Skip to content
Licensed Unlicensed Requires Authentication Published by De Gruyter Mouton February 20, 2019

Embodiment in concept-based L2 grammar teaching: The case of German light verb constructions

  • Ferran Suñer EMAIL logo and Jörg Roche

Abstract

German light verb constructions are especially challenging for advanced L2 learners because of the abstract meaning of the different verbs and the high degree of lexico-grammatical variety. Acknowledging that language is a symbolic system representing humans’ perception of the world and is thus strongly linked to embodied experiences, this study explores the potential of bodily engagement in the form of multimedia animations for leveraging the learning of embodied concepts related to light verb constructions. To this end, thirty-nine French-speaking learners of German were divided into two groups: The first group worked with animations illustrating the embodied nature of light verb constructions and performed specific tasks that set out to trigger mental simulation of relevant embodied concepts; the second group was presented with form-based explanations and completed tasks focusing on the different categories of light verb constructions. The results show that the use of bodily engagement in the form of multimedia animations led to significantly better performance and contributed to some extent to changing students’ attitudes about how grammar can best be learned.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank all participants and instructors in the study. We also acknowledge gratefully Katsiaryna El-Bouz, Françoise Gallez, and Manon Hermann for valuable comments.

References

Barsalou, Lawrence W. 1999. Perceptions of perceptual symbols. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22(4). 637–660.10.1017/S0140525X99532147Search in Google Scholar

Beilock, Sian. 2015. How the body knows its mind: The surprising power of the physical environment to influence how you think and feel. New York, NY: Atria Books.Search in Google Scholar

Bielak, Jakub & Mirosław Pawlak. 2011. Teaching English tense and aspect with the help of cognitive grammar: An empirical study. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching 1(3). 365–400.10.14746/ssllt.2011.1.3.4Search in Google Scholar

Bielak, Jakub, Mirosław Pawlak & Anna Mystkowska-Wiertelak. 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(4). 581–619.10.14746/ssllt.2013.3.4.7Search in Google Scholar

Clausner, Timothy & William Croft. 1999. Domains and image schemas. Cognitive Linguistics 10(1). 1–31.10.1515/cogl.1999.001Search in Google Scholar

Croft, William. 2007. Construction grammar. In Dirk Geeraerts & Hubert Cuyckens (eds.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics, 463–508. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

De Knop, Sabine & Fabio Mollica. 2016. A construction-based study of German ditransitive phraseologisms for language pedagogy. In Sabine De Knop & Gaëtanelle Gilquin (eds.), Applied construction grammar (Applications of cognitive linguistics; 32), 53–88. Berlin & Boston: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110458268-004Search in Google Scholar

Dimitrov, Dimiter M. & Phillip D. Rumrill. 2003. Pretest-posttest designs and measurement of change. Work 20(2). 159–165.Search in Google Scholar

Driver, Paul. 2012. Pervasive games and mobile technologies for embodied language learning. International Journal of Computer-Assisted Language Learning and Teaching 2(4). 50–63.10.4018/ijcallt.2012100104Search in Google Scholar

Dubé, Adam K. & Rhonda McEwen. 2015. Do gestures matter? The implications of using touchscreen devices in mathematics instruction. Learning and Instruction 40. 89–98.10.1016/j.learninstruc.2015.09.002Search in Google Scholar

Ellis, Nick C., Ute Römer & Matthew B. O’Donnell. 2016. Usage-based approaches to language acquisition and processing: Cognitive and corpus investigations of construction grammar, Language Learning Monograph Series. West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.Search in Google Scholar

Ellis, Rod. 2009. Task-based language teaching: Sorting out the misunderstandings. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 19(3). 221–246.10.1111/j.1473-4192.2009.00231.xSearch in Google Scholar

Evans, Vyvyan. 2012. Cognitive linguistics. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science 3(2). 129–141.10.1002/wcs.1163Search in Google Scholar

Gallagher, Shaun & Robb Lindgren. 2015. Enactive metaphors: Learning through full-body engagement. . Educational Psychology Review 27(3). 391–404.10.1007/s10648-015-9327-1Search in Google Scholar

Glenberg, Arthur M. 2010. Embodiment as a unifying perspective for psychology. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science 1. 586–596.10.1002/wcs.55Search in Google Scholar

Glenberg, Arthur M., Tiana Gutierrez, Joel R. Levin, Sandra Japuntich & Micheal P. Kaschak. 2004. Activity and imagined activity can enhance young children’s reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology 96(3). 424–436.10.1037/0022-0663.96.3.424Search in Google Scholar

Goldberg, Adele. 1995. Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar

Goldberg, Adele. 2006. Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199268511.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Golonka, Ewa M., Anita R. Bowles, Victor M. Frank, Dorna L. Richardson & Suzanne Freynik. 2014. Technologies for foreign language learning: A review of technology types and their effectiveness. Computer Assisted Language Learning 27(1). 70–105.10.1080/09588221.2012.700315Search in Google Scholar

Gradečak-Erdeljić, Tanja. 2009. Iconicity of the verbal expression— The case of “light” verbs in English. In Mario Brdar, Marija Omazić & Visnja Pavičić (eds.), Cognitive approaches to English: Fundamental, methodological, interdisciplinary and applied aspects, 3–26. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Search in Google Scholar

Grass, Anja. 2013. Zur Veränderung mentaler Modelle beim Lernen mit Grammatikanimationen. Zeitschrift Für Interkulturellen Fremdsprachenunterricht 18(1). 62–71.Search in Google Scholar

Holme, Randal. 2010. A construction grammar for the classroom. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 48(4). 355–377.10.1515/iral.2010.015Search in Google Scholar

Horwitz, Elaine K. 1987. Surveying student beliefs about language teaming. In Anita L. Wenden & Joan Robin (eds.), Learner strategies in language learning, 119–132. London: Prentice Hall.Search in Google Scholar

Hutto, Daniel D., Micheal D. Kirchhoff & Dor Abrahamson. 2015. The enactive roots of STEM: Rethinking educational design in mathematics. Educational Psychology Review 27(3). 371–389.10.1007/s10648-015-9326-2Search in Google Scholar

Ifenthaler, Dirk. 2010. Relational, structural and semantic analysis of graphical representations and concept maps. Educational Technology Research and Development 58(1). 81–97.10.1007/s11423-008-9087-4Search in Google Scholar

Ionescu, Thea & Adriana Ilie. 2018. Language learning in preschool children: An embodied learning account. Early Child Development and Care 188(1). 4–15.10.1080/03004430.2016.1189419Search in Google Scholar

Jacobsen, Natalia. 2018. The best of both worlds: Combining cognitive linguistics and pedagogic tasks to teach english conditionals. Applied Linguistics 39(5). 668–693.Search in Google Scholar

Johnson-Glenberg, Mina C., David A. Birchfield, Lisa Tolentino & Tatyana Koziupa. 2014. Collaborative embodied learning in mixed reality motion-capture environments: Two science studies. Journal of Educational Psychology 106(1). 86–104.10.1037/a0034008Search in Google Scholar

Kanaplianik, Katsiaryna. 2016. Kognitionslinguistische Animationen für die deutschen Modalverben. Zusammenspiel der kognitiven Linguistik und des multimedialen Lernens bei der Sprachvermittlung. Berlin & Münster: Lit.Search in Google Scholar

Kohl-Dietrich, Dorothee, Constanze Juchem-Grundmann & Wolfgang Schnotz. 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(1). 193–209.10.1515/gcla-2016-0013Search in Google Scholar

Langacker, Ronald W. 2008. Essentials of cognitive grammar. Oxford: Oxford University.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Lindgren, Robb. 2015. Getting into the cue: Embracing technology-facilitated body movements as a starting point for learning. In Victor R. Lee (ed.), Learning technologies and the body: Integration and implementation in formal and informal learning environments, 39–54. New York, NY: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar

Lindgren, Robb & Mina Johnson-Glenberg. 2013. Emboldened by embodiment: Six precepts for research on embodied learning and mixed reality. Educational Researcher 42(8). 445–452.10.3102/0013189X13511661Search in Google Scholar

Lindgren, Robb, Michael Tscholl, Shuai Wang & Emily Johnson. 2016. Enhancing learning and engagement through embodied interaction within a mixed reality simulation. Computers & Education 95. 174–187.10.1016/j.compedu.2016.01.001Search in Google Scholar

Loewen, Shawn, Shaofeng Li, Fei Fei, Amy Thompson, Kimi Nakatsukasa, Seognmee Ahn & Xiaoquing Chen. 2009. L2 learners’ beliefs about grammar instruction and error correction. Modern Language Journal 93(1). 91–104.10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00830.xSearch in Google Scholar

Lowe, Richard K. & Jean-Michel Boucheix. 2016. Principled animation design improves comprehension of complex dynamics. Learning and Instruction 45. 72–84.10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.06.005Search in Google Scholar

Lowe, Richard K. & Wolfgang Schnotz. 2014. Animation principles in multimedia learning. In Richard E. Mayer (ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning, 513–546. New York: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139547369.026Search in Google Scholar

Mayer, Richard E. 2014. Cognitive theory of multimedia learning. In Richard E. Mayer (ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning, 43–71. New York: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139547369.005Search in Google Scholar

Monaghan, James M. & John Clement. 1999. Use of a computer simulation to develop mental simulations for understanding relative motion concepts. International Journal of Science Education 21(9). 921–944.10.1080/095006999290237Search in Google Scholar

Niemeier, Susanne. 2017. Task-based grammar teaching of English: Where cognitive grammar and task-based Language teaching meet. Tübingen: Narr.10.1515/east-2018-0048Search in Google Scholar

Oakley, Tedd. 2007. Image schemas. In Dirk Geeraerts & Hubert Cuyckens (eds.), The oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics, 214–235. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Pouw, Wim T.J.L., Jacqueline A. de Nooijer, Tamara van Gog, Rolf A. Zwaan & Fred Paas. 2014. Toward a more embedded/extended perspective on the cognitive function of gestures. Frontiers in Psychology 5. 359.10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00359Search in Google Scholar

Pouw, Wim T.J.L., Tamara van Gog, Rolf A. Zwaan & Fred Paas. 2016. Augmenting instructional animations with a body analogy to help children learn about physical systems. Frontiers in Psychology 7. 860.10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00860Search in Google Scholar

Puchta, Herbert. 2010. Beyond materials, techniques and linguistic analyses: The role of motivation, beliefs and identity. Puertas Abiertas 6. http://www.herbertpuchta.com/page/handouts/Italy/Beliefs_Italy_Tour.pdf [Accessed on November 20, 2018].Search in Google Scholar

Purpura, James E. 2004. Assessing Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511733086Search in Google Scholar

Reed, Stephen K. 2018. Combining physical, virtual, and mental actions and objects. Educational. Psychology Review Volume 30(3). 1091–1113.10.1007/s10648-018-9441-ySearch in Google Scholar

Reif, Monika. 2012. Making progress simpler? Applying cognitive grammar to tense-aspect teaching. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Search in Google Scholar

Roche, Jörg & Ferran Suñer. 2016. Metaphors and grammar teaching. Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association 4(1). 89–112.10.1515/gcla-2016-0008Search in Google Scholar

Roche, Jörg & Ferran Suñer. 2017. Sprachenlernen und Kognition. Grundlagen einer kognitiven Sprachdidaktik. Gunter Narr: Tübingen.Search in Google Scholar

Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, Francisco José & María del Pilar Agustín-Llach. 2016. Cognitive pedagogical grammar and meaning construction in L2. In Sabine De Knop & Gaëtanelle Gilquin (eds.), Applied construction grammar (Applications of Cognitive Linguistics 32), 151–184. Berlin & Boston: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110458268-007Search in Google Scholar

Scheller, Julia. 2009. Animationen in der Grammatikvermittlung. Multimedialer Spracherwerb am Beispiel von Wechselpräpositionen. Berlin & Münster: Lit Verlag.Search in Google Scholar

Schierholz, Stefan. 2001. Präpositionalattribute: Syntaktische und semantische analysen. Tübingen: Niemeyer.10.1515/9783110918649Search in Google Scholar

Shapiro, Lawrence. 2010. Embodied cognition. New York, NY: Routledge.10.4324/9780203850664Search in Google Scholar

Skulmowski, Alexander, Simon Pradel, Tom Kühnert, Guido Brunnett & Günter D. Rey. 2016. Embodied learning using a tangible user interface: The effects of haptic perception and selective pointing on a spatial learning task. Computers & Education 92/93. 64–75.10.1016/j.compedu.2015.10.011Search in Google Scholar

Skulmowski, Alexander & Günter D. Rey. 2018. Embodied learning: Introducing a taxonomy based on bodily engagement and task integration. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications 3(1). 6.10.1186/s41235-018-0092-9Search in Google Scholar

Sweller, John, Paul Ayres & Slava Kalyuga. 2011. Cognitive load theory. New York: Springer.10.1007/978-1-4419-8126-4Search in Google Scholar

Tran, Cathy, Brandon Smith & Martin Buschkuehl. 2017. Support of mathematical thinking through embodied cognition: Nondigital and digital approaches. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications 2(1). 16.10.1186/s41235-017-0053-8Search in Google Scholar

Tscholl, Michael & Robb Lindgren. 2014. Empowering digital interactions with real world conversation. TechTrends 58(1). 56–63.10.1007/s11528-013-0721-6Search in Google Scholar

Tucker, Gordon H. 2014. Giving it my best shot: Towards a coherent functional analysis of metaphorically-derived processes with particular attention to the ‘light verb’ expressions. In María de los ángeles Gómez González, Francisco José Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez and Francisco Gonzálvez-García (eds.), Theory and Practice in Functional-Cognitive Space. Studies in Functional and Structural Linguistics 68, 33–52. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/sfsl.68.02tucSearch in Google Scholar

Tyler, Andrea. 2008. Cognitive linguistics and second language instruction. In Peter Robinson & Nick C. Ellis (eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition, 456–488. Mahwah, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates.Search in Google Scholar

Tyler, Andrea. 2012. Cognitive Linguistics and SLA. In Peter Robinson (ed.), Routledge encyclopedia of second language acquisition, 88–90. London & New York: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar

Tyler, Andrea, Charles Mueller & Vu Ho. 2011. Applying cognitive linguistics to learning the semantics of English to, for and at: An experimental investigation. Vial 8. 181–205.Search in Google Scholar

Vygotsky, Lev. 1986. Thought and language. Cambridge: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar

Weber, Heinz J. 1997. Dependenzgrammatik: Ein Arbeitsbuch. Tübingen: Narr.Search in Google Scholar

Wik, Preben & Anna Hjalmarsson. 2009. Embodied conversational agents in computer assisted language learning. Speech Communication 51(10). 1024–1037.10.1016/j.specom.2009.05.006Search in Google Scholar

Williams, Lawrence, Lee B. Abraham & Eduardo Negueruela-Azarola. 2013. Using concept-based instruction in the L2 classroom. Perspectives from Current and Future Language Teachers Language Teaching Research 17(3). 363–381.10.1177/1362168813482950Search in Google Scholar

Yasuda, Sachiko. 2010. Learning phrasal verbs through conceptual metaphors: A case of Japanese EFL learners. Tesol Quarterly 44(2). 250–273.10.5054/tq.2010.219945Search in Google Scholar

Yilmaz, Rabia M. 2016. Educational magic toys developed with augmented reality technology for early childhood education. Computers in Human Behavior 54. 240–248.10.1016/j.chb.2015.07.040Search in Google Scholar

Yoon, Susan A., Emma Anderson, Joyce Lin & Karen Elinich. 2017. How augmented reality enables conceptual understanding of challenging science content. Educational Technology & Society 20(1). 156–168.Search in Google Scholar

Yoon, Susan A., Karen Elinich, Joyce Wang, Christopher Steinmeier & Sean Tucker. 2012. Using augmented reality and knowledge-building scaffolds to improve learning in a science museum. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning 7(4). 519–541.10.1007/s11412-012-9156-xSearch in Google Scholar

Published Online: 2019-02-20
Published in Print: 2021-09-27

© 2019 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Downloaded on 29.3.2024 from https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/iral-2018-0362/html
Scroll to top button