See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/267701327

Integrating Cognitive Linguistics and Foreign Language

Teaching -Historical Background and New Developments

Article · January 2009

CITATIONS READS

3 277

2 authors, including:

Antoon De Rycker
BERJAYA University College
39 PUBLICATIONS   186 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Media and Malaysia-China Diplomacy View project

From Construction Grammar to embodied Construction Practice View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Sabine De Knop on 07 April 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 INTEGRATING COGNITIVE LINGUISTICS AND FOREIGN LANGUAGE
TEACHING - HISTORICAL BACKGROUND AND NEW DEVELOPMENTS 29

Integrating Cognitive Linguistics and Foreign

Language Teaching - Historical
Background and New Developments

Antoon De Rycker
Associate Professor
Faculty of Languages and Linguistics
University of Malaya, [email protected]

Sabine De Knop
Professor and Head of the Department of Germanic Languages
Facultés Universitaires Saint-Louis,
Brussels, Belgium, [email protected]

Abstract
Recently foreign language teaching (FLT) research has been able to
benefit enormously from advances in Cognitive Linguistics (CL) (e.g.
Lakoff, 1987; Langacker, 1991; Taylor, 2002). As a consequence, CL has
become more and more interested in turning its rich, specialised, and
emerging body of research into a practical guide for language teachers,
course designers, and materials writers. To that end, CL-based classroom
instruction in a second or foreign language needs to show that (i) it can
move beyond the largely unmotivated rules, examples, and lists typical
of the traditional paradigm; (ii) that it can produce results-driven
grammar instruction and practice; and (iii) that it can ultimately balance
all of this properly with new insights gained from second-language
acquisition (SLA) research (e.g. Lantolf & Thorne, 2006). In this paper
we will first look at CL in a broader historical context of applied
linguistics, and more particularly, FLT, discussing how it builds on, and
differs from, such linguistic theories as transformational-generative
grammar and pragmatics. Then, we will show how the theoretical
assumptions, basic units, and constructs used in CL offer a better
understanding of the true nature of language and grammar, and how CL
can improve the efficiency and effectiveness of current FLT methods
(e.g. Robinson & Ellis, 2008; De Knop & De Rycker, 2008; Boers &
Lindstromberg, 2008).
30 JOURNAL OF MODERN LANGUAGES

Introduction
As observed in the introduction to Cognitive Linguistics: Current
Applications and Future Perspectives (Kristiansen et al., 2006), foreign
language teaching (FLT) is interdisciplinary in character, crossing over into
and closely collaborating with, among others, second-language acquistion
(SLA) research, psycholinguistics, and educational psychology. Note that
we do not distinguish, in this paper, between the teaching/learning of a
second language and that of a foreign language. For both, we will look at
how Cognitive Linguistics (CL), both as theory and description, can enhance
the quality of classroom teaching/learning methodologies. Before doing so,
we would like to explain how CL fits into the bigger picture of applied
linguistics, i.e., how it builds on, and is different from, earlier linguistic theories,
and particularly, transformational-generative syntax and pragmatics. This
will serve as the necessary historical background against which to briefly
introduce some of the theoretical assumptions, key concepts, and analytical
tools used in CL. For each of these, we will zoom in on the contribution that
CL has been able to make so far to the classroom teaching of foreign
languages. In other words, what are the ways in which CL insights can be
applied to foster greater FLT efficiency – an area of research that is, of
course, only one strand in the broader field of Applied Cognitive Linguistics
(ACL). As observed by Boers, De Rycker, & De Knop (forthcoming), the
main challenge is to find out which ACL insights can inform teachers,
materials writers, and course designers in their decisions about what to
teach, i.e., the selection of second/foreign language targets for classroom
treatment, and about how to teach these, i.e., the methodological choices
involved in realising those targets most successfully. It is hoped that this
paper will whet readers’ appetite for a CL approach to FLT, and that it may
also succeed in offering some rewarding avenues for further exploration of
what it means “to think before you speak” in another language.

Historical Background: Applied Linguistics and the Cognitive Turn

One of the first pioneers in applied linguistics who was also interested in
questions of grammar learning and grammar teaching is Lado (1957).
However, in the Fifties, applied and theoretical linguistics were still not so
well established as academic disciplines. It is only thanks to the revolutionary
work by Chomsky in the Sixties and Seventies that linguistics could take a
major leap forward in its self-understanding as a branch of the cognitive
sciences, its relevance to neighbouring disciplines, and its standing in the
academic and political world at large. At the same time – more precisely in
 INTEGRATING COGNITIVE LINGUISTICS AND FOREIGN LANGUAGE
TEACHING - HISTORICAL BACKGROUND AND NEW DEVELOPMENTS 31

1964 – the international organisation of applied linguistics was founded

under its French name of Association Internationale de Linguistique
Appliquée (AILA).
In this general positive climate of a new faith in linguistics as a useful
pursuit it is no surprise that even Chomsky (1965, 1966) himself in his
theoretical approaches put the notions of formal grammar and pedagogical
grammar, i.e., a grammar that bridges theory and practice, side by side,
regarding grammar as a psychological reality, i.e., as an innate “ability” to
produce and comprehend speech:

A grammar describes and attempts to account for the ability of the

speaker to understand an arbitrary sentence of his language and to
produce an appropriate sentence on a given occasion. If a pedagogic
grammar it attempts to provide a student with this ability, if a linguistic
grammar it aims to discover and exhibit the mechanisms that make this
achievement possible.
(Chomsky, 1966, p. 10)

As is well known, Chomsky postulates a language acquisition device

(LAD) concept, which operates autonomously, and which, seemingly in a
fully disembodied and non-socio-cultural world, leads to the acquisition of
competence in a given language. The first applied linguist to give a more
detailed description of what a pedagogical grammar should be is the
generativist Saporta (1966, 1973), for whom the “central question in the
application of linguistics to the teaching of foreign languages involves the
conversion of a scientific grammar into a pedagogical grammar” (1966, p.
81). Very much influenced by Chomsky and his followers, he makes an
almost identical distinction between a pedagogical grammar and a scientific
grammar and sees a pedagogical grammar as an attempt to develop an
ability to recognize and produce sentences (Saporta, 1973, p. 266). Yet,
Saporta’s definition goes further when limiting this ability to native speakers
– which stands in contradiction with the aim of his paper, i.e., the description
of a pedagogical grammar as a grammar for second and foreign language
learning. He speaks of the “paradox of second language learning” (1966, p.
85), with which he anticipates Krashen’s Monitor Model (1977, 1978):

Language is rule-governed behaviour, and learning a language involves

internalizing the rules. But the ability or inclination to formulate the
rules apparently interferes with the performance which is supposed to
lead to making the application of the rules automatic. (Saporta, 1966,
p. 85)
32 JOURNAL OF MODERN LANGUAGES

Chomsky’s influence was felt in the United States and in Europe but
not in exactly the same way. In the United States it was especially the
application of Chomsky’s LAD concept that caught on whereas in Europe
the focus was on describing – through error analysis or contrastive analysis
– the interim grammars developed by learners trying to acquire a particular
target language. In the United States, more particularly, Krashen (1977,
1978, 1982) developed the LAD ideas into what he called the “Monitor
Model,” which is a language learning theory, making a radical distinction
between the unconscious acquisition and the conscious learning of a
target language. Krashen believes that learned competence acts as an editor
or monitor, i.e., as a self-correcting device in natural language, when
mispronouncing a word or using a wrong word or construction. Krashen
widens this concept to foreign language learning. Whereas acquired
competence is responsible for the fluent production of sentences, learned
competence consciously corrects them. Many linguists have rejected
Krashen’s model, however. See, among others, McLaughlin (1978, 1987)
and Taylor (1993), who critically observe that the acquisition/learning
distinction is not clear-cut and that there is no evidence for the existence of
such a monitor. A major criticism from the pedagogical grammar point of
view is that his monitor model would make a pedagogical grammar void,
superfluous, and meaningless.
In Europe applied linguistic research, influenced by Chomsky’s (1965)
transformational-generative grammar, mainly dealt with the question of the
relevance of linguistics for the teaching or learning of languages. Reference
can be made here to, among others, Candlin (1973), Corder (1973a, 1973b,
1973c, 1974a), Kufner (1971), Mackey (1973), and Roulet (1972, 1978).
Noblitt (1972, p. 316), however, offers an important qualification to the then
widespread belief in spontaneous and automatic language acquisition. Since
no second or foreign language grammar is acquired automatically, it is the
specific task of a pedagogical grammar to “formulate the grammar,” taking
into account the criterion of relevance for the learner. But, what the
formulation of such a grammar looks like remains unanswered. Most
research in applied linguistics at that time deals with questions about interim
grammars, contrastive analysis, and/or error analysis: Candlin (1973), Corder
(1973a, 1973b, 1974a, 1974b), Dulay & Burt (1974), Jain (1974), Roulet
(1972, 1978), and Richards (1974). One can also note a much stronger
interest in the design of teaching materials and syllabuses, e.g. by Calvano
(1980), Johnson (1983), and Wilkins (1976). As a matter of fact, Sharwood
Smith (1976, 1978) is one of the few to recognize the importance of the
psychological or cognitive basis of a pedagogical grammar (1978, p. 26)
 INTEGRATING COGNITIVE LINGUISTICS AND FOREIGN LANGUAGE
TEACHING - HISTORICAL BACKGROUND AND NEW DEVELOPMENTS 33

though he too makes use of Chomsky’s transformational-generative grammar

to describe the expression of futurity in English.
Already in the early Seventies, however, various corrections to
Chomsky’s “idealist” concept of linguistic competence were proposed within
theoretical linguistics. On the one hand, there is the pragmatic turn, and on
the other hand, the theory of communicative competence. Pragmatics
“developed in part as a reaction or antidote to Chomsky’s treatment of
language as an abstract device, or mental ability, dissociable from the uses,
users and functions of language” (Levinson, 1983, p. 35). The most important
pioneers were Austin (1962), Searle (1969, 1975), Grice (1975), Habermas
(1979), and Wunderlich (1972). With them, language philosophy and
linguistics were to move from a purely theoretical approach focusing on
ideal and abstracted sentences towards an interest in “utterances” (Austin,
1962) or so-called “speech acts” (Searle, 1969). To utter a sentence is not
just to “say” something but also to perform a certain kind of action taking
into account social aspects (e.g. the social position of the speaker),
psychological factors (e.g. how one feels) or the intentions of the
communication partners. In the Eighties, pragmatics became a new branch
of language philosophy and linguistics in its own right, attracting very
large groups of scholars – see, among many others, Dascal (1983), Leech
(1983), Levinson (1983), and Verschueren & Bertuccelli Papi (1987).
They developed a wide range of pragmatic interests: the study of deixis,
conversational implicatures and presuppositions, speech acts like the
expression of requests, apologies or refusals, repair strategies in
miscommunication, etc.
From quite a different angle, i.e., from the ethnography of
communication as developed by Hymes in the Sixties, came the notion of
“communicative competence” (Hymes, 1972a; 1972b). An adequate theory
of language, as he argues, needs to go beyond the Chomskyan dichotomy
of competence and performance, with its narrow focus on grammaticality
and acceptability judgements respectively. Instead, one has to recognize
that members of a speech community also have underlying knowledge with
respect to “the way in which the systemically possible, the feasible, and the
appropriate are linked to produce and interpret actually occurring cultural
behaviour” (Hymes, 1972b, p. 286). It is these four dimensions that should
underpin a broad theory of communicative competence.
Both pragmatics and communicative competence theories radically
influenced language teaching, both the thinking about it (e.g. Richards &
Schmidt, 1983) and the actual teaching practice in the classroom, and it
even led to the almost complete abandonment of grammar teaching. Even
34 JOURNAL OF MODERN LANGUAGES

grammar research focused on those aspects of grammar that primarily

served “communicative” functions: for example, Leech & Svartvik’s (1975)
A Communicative Grammar of English and Van Ek’s (1975) description
of the Threshold level. The focus on contrastive linguistics and error analysis
was largely replaced by a focus on interactional acts or strategies, speech
acts, and the interplay of forms and functions in communication. As a
consequence, interlanguage pragmatics focused on the development of
learning activities that would raise language awareness (James & Garrett,
1991), facilitate the appropriateness of language performance in non-native
learners’ communicative strategies (for an overview, see Bialystok, 1990)
or develop a so-called pragmatic competence (Blum-Kulka, 1991).
Summarizing the effects of this major turn, one can say that since the
Eighties language pedagogy has experienced a silent revolution with a
stronger focus on authentic language materials, pragmatic language
functions, and interactive learning methods. As a consequence of this, FLT
has been able to increase its efficiency considerably. However, apart from
the rich pragmatics input, it has lacked a sufficiently strong theoretical
framework to support the teaching of language in all its aspects, including
language in use.
Arguably, from the viewpoint of cognitive linguistics, such a linguistic
theory has to be usage-based and cognition-oriented, as we shall discuss in
the next section. Already at the same time as the pragmatic turn, that is
about twenty-five years ago, some researchers claimed that cognitive
linguistics might “offer the opportunity for a renewed approach to pedagogic
grammar research” (Dirven, 1989, p. 56). The deeper motivation is the
insight that we communicate the world not simply as it is, the world as a
given, but as our language structures it, starting from conceptualizations
based on the categorization of this world. Language is seen as being linked
with other cognitive domains. Building on a broad cognitive foundation,
cognitive linguistics approaches language as an integrated system of lexical
and grammatical concepts and of communicative interaction patterns. More
particularly, cognitive linguistics is concerned with conceptual issues against
the larger background of human cognition and is also based on actual
language usage. It is for these reasons that it becomes a powerful tool for
dealing adequately with the main issues of a pedagogical grammar and
FLT teaching in general.
Specialists in language teaching generally accepted the high potential
of cognitive linguistics for the creation of teaching targets and learning
materials. So, it may come as a historical surprise that this applied-linguistic
field of investigation was rather neglected and that it took another twenty
 INTEGRATING COGNITIVE LINGUISTICS AND FOREIGN LANGUAGE
TEACHING - HISTORICAL BACKGROUND AND NEW DEVELOPMENTS 35

years to see some more intensive research in that field. This neglect in the
Eighties and Nineties may have been influenced by the discussions about
Krashen’s Monitor Model and by the success of the pragmatic turn. But
none of this can explain why the cognitive turn in linguistics has not been
more seminal for language pedagogy thus far. Apart from some initial papers
by Dirven (1989), Dirven & Taylor (1994), Taylor (1987, 1993), Rudzka-
Ostyn (1988), Serra-Borneto (1993), and Smith (1987, 1993), most of the
field has remained barren in the Nineties.
The lack of cognitive research in FLT stands in strong contrast to the
rich research output in the areas of lexical and metaphor teaching in applied
linguistics as testified in the survey article by Boers & Lindstromberg (2006),
and more recently, their collective volume on teaching vocabulary and
phraseology (2008). A possible explanation for this discrepancy between
the popularity of lexis and the relative lack of interest in grammar may be
the tremendous success of Lakoff & Johnson’s (1980) bestselling book
Metaphors We Live By, which attracted most of the new generation of
researchers into the cognitive world so that relatively little attention was
paid to linguistic structures at the sentential, let alone, discoursal levels.
It was not until 2000 that a new start was taken with the LAUD
Symposium in Landau, Germany. The general theme of the symposium
was Applied Cognitive Linguistics, which also became the title of the twin
volumes edited by Pütz, Niemeier, & Dirven (2001), namely Theory and
Language Acquisition (Vol. I) and Language Pedagogy (Vol. II). This
was followed a few years later by Achard & Niemeier’s (2004) Cognitive
Linguistics, Second Language Acquisition, and Foreign Language
Teaching. Since then, we have witnessed the publication of Lantolf &
Thorne (2006), Robinson & Ellis (2008), De Knop & De Rycker (2008),
with De Knop, Boers, & De Rycker (forthcoming) in the pipeline. Only De
Knop & De Rycker (2008) is exclusively devoted to grammar teaching
from a cognitive point of view, however.

The Significance of Cognitive Linguistics for Foreign Language

Teaching
The CL enterprise differs from previous schools of linguistic analysis in
that it views language as usage-based events and as a component of, and
thus interacting with, other faculties of human cognition; these processes
are laid down in communicable conceptualisations. This approach offers
many ideas for rethinking FLT. Some of the main CL assets are:
36 JOURNAL OF MODERN LANGUAGES

(1) the usage-based nature of grammar and language acquisition;

(2) the interaction of grammar and cognition;
(3) the symbolic nature, or meaningfulness, of all linguistic forms, including
grammatical forms;
(4) the lexicon-grammar continuum;
(5) the network structure of meanings as concepts laid down in language.

Let us look at each of these in turn. It is not our intention, however, to

cover any of these in detail. For more information on the CL framework,
see, among many others, Croft & Cruse (2004), Ungerer & Schmid (2006),
and Radden & Dirven (2007). Our main aim here is to touch upon the
implications of these assumptions and key insights for the instruction and
learning of foreign languages.

(1) The usage-based nature of grammar and language acquisition

The usage-based, bottom-up model of language acquisition that
cognitive linguistics adheres to (e.g. Langacker, 2000; Tomasello, 2003)
is very much in line with new methods of language teaching, in which
meaningfulness, communication, and context, but also authenticity are
highly valued (see Section 4). Focussing on meaningful and authentic
language inevitably raises the issue of frequency. For example, modern
methods of grammar teaching with a “focus on form” approach (Long,
1988; 1990) introduce grammar in the context of communication and
primarily focus on language in use. Also, as Boers, De Rycker, & De
Knop (forthcoming) argue, since naturalistic acquisition and learning
especially privileges high-frequency items, i.e., both words and
constructions, FLT should be paying more attention to inputting lower-
frequency items.

(2) The interaction of grammar and cognition

Situations and objects cannot be described as they are but as they are
conceived and construed, i.e., as the result of our conceptualisation
and the communication of our conceptual world. This means that the
worlds of physical, psychosocial, and mental reality are experienced
in a given sociocultural community and that they are organised by the
speakers of linguistic communities into conceptual categories. Lexical
expressions as well as grammatical constructions are not determined
by objective properties but reflect these linguistically and culturally.
Moreover, they are closely related to perception and to the whole
bodily basis of cognition. This guarantees a universal dimension to
 INTEGRATING COGNITIVE LINGUISTICS AND FOREIGN LANGUAGE
TEACHING - HISTORICAL BACKGROUND AND NEW DEVELOPMENTS 37

language and culture as well. Grammar structures many aspects of

reality as conceived in cultural communities and makes the categories
laid down in language coherent. One of the challenges for a CL-
oriented approach to FLT will be to show how a particular language
expresses its conceptual categories.

(3) The symbolic nature or meaningfulness of all linguistic forms, including

grammatical forms
All linguistic expressions, also grammatical ones, are symbolic, i.e.,
are composed of a semantic pole and a phonological pole, which implies
that grammatical structures are meaningful, and that differences in
grammar reflect meaning differences. Therefore, the grammar of a
language should not be regarded as a set of so-called purely syntactic
and morphological rules, that is, meaningless rules, which can only be
learned but which are hardly motivated. The aspect of “motivation”
provides interesting opportunities for FLT, as it can be assumed that
learning about the cognitive motivation of grammatical variability in a
particular target language increases the understanding of the target
language system, and may help improve mastery of that system.

(4) The lexicon-grammar continuum

CL starts from the assumption that “lexicon and grammar form a
continuum consisting solely in assemblies of symbolic structures”
(Langacker, 2008, p. 8). A symbolic structure results from the
relationship between a semantic structure and a phonological structure.
Grammar is meaningful, not an autonomous formal system
characterized by arbitrary restrictions. Speakers “assemble” words
and phrases into meaningful sentences, many of them according to
conventionalised patterns or constructions. Just like single words,
grammatical units are likely to be polysemous, having a prototypical
meaning and an array of less central values resulting from an elaborated
multifaceted conceptual substrate. To quote Boers, De Rycker, & De
Knop (forthcoming), “[o]ne of the consequences of this is that due
attention must be given to multi-word items (such as strong collocations
and other word partnerships).” The realization that words tend to have
their own grammar, and conversely, that grammatical structures display
preferences for certain words (Taylor, forthcoming), has undoubtedly
been helped along, as these authors observe, by the analysis of large
corpora. In this respect, it is relevant to refer to one of the founding
fathers of corpus linguistics, Sinclair (1991), who emphasises the
38 JOURNAL OF MODERN LANGUAGES

ubiquity of what he calls the idiom principle (as opposed to the open-
choice principle) in natural language use.

(5) The network structure of meanings as concepts laid down in language

The meanings or senses of linguistic expressions are normally
structured and modelled in terms of a network structure centred around
a prototype (Broccias, 2008), with more peripheral members somewhat
removed from the prototype – the latter are to be regarded as
extensions of the prototype. Such meaning extensions are arrived at
through a number of semantic processes such as metaphor and
metonymy. The processes of metaphor and metonymy have been
extensively studied in cognitive semantics – they offer a kind of indirect
access to the concepts in which we think. A metaphorical approach is
by no means restricted to lexical categories; it can also be applied to
the study of the meaning of grammatical structures – see, e.g.,
Sweetser (1990) for an account of the semantics of modal verbs. The
impact of the metaphor concept in grammar teaching becomes clear
in De Knop & Dirven (2008) and De Knop (submitted). Moreover,
the network model – which makes use of prototypes and processes
like metaphorization – enables the learner to visualise meaning relations
and so may facilitate SLA.

New Developments
Recently FLT research has been able to benefit enormously from advances
in CL (e.g. Lakoff, 1987; Langacker, 1991; Taylor, 2002). As a consequence,
CL has become more and more interested in turning its rich, specialized,
and emerging body of research into a practical guide for language teachers,
course designers, and materials writers. To that end, CL-based classroom
instruction in a foreign language needs to show that (i) it can move beyond
the largely unmotivated rules, examples, and lists typical of the traditional
paradigm; (ii) that it can produce results-driven grammar instruction and
practice; and (iii) that it can ultimately balance all of this properly with new
insights gained from second-language acquisition research.
With respect to the first two points, let us quote extensively from
Boers, De Rycker, & De Knop (forthcoming). The proposals made in the
early days of ACL were indisputably groundbreaking. See, for example,
Pütz, Niemeier, & Dirven (2001), i.e., the first collective volume dedicated
explicitly to the use of CL in language pedagogy. However, we need to
 INTEGRATING COGNITIVE LINGUISTICS AND FOREIGN LANGUAGE
TEACHING - HISTORICAL BACKGROUND AND NEW DEVELOPMENTS 39

acknowledge that these early proposals suffered from roughly two

weaknesses. Firstly, they were mostly just that – proposals – and were not
backed up by empirical evidence for their pedagogical effectiveness.
Secondly, they offered little argumentation for the choice of language
elements to be targeted in the proposed instructional methods. Today,
however, much more care is taken to assess CL-inspired instructional
methods by means of experimental and/or corpus data. The result is a
growing body of evidence of the limitations as well as the merits of CL-
oriented FLT and also a more informed idea of how to fine-tune the
pedagogical applications that have been tried so far.
The maturation of the FLT strand within ACL has not come entirely
from within, however. Increased contacts with a recent strand of SLA
research have undoubtedly stimulated many of the advances. The type of
SLA research that we have in mind here is one in which the modifier
“cognitive” is used to characterize its overall approach: Skehan (1998) and
Robinson & Ellis (2008). Though rooted in applied rather than descriptive
linguistics, its premises have a lot in common with those of ACL. For
example, insights from applied cognitive psychology (including models of
attention and memory) are highly relevant for language acquisition and
learning (e.g. Robinson, 2003; Robinson & Ellis, 2008). Furthermore,
acquisition depends on quantity and quality of input, and the frequency of
encounters with given elements markedly influences the likelihood of their
uptake and thus also the order in which these elements are acquired (e.g.
Ellis, 2002). This can be related to the CL premise that first-language
acquisition is usage-based, it is the outcome of what is sometimes called
“emergentism” in contemporary SLA research jargon (e.g. Ellis and Larsen-
Freeman, 2006). There is thus no need to postulate any such thing as an
innate “universal grammar” or a “language acquisition device” as
Chomskyan linguists are wont to. ACL proponents and cognition-oriented
SLA researchers found a joint forum in March 2008, at the 33rd International
LAUD Symposium (Landau, Germany), organized under the title Cognitive
Approaches to Second/Foreign Language Processing: Theory and
Pedagogy. A selection of papers presented at that symposium will be
published in De Knop, Boers, & De Rycker (forthcoming).
As for the integration of CL and SLA research, mention should be
also made of Lantolf & Thorne’s (2006) seminal work on sociocultural
theory (SCT), a theory about the development and functioning of higher
mental functions based on Vygotsky, and how primary SCT constructs like
mediation, internalization, imitation, and “zone of proximal development”
can help classroom FLT. Clearly, a thorough discussion would lead us too
40 JOURNAL OF MODERN LANGUAGES

far. Suffice it to say that higher-level cultural tools like language,

categorization, and rationality “serve as a buffer between the person and
the environment and act to mediate the relationship between the individual
and the social-material world” (Lantolf & Thorne, 2007, pp. 198-199). In
this view, language helps us to voluntarily and intentionally regulate our
physical but also our mental activities. It is the most pervasive and most
powerful cultural artifact that we have to mediate our connection to the
world, to others, and to ourselves. It is obvious that CL and SCT meet each
other in emphasizing the groundedness of language in general cognitive
abilities, and that as far as FLT is concerned, more attention should be paid
to understanding communicative processes as being inherently cognitive
processes. Where SCT can enrich CL is through the former’s more
pronounced orientation towards interpersonal interaction and participation
in sociocultural activities.

Conclusions
In his plenary at the 40th International Annual IATEFL Conference held in
2006, Swan (2007, p. 48) argues that a “properly-balanced language-teaching
programme … has three ingredients – extensive, intensive and analysed –
at both input and output stages” and that all three of these ingredients are
equally important. First of all, language learners need exposure to extensive
“quantities of spoken and written language, authentic or not too tidied up,
for their unconscious acquisition processes to work on” (Swan, 2007, p.
46). And they also need opportunities to produce free writing and speaking
themselves. Note that all this ties in perfectly with the usage-based approach
that Langacker (2001) advocates: “optimal language development requires
interactive exposure to large quantities of natural speech in context.”
Secondly, learning will also gain from “intensive engagement with small
samples of language which they can internalize, process [in the sense of
comprehend], make their own and use as bases for their own production”
(Swan, 2007, p. 47). The third ingredient in successful language teaching is
what is called “analysed input,” i.e., learners require “information about the
workings of particular aspects of the language, presented implicitly or
explicitly” (Swan, 2007, p. 47). Again, this should go hand in hand with
plenty of output practice in the form of exercises and tests. Of course, as
Swan (2007) points out, the value of this kind of deliberate grammar teaching
has become rather controversial over the past thirty years. And also, even
when sufficient emphasis is put on the presentation of analysed input and
 INTEGRATING COGNITIVE LINGUISTICS AND FOREIGN LANGUAGE
TEACHING - HISTORICAL BACKGROUND AND NEW DEVELOPMENTS 41

output, the question remains as to what kind of linguistic theory is best

placed to provide the overall framework for that analysis.
What CL brings to the multifaceted field of language pedagogy –
more than any other contemporary form of linguistics – is “a strong
conceptual unity” (Kristiansen et al., 2006, p. 14). It is this unity in theoretical
assumptions, basic units, and constructs that is expected to offer a better
insight into the nature of language and grammar and further improve the
efficiency and effectiveness of existing second and foreign language
teaching. Our brief discussion has hopefully made clear that a cognitively-
oriented approach to FLT can only be based on a model that offers a
sufficiently streamlined integration of the dominant strands in CL, including
corpus linguistics, contrastive linguistics (e.g. error analysis), and
experimental psycholinguistics, as well as the new insights gleaned from
recent cognitive and sociocultural models. As pointed out in the introduction
to our paper, it is such an integrated model that should guide us when deciding
what linguistic items to teach and how.

References
Achard, M., & Niemeier, S. (Eds.) (2004). Cognitive linguistics, second language
acquisition, and foreign language teaching. Berlin/New York: Mouton de
Gruyter.
Austin, J. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bialystok, E. (1990). Communication strategies: A psychological analysis of
second-language use. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Blum-Kulka, Sh. (1991). Interlanguage pragmatics: The case of requests. In
Phillipson, R., Kellerman, E., Selinker, L., Sharwood Smith, M., & Swain, M.
(Eds.) Foreign/second language pedagogy research. Clevedon, Avon:
Multilingual Matters, 255-272.
Boers, F., De Rycker, T., & De Knop, S. (forthcoming). Introduction. In De Knop, S.,
Boers, F., & De Rycker, T. (Eds.) Fostering language teaching efficiency
through cognitive linguistics. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Boers, F., & Lindstromberg, S. (2006). Cognitive linguistic applications in second
or foreign language instruction: Rationale, proposals, and evaluation. In
Kristiansen, G., Achard, M., Dirven, R., & Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F.J. (Eds.)
Cognitive linguistics: Current applications and future perspectives. Berlin/
New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 305-355.
Boers, F., & Lindstromberg, S. (Eds.) (2008). Cognitive linguistic approaches to
teaching vocabulary and phraseology. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Broccias, C. (2008). Cognitive linguistic theories of grammar and grammar teaching.
In De Knop, S., & De Rycker, T. (Eds.) Cognitive approaches to pedagogical
grammar. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 67-90.
42 JOURNAL OF MODERN LANGUAGES

Calvano, W.J. (1980). Spanish applied linguistics: Considerations of pedagogical

grammar. In Nickel, G., & Nehls, D. (Eds.) Models of grammar, descriptive
linguistics and pedagogical grammar. Heidelberg: Julius Groos, 46-63.
Candlin, Chr. (1973). The status of pedagogical grammars. In Corder, S.P., & Roulet,
E. (Eds.) Theoretical linguistic models in applied linguistics. Paris/Brussels:
Didier/AIMAV, 55-64.
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. (1966). Topics in the theory of generative grammar. The Hague:
Mouton.
Corder, S.P. (1973a). Introducing applied linguistics. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Corder, S.P. (1973b). Linguistics and the language teaching syllabus. In Allen,
J.P.B., & Corder, S.P. (Eds.) Readings for applied linguistics. London: Oxford
University Press, 275-284.
Corder, S.P. (1973c). Linguistic theory and applied linguistics. In Corder, S.P., &
Roulet, E. (Eds.) Theoretical linguistic models in applied linguistics. Paris/
Brussels: Didier/AIMAV, 11-19.
Corder, S.P. (1974a). Pedagogical grammar or the pedagogy of grammar? In Corder,
S.P., & Roulet, E. (Eds.) Linguistic insights in applied linguistics. Bruxelles/
Paris: AIMAV/Didier, 167-173.
Corder, S.P. (1974b). The significance of learners’ errors. In Richards, J.C. (Ed.)
Error analysis: Perspectives on second language acquisition. London:
Longman, 19-30.
Croft, W., & Cruse, A. (2004). Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Dascal, M. (1983). Pragmatics and the philosophy of mind. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
De Knop, S. (submitted). Visualisation and conceptual metaphor as tools for the
teaching of abstract motion in German. In Juchem-Grundmann, C., & Niemeier,
S. (Eds.) KNOWING IS SEEING: Metaphor and language pedagogy. Berlin/
New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
De Knop, S. & De Rycker, T. (Eds.) (2008). Cognitive approaches to pedagogical
grammar. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
De Knop, S., & Dirven, R. (2008). Motion and location events in German, French
and English: A typological, contrastive and pedagogical approach In De
Knop, S., & De Rycker, T. (Eds.) Cognitive approaches to pedagogical
grammar. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 295-324.
De Knop, S., Boers, F. & De Rycker, T. (Eds.) (forthcoming). Fostering language
teaching efficiency through cognitive linguistics. Berlin/New York: Mouton
de Gruyter.
Dirven, R. (1989). Cognitive linguistics and pedagogic grammar. In Graustein, G., &
Leitner, G. (Eds.) Reference grammars and modern linguistic theory.
Tübingen: Niemeyer, 56-75.
 INTEGRATING COGNITIVE LINGUISTICS AND FOREIGN LANGUAGE
TEACHING - HISTORICAL BACKGROUND AND NEW DEVELOPMENTS 43

Dirven, R., & Taylor, J. (1994). English modality: A cognitive-didactic approach.

In Carlon, K., Davidse, K., & Rudzka-Ostyn, B. (Eds.) Perspectives on
English: Studies in honour of Professor Emma Vorlat. Leuven/Paris:
Peeters, 542-556.
Dulay, H., & Burt, M. (1974). Errors and strategies in child second language
acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 8, 129-136.
Ellis, N. (2002). Frequency effects in language processing: A review with implications
for theories of implicit and explicit language acquisition. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 24, 223-236.
Ellis, N., & Larsen-Freeman, D. (2006). Language emergence: Implications for
applied linguistics –Introduction to the special issue. Applied Linguistics,
27(4), 558-589.
Grice, P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Cole, P., & Morgan, J. (Eds.) Syntax
and semantics. Vol. 3: Speech acts. New York: Academic Press, 41-58.
Habermas, J. (1979). Communication and the evolution of society. Boston, MA:
Beacon Press.
Hymes, D. (1972a). Models of the interaction of language and social life. In Gumperz,
J.J. & Hymes, D. (Eds.) Directions in sociolinguistics, New York: Holt, Rinehart
& Winston, 35-71.
Hymes, D. (1972b). On communicative competence. In Pride, J.B., & Holmes, J.
(Eds.) Sociolinguistics. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 269-293.
Jain, M.P. (1974). Error analysis: Source, cause and significance. In Richards, J.C.
(Ed.) Error analysis: Perspectives on second language acquisition. London:
Longman, 189-215.
James, C., & Garrett, P. (Eds.) (1991). Language awareness in the classroom. New
York: Longman.
Johnson, K. (1983). Syllabus design: Possible future trends. In Johnson, K., &
Porter, D. (Eds.) Perspectives in communicative language teaching. London/
New York: Academic Press, 47-58.
Krashen, S. (1977). The Monitor Model for second language performance. In Burt,
M., Dulay, H., & Finocchiaro, M. (Eds.) Viewpoints on English as a second
language. New York: Regents, 152-161.
Krashen, S. (1978). Individual variation in the use of the Monitor. In Ritchie, W.
(Ed.) Principles of second language Learning. New York: Academic Press,
175-183.
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition.
Oxford: Pergamon.
Kristiansen, G., Achard, M., Dirven, R., & Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F.J. (Eds.)
(2006). Cognitive linguistics: Current applications and future perspectives.
Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Kufner, H.L. (1971). Deskriptive Grammatik, kontrastive Grammatik, pädagogische
Grammatik. In Moser, H. (Ed.) Fragen der strukturellen Syntax und der
kontrastiven Grammatik. Düsseldorf: Pädagogischer Verlag Schwann,
201-210.
44 JOURNAL OF MODERN LANGUAGES

Lado, R. (1975). Linguistics across cultures: Applied linguistics for language

teachers. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal
about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Lantolf, J., & Thorne, S. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the sociogenesis of
second language development. New York: Oxford University Press.
Lantolf, J., & Thorne, S. (2007). Sociocultural theory and second language
learning. In van Patten, B., & J. Williams, J. (Eds.) Theories in second
language acquisition: An introduction. New York: Routledge, 197-220.
Langacker, R. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. 1: Theoretical
prerequisites. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.
Langacker, R. (1991). Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. 2: Descriptive
applications. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.
Langacker, R. (2000). A dynamic usage-based model. In Barlow, M., & Kemmer, S.
(Eds.) Usage-based models of language. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study
of Language and Information Publications, 1-63.
Langacker, R. (2001). Cognitive linguistics, language pedagogy, and the English
present tense. In Pütz, M., Niemeier, S., & Dirven, R. (Eds.) Applied cognitive
linguistics. Vol. I: Theory and language acquisition. Berlin/New York:
Mouton de Gruyter, 3-39.
Langacker, R. (2008). The relevance of cognitive grammar for language pedagogy.
In De Knop, S., & De Rycker, T. (Eds.) Cognitive approaches to pedagogical
grammar. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 7-35.
Leech, G. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman.
Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1975). A communicative grammar of English. London:
Longman.
Levinson, S.C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Long, M. (1988). Instructed interlanguage development. In Beebe, L. (Ed.) Issues
in second language acquisition: Multiple perspectives. Rowley, MA:
Newbury House, 115-141.
Long, M. (1990). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching
methodology. In de Bot, K., Ginsberg, R.B., & Kramsch, Cl. (Eds.) Foreign
language research in a cross-cultural perspective. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins, 39-52.
Mackey, William F. (1973). Applied linguistics. In Allen, J.P.B., & Corder, S.P. (Eds.)
Readings for applied linguistics. London: Oxford University Press, 247-255.
McLaughlin, B. (1978). The monitor model: Some methodological considerations.
Language Learning, 28(2), 309-332.
McLaughlin, B. (1987). Theories of second-language learning. London: Edward
Arnold.
 INTEGRATING COGNITIVE LINGUISTICS AND FOREIGN LANGUAGE
TEACHING - HISTORICAL BACKGROUND AND NEW DEVELOPMENTS 45

Noblitt, J.S. (1972). Pedagogical grammar: Towards a theory of foreign language

materials preparation. IRAL ,10, 313-331.
Pütz, M., Niemeier, S., & Dirven, R. (Eds.) (2001). Applied cognitive linguistics.
Vol. I: Theory and language acquisition. Vol. II: Language pedagogy. Berlin/
New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Radden, G. and R. Dirven, 2007). Cognitive English grammar. Amsterdam:
Benjamins.
Richards, J.C. (1974). Error analysis: Perspectives on second language acquisition.
London: Longman.
Richards, J.C., & Schmidt, R.W. (1983). Language and communication. London:
Longman.
Robinson, P. (2003). Attention and memory during SLA. In Doughty, C., & Long,
M. (Eds.) The handbook of second language acquisition. Malden, MA:
Blackwell, 631-678.
Robinson, P., & Ellis, N. (Eds.) (2008). Handbook of cognitive linguistics and
second language acquisition. London: Routledge.
Roulet, E. (1972). Théories grammaticales, descriptions et enseignement des
langues. Bruxelles/Paris: Labor/Nathan.
Roulet, E. (1978). Théories grammaticales et pédagogie des langues. In Kinsella, V.
(Ed.), Language teaching and linguistics: Surveys. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 137-151.
Rudzka-Ostyn, B. (Ed.) (1988). Topics in cognitive linguistics. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Saporta, S. (1966). Applied linguistics and generative grammar. In Valdman, A. (Ed.)
Trends in modern language teaching. New York: McGraw Hill, 81-92.
Saporta, S. (1973). Scientific grammars and pedagogical grammars. In Allen, J.P.B.,
& Corder, S.P. (Eds.) Readings for applied linguistics. London: Oxford
University Press, 265-274.
Searle, J. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Searle, J. (1975). Indirect speech acts. In Cole, P., & Morgan, J.L. (Eds.) Syntax and
semantics. Vol. 3: Speech acts. New York: Academic Press, 59-82.
Serra-Borneto, C. (1993). The place of cognitive grammar in modern linguistics.
Studi Italiani di Linguistica Teorica e Applicata, 22, 445-463.
Sharwood Smith, M. (1976). Pedagogical grammar. Interlanguage Studies Bulletin,
1, 1-14.
Sharwood Smith, M. (1978). Aspects of future reference in a pedagogical grammar
of English. Frankfurt am Main/Bern: Peter Lang.
Sinclair, J. M. (1991). Corpus, concordance, collocation. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
 46 JOURNAL OF MODERN LANGUAGES

Smith, M.B. (1987). The semantics of dative and accusative in German: An

investigation in cognitive grammar. San Diego, CA: Department of
Linguistics, University of California at San Diego. Ph.D. dissertation.
Smith, M. (1993). Aspects of German clause structure from a cognitive grammar
perspective. Studi Italiani di Linguistica Teorica e Applicata, 22, 601-638.
Swan, M. (2007). Two out of three ain’t enough – the essential ingredients of a
language course. In Beaven, B. (Ed.) IATEFL Harrogate conference
selections. Canterbury, Kent: IATEFL, 44-54.
Sweetser, E.E. (1990). From etymology to pragmatics: Metaphorical and cultural
aspects of semantic structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Taylor, J. (1987). Metaphors of communication and the nature of listening and
reading comprehension. Interface: A Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(2),
119-134.
Taylor, J. (1993). Some pedagogical implications of cognitive linguistics. In Richard
A. Geiger, R.A., & Rudzka-Ostyn, B. (Eds.) Conceptualizations and mental
processing in language: A selection of papers from the first International
Cognitive Linguistics Conference in Duisburg 1989. Berlin/New York:
Mouton de Gruyter, 201-223.
Taylor, J. (2002). Cognitive grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Taylor, J. (forthcoming). Language in the mind. In De Knop, S., Boers, F., & De
Rycker, T. (Eds.) Fostering language teaching efficiency through cognitive
linguistics. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language
acquisition. Harvard: Harvard University Press.
Ungerer, F., & Schmid, H.-J. (2006). An introduction to cognitive linguistics.
London: Longman.
Van Ek, J.A. (1975). The threshold level in a European unit/credit system for
modern language teaching by adults. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
Verschueren, J., & Bertuccelli Papi, M. (Eds.) (1987). The pragmatic perspective.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Wilkins, D.A. (1976). Notional syllabuses. London: Oxford University Press.
Wunderlich, D. (1972). Linguistische Pragmatik. Frankfurt am Main: Athenäum.

View publication stats