Rosch & B. B. Lloyd (Eds.), Cognition and categorization (pp. 27-48). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
199. Rudzka-Ostyn, B. (2003). Word power: Phrasal verbs and compounds: A cognitive approach. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
200. Rumelhart, D. E. (1975). Notes on a Schema for Stories. In D. G. Bobrow & A. Collins (Eds.), Representation and understanding: Studies in cognitive science (pp. 211-235). New York: Academic Press.
201. Rumelhart, D. E. (1981). Understanding understanding. La Jolla, CA: University of California, Center for Human Information Processing.
202. Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A. & Jefferson, G. (1974) A simplest systematics for the organisation of turn-taking for conversation, Language, 50, 696-735.
203. Saville-Troike, M. (1988). Private speech: Evidence for second language learning strategies during the “silent” period. Journal of Child Language, 15, 567-590.
204. Sawyer, M. (1995). Learnability, teachability and argument structure: Adult Japanese learners’ acquisition of the English dative alternation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Hawai’i.
205. Sawyer, M. (1996). L1 and L2 sensitivity to semantic constraints on argument structure. In A. Stringfellow, D. Cahana-Amitay, A. Huges, & A. Zukowski (Eds.), Boston, MA: Proceedings of the 20th Annual Boston University Conference on Language.
206. Schank, R. C., & Abelson, R. (1977). Scripts, plans, goals and, understanding. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
207. Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse markers. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
208. Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 129-158.
209. Scollon, R., & Scollon, S. (1995). Intercultural communication. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.
210. Shakhova, D., & Tyler, A. (2010). Taking the principled polysemy model beyond English: The case of Russian za. In V. Evans & P. Chilton (Eds.), Language, cognition, and space: The state of the art and new directions (pp. 267-92). London: Equinox.
211. Slobin, D. I. (1994) Passives and alternatives in children’s narratives in English, Spanish, German and Turkish. In B. A. Fox & P. J. Hopper (Eds.), Voice: Form and function (pp. 341-364). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
212. Slobin, D. I. (1996a). Two ways to travel: Verbs of motion in English and Spanish. In M. Shibatani, & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Grammatical constructions: Their form and meaning (pp. 195-220). Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.
213. Slobin, D. I. (1996b). From “thought and language” to “thinking for speaking.” In J. Gumperz, & S. Levinson (Eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity. Studies in the social and cultural foundations of language, No. 17 (pp. 70-96). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
214. Slobin, D. I. (2005). Linguistic representations of motion events: What is signifier and what is signified? In C. Maeder, O. Fischer, & W. Herlofsky (Eds.), Iconicity inside out: Iconicity in language and literature 4 (pp. 307-322). Amsterdam/Philadelpia: John Benjamins.
215. Slobin, D. I. (2009). Relations between paths of motion and paths of vision: A crosslinguistic and developmental exploration. In V. M. Gathercole (Ed.), Routes to language: Studies in honor of Melissa Bowerman (pp. 197-221). New York: Psychology Press.
216. Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1995). Relevance: Communication and cognition, 2nd edn. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
217. Spivey, M. (2007). The continuity of mind. New York: Oxford University Press.
218. Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
219. Swales, J. (1995). The role of the textbook in EAP writing research. English for Specific Purposes, 14, 3-18.
220. Sweetser, E. (1990). From etymology to pragmatics: Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
221. Sweetser, E. (1999). Blending and adjective noun constructions. In G. Fauconnier & E. Sweetser (Eds.), Spaces, worlds, and grammar (pp.) Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
222. Talmy, L. (1983). How language structures space. In H. Pick, & L. Acredolo (Eds.), Spatial orientation: Theory, research, and application (pp. 225-282). New York: Plenum.
223. Talmy, L. (1988). Force dynamics in language and cognition. Cognitive Science, 12, 49-100.
224. Talmy, L. (2000a). Toward a cognitive semantics: Volume I. Concept structuring systems. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
225. Talmy, L. (2000b). Toward a cognitive semantics: Volume II. Typology and process in concept structuring. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
226. Tannen, D. (1989). Talking voices: Repetition, dialogue, and imagery in conversational discourse. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
227. Tannen, D. (Ed.). (1993). Framing in discourse. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
228. Taylor, J. R. (1993). Some pedagogical implications of cognitive linguistics. In R. Geiger, & Rudzka-Ostyn, B. (Eds.), Conceptualizations and mental processings in language (pp. 201-223). New York: Cambridge University Press.
229. Taylor, J. R. (2002). Cognitive grammar. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
230. Taylor, J. R. (2003). Linguistic categorization. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
231. Tiersma, P. (1999). Legal language. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
232. Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
233. Tomasello, M. (1998). Return of constructions. Journal of Child Language, 25, 431-442.
234. Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
235. Tomasello, M. (2008). Origins of human communication. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
236. Tomasello, M., & Brooks, P. (1998). Young children’s earliest transitive and intransitive constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 9, 379-395.
237. Traugott, E. & Dasher, R. (2002). Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
238. Tyler, A. (2008a). Cognitive linguistics and second language instruction. In P. Robinson, & N. C. Ellis (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition (pp. 456-488). London: Routledge.
239. Tyler, A. (2008b). Applied cognitive linguistics: Putting linguistics back into second language learning. In M. Putz (Ed.), Cognitive approaches to second/foreign language processing: Theory and pedagogy (pp. 904-923). Essen, Germany: Linguistic Agency of University of Duisburg (LAUD).
240. Tyler, A., & Evans, V. (2000). My first husband was Italian: Examining”exceptional" uses of English tense. (LAUD) Series A: General and Theoretical Papers.
241. Tyler, A., & Evans, V. (2001a). The relation between experience, conceptual structure and meaning: Non-temporal uses of tense and language teaching. In M. Putz, R. Dirven, & S. Niemeier (Eds.), Applied cognitive linguistics I: Theory and language acquisition (pp. 63-105). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
242. Tyler, A., & Evans, V. (2001b). Reconsidering prepositional polysemy networks: The cases of over. Language, 77(4), 724-765.
243. Tyler, A., & Evans, V. (2003). The semantics of English prepositions: Spatial scenes, embodied meaning and cognition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
244. Tyler, A. and 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.
245. Tyler, A., Ho, V., & Mueller, C. (2011). Using cognitive linguistics to teach the double object construction. Paper presented at AAAL annual conference, Chicago (March 2011).
246. Tyler, A., Mueller, C., & Ho, V. (2010a). 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.
247. Tyler, A., Mueller, C. M., & Ho, V. (2010b). Applying cognitive linguistics to instructed L2 learning: The English modals. AILA Review, 23, 30-49.
248. Ungerer, F., & Schmid, H. J. (1996). An introduction to cognitive linguistics. London: Longman.
249. Vandeloise, C. (1991). Spatial prepositions: A case study in French (A. R. K. Bosch Trans.). Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.
250. Vandeloise, C. (1994). Methodology and analyses of the preposition in. Cognitive Linguistics, 5(2), 157-184.
251. Vandeloise, C. (2003). Containment, support and relativity. In H. Cuyckens, R. Dirven, & J. R. Taylor (Eds.), Cognitive approaches to lexical semantics (pp. 393-425). Berlin: Mouton.
252. Vandeloise, C. (2010). Genesis of spatial terms. In V. Evans, & P. Chilton (Eds.), Language cognitions and space: The state of the art and new directions (pp. 171-192). London: Equinox.
253. van Lier, L. (1998). The relationship between consciousness, interaction and language learning. Language Awareness, 7, 128-145.
254. VanPatten, B. (1996). Input processing and grammar instruction: Theory and research. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
255. Verspoor, M. & Huong, N. (2008). Cognitive grammar and teaching English articles to Asian students. In J. R. Lapaire (ed.), From grammar to mind: Grammar as cognition (pp. 249-268). Bordeaux: Presses Universitaires de Bordeaux.
256. Verspoor, M. (2009). Mastering English articles with cognitive grammar. Paper presented at AAAL, Denver, March 2009.
257. Verspoor, M. H. (2008). Cognitive linguistics and its applications to second language teaching. In J. Cenoz, & N. H. Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education, 2nd edn, vol. 6 (pp. 1843-1854). New York: Springer.
258. Verspoor, M. H., & Lowie, W. (2003). Making sense of polysemous words. Language Learning, 53, 547-586.
259. Verspoor, M. H., & Tyler, A. (2009). The role of cognitive linguistics in second language research. In W. Ritchie, & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), The new handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 160-177). Oxford, UK: Emerald.
260. Vygotsky, L.S. (1987). Thinking and speech (N. Minick Trans.). (Orig. 1934). In R. W. Rieber and A. S. Carton (Eds.), The collected works of L.S. Vygotsky, Volume 1: Problems of general psychology. New York: Plenum Press.
261. Ward, G. & Birner, B. (2001) Discourse and information structure. In D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen, & H. E. Hamilton (Eds.), Handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 119-137). Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.
262. Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, unabridged. (2002). Springfield, MA: Merriam- Webster Inc.
263. Werner, P., & Nelson, J. (1996) Mosaics two: A content-based grammar. Orlando, FL: McGraw-Hill.
264. Whong-Barr, M., & Schwartz, B. (2002). Morphological and syntactic transfer in child L2 acquisition of the English dative alteration. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 579-616.
265. Wilson, P. T., & Anderson, R. C. (1986). What they don’t know will hurt them: The role of prior knowledge in comprehension. In J. Orasanu (Ed.), Reading comprehension: From research to practice (pp. 31-48). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
266. Yu, N. (1998). The contemporary theory of metaphor: A perspective from Chinese. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.