Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T09:35:45.624Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Usage-Based Approaches to Language and Their Applications to Second Language Learning

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 July 2010

Andrea Tyler
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Over the past 20 years, many in the field of second language learning and pedagogy have become familiar with models of language that emphasize its communicative nature. These models are often referred to as usage-based because they emphasize the notion that actual language use is a primary shaper of linguistic form. Supporters of these models also argue that making meaning, that is, the use to which language is put, is central to how language is configured. Usage-based models share several other underlying assumptions as well. While these usage models have a number of ideas in common, several distinct approaches have emerged. They often use similar terms, such as cognition and metaphor, but the precise interpretations can vary from model to model. The overall result is that without extensive reading, it is not always clear just how these models differ and what unique insights each offer. This article attempts to address this situation by examining three major usage-based models—systemic functional linguistics, discourse functionalism, and cognitive linguistics. First, the common, underlying tenets shared by the three models are discussed. Second, an overview of the unique tenets and concerns of each approach is presented in order to distinguish key differences among them. Within the discussion of each approach, I also discuss various attempts to apply the model to issues in second language learning.

Type
Research Article
Information
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics , Volume 30 , March 2010 , pp. 270 - 291
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Achard, M. (2008). Teaching construal: Cognitive pedagogical grammar. In Robinson, P. & Ellis, N. C. (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition (pp. 432–455). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Achard, M., & Niemeier, S. (Eds.). (2004). Cognitive linguistics, second language acquisition, and foreign language teaching. Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Achugar, M., Schleppegrell, M. J., & Oteíza, T. (2007). Engaging teachers in language analysis: A functional linguistics approach to reflective literacy. English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 6, 8–24.Google Scholar
Boers, F., & Lindstromberg, S. (2006). Cognitive linguistic applications in second language or foreign language instruction: Rationale, proposals, and evaluation. In Kristiansen, G., Achard, M., Dirven, R., & Ruiz de Mendoza, F. (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics: Current applications and future perspectives (pp. 305–355). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boers, F., & Lindstromberg, S. (Eds.). (2008). Cognitive linguistic approaches to teaching vocabulary and phraseology. Berlin, Germany: Mouton De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butler, C. S. (1989). Systemic models: Unity, diversity and change. Word, 40, 1–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butler, C. S. (2006). Functionalist theories of language. In Brown, K. (Ed.), The encyclopedia of language and linguistics (Vol. 4, pp. 696–704). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. (2003). Mechanisms in change in grammaticalization: The role of repetition. In Janda, R. & Joseph, B. (Eds.), Handbook of historical linguistics (pp. 602–623). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. (2006). Frequency of use and the organization of language. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bybee, J., & Moder, C. (1983). Morphological classes as natural categories. Language, 59, 251–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Byrnes, H. (2006). A semiotic perspective on culture and foreign language teaching: Implications for collegiate materials development. In Galloway, V. & Cothran, B. (Eds.), Language and culture out of bounds: Discipline-blurred perspectives on the foreign language classroom (pp. 37–66). Boston, MA: Heinle Thomson.Google Scholar
Byrnes, H. (2009). Systemic-functional reflections on instructed foreign language acquisition as meaning-making: An introduction. Linguistics and Education, 20, 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Byrnes, H., Maxim, H., & Norris, J. (in press). Realizing advanced FL writing development in collegiate education: Curricular design, pedagogy, assessment. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Cadierno, T. (2008). Learning to talk about motion in a foreign language. In Robinson, P. & Ellis, N. C. (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition (pp. 239–275). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Cameron, L. (2008). A discourse approach to metaphor: Explaining systematic metaphors for literacy processes in a school discourse community. In Tyler, A., Kim, Y., & Takada, M. (Eds.), Language in the context of use: Discourse and cognitive approaches to language (pp. 321–338). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carter, R., Hughes, R., & McCarthy, M. (2000). Exploring language in context. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Celce-Murcia, M. (2002). Why it makes sense to teach grammar in context and through discourse. In Hinkle, E. & Fotos, S. (Eds.), New perspectives on grammar teaching in second language classrooms (pp. 119–134). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Celce-Murcia, M., & Larsen-Freeman, D. (1999). The grammar book: An ESL/EFL teacher's course. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.Google Scholar
Celce-Murcia, M., & Olshtain, E. (2005). Discourse based approaches: A new framework for second language teaching and learning. In Hinkle, E. (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 729–741). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Chafe, W. (1994). Discourse, consciousness, and time: The flow and displacement of conscious experience in speaking and writing. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Chafe, W. (2001). The analysis of discourse flow. In Schiffrin, D., Tannen, D., & Hamilton, H. E. (Eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 673–687). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Chafe, W. (2005). The relation of grammar to thought. In Butler, C. S., de los Ángeles Gómez-González, M., & Doval-Suárez, S. M. (Eds.), The dynamics of language use: Functional and contrastive perspectives (pp. 55–75). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Chafe, W. (2007). Language and consciousness. In Zelazo, P. D., Moscovitch, M., & Thompson, E. (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of consciousness (pp. 355–373). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Christie, F. (2006). Literacy teaching and current debates over reading. In Whittaker, R., O'Donnell, M., & McCabe, A. (Eds.), Language and literacy: Functional approaches (pp. 45–65). London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Colombi, M. C. (2009). A systemic functional approach to teaching Spanish for heritage speakers in the United States. Linguistics and Education, 20, 39–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coventry, K., & Garrod, S. (2004). Saying, seeing and acting: The psychological semantics of spatial prepositions. Essays in cognitive psychology series. New York: Psychology Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coventry, K., & Guijarro-Fuentes, P. (2008) Spatial language learning and functional geometry. In Robinson, P. & Ellis, N. C. (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition (pp. 114–138). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Csabi, S. (2004). A cognitive linguistic view of polysemy in English and its implications for teaching. In Achard, M. & Niemeier, S. (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics, second language acquisition, and foreign language teaching (pp. 233–256). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dancygier, B. (2008). Personal pronouns, blending, and narrative viewpoint. In Tyler, A., Kim, Y., & Takada, M. (Eds.), Language in the context of use: Discourse and cognitive approaches to language (pp. 167–183). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Knop, S., & De Rycker, T. (Eds.). (2008). Cognitive approaches to pedagogical grammar. Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Knop, S., Boers, F., & De Rycker, T. (Eds.). (in press). Applications of cognitive linguistics: Exploring the lexis-grammar continuum in second language pedagogy. Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (2002b). Reflections on frequency effects in language processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 297–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (2008a). Usage-based and form-focused SLA: The implicit and explicit learning of constructions. In Tyler, A., Kim, Y., & Takada, M. (Eds.), Language in the context of use: Discourse and cognitive approaches to language (pp. 93–121). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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 Robinson, P. & Ellis, N. C. (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition (pp. 372–406). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Evans, V., & Green, M. (2006). Cognitive linguistics: An introduction. Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, G. (1997). Mappings in thought and language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (2002). The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind's hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.
Gibbs, R. W. (1994). The poetics of mind: Figurative thought, language, and understanding. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. W. (2006). Embodiment and cognitive science. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Givón, T. (1995). Functionalism and grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Givón, T. (2001). Syntax: An introduction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Grady, J. (1997). Theories are buildings revisited. Cognitive Linguistics, 8, 267–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grady, J. (1999). A typology of motivation for conceptual metaphor: Correlation vs. resemblance. In Gibbs, R. W. & Steen, G. (Eds.), Metaphor in cognitive linguistics (pp. 79–100). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grady, J. (2007). Metaphor. In Geeraertz, D. & Cuyckens, H. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 188–213). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as social semiotic: The social interpretation of language and meaning. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (2002). Spoken and written modes of meaning. In Webster, J. (Ed.), On grammar (pp. 323–351). London: Continuum Press.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. (1999). Construing experience through meaning: A language-based approach to cognition. London: Cassell.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. (2004). An introduction to functional grammar. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Hamrick, P., & Attardo, S. (in press). Evaluating applied cognitive linguistics in Italian L2 instruction: Towards a pedagogical cognitive grammar. In S. Knop, De, Boers, F., & De Rycker, T. (Eds.), Applications of cognitive linguistics: Exploring the lexis-grammar continuum in second language pedagogy. Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hoey, M. (1991). Patterns of lexis. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Huong, N. T. (2005). Vietnamese learners mastering English articles. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Groningen, Netherlands.Google Scholar
Kemmer, S., & Barlow, M. (2000). Introduction: A usage-based conception of language. In Barlow, M. & Kemmer, S. (Eds.), Usage-based models of language (pp. vii–xxviii). Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1990). The invariance hypothesis: Is abstract reason based on image schemas? Cognitive Linguistics, 1, 39–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar: Vol. I. Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1991a). Concept, image, and symbol: The cognitive basis of grammar. Berlin, Germany and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1991b). Foundations of cognitive grammar: Vol. II. Descriptive application. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (2008a). Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (2008b). Cognitive grammar as a basis for language instruction. In Robinson, P. & Ellis, N. C. (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition (pp. 66–88). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2002). The grammar of choice. In Hinkle, E. & Fotos, S. (Eds.), New perspectives on grammar teaching in second language classrooms (pp. 103–118). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
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. (UMI No. AAT 3193301).Google Scholar
Liamkina, O. A. (2008). Making dative a case for semantic analysis: Differences in use between native and non-native speakers of German. In Tyler, A., Kim, Y., & Takada, M. (Eds.), Language in the context of use: Discourse and cognitive approaches to language (pp. 145–166). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lieven, E., & Tomasello, M. (2008). Children's first language acquisition from a usage-based perspective. In Robinson, P. & Ellis, N. C. (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition (pp. 168–198). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Littlemore, J., & Low, G. (2006). Metaphoric competence, second language learning, and communicative language ability. Applied Linguistics, 27, 268–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lowie, W., & Verspoor, M. (2004). Input versus transfer?—The role of frequency and similarity in the acquisition of L2 prepositions. In Achard, M. & Niemeier, S. (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics, second language acquisition, and foreign language teaching (pp. 77–94). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacArthur, F., & Littlemore, J. (2008). A discovery approach to figurative language learning with the use of corpora. In Boers, F. & Lindstromberg, S. (Eds.), Cognitive linguistic approaches to teaching vocabulary and phraseology (pp. 159–188). Berlin, Germany: Mouton De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manzanares, J. V., & Rojo Lopez, A. M. (2008). What can language learners tell us about constructions? In De Knop, S. & De Rycker, T. (Eds.), Cognitive approaches to pedagogical grammar (pp. 197–230). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, J. R. (1999). Mentoring semogenesis: “Genre-based” literacy pedagogy. In Christie, F. (Ed.), Pedagogy and the shaping of consciousness: Linguistic and social processes (pp. 123–155). London: Cassell.Google Scholar
Martin, J. R. (2001). From little things big things grow: Ecogenesis in school geography. In Coe, R., Lingard, L., & Teslenko, T. (Eds.), The rhetoric and ideology of genre: Strategies for stability and change (pp. 253–271). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.Google Scholar
Martin, J. R. (2002). Meaning beyond the clause: SFL perspectives. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 22, 52–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, J. R. (2009). Genre and language learning: A social semiotic perspective. Linguistics and Education, 20, 10–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, J. R., & Rose, D. (2008). Genre relations: Mapping culture. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
McCarthy, M., & Carter, R. (2002). Ten criteria for a spoken grammar. In Hinkle, E. & Fotos, S. (Eds.), New perspectives on grammar teaching in second language classrooms (pp. 51–76). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Mellow, J. D. (2006). The emergence of second language syntax: A case study of the acquisition of relative clauses. Applied Linguistics, 27, 645–670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moder, C. L. (2004). Ice box moms and hockey dads: Context and the mapping of N-N metaphorical expressions. In Achard, M. & Kemmer, S. (Eds.), Language, culture and mind (109–121). Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Moder, C. L. (2008). It's like making a soup: Metaphors and similes in spoken news discourse. In Tyler, A., Kim, Y., & Takada, M. (Eds.), Language in the context of use: Discourse and cognitive approaches to language (pp. 301–320). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newman, J. (1996). Give: A cognitive linguistic study. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niemeier, S. (2008). The notion of boundedness/unboundedness in the foreign language classroom. In Boers, F. & Lindstromberg, S. (Eds.), Cognitive linguistic approaches to teaching vocabulary and phraseology (pp. 309–327). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Panther, K., & Thornburg, L. (2001). A conceptual analysis of English –er nominals. In Pütz, M., Niemeier, S., & Dirven, R. (Eds.), Applied cognitive linguistics II: Language pedagogy (pp. 149–200). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Pütz, M., Niemeier, S., & Dirven, R. (Eds.). (2001). Applied cognitive linguistics I: Theory and language acquisition. Berlin, Germany: Mouton De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pütz, M., Niemeier, S., & Dirven, R. (Eds.). (2001). Applied cognitive linguistics II: Language pedagogy. Berlin, Germany: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Reddy, M. (1993). The conduit metaphor: A case of frame conflict in our language about language. In Ortony, A. (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 164–201). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P., & Ellis, N. C. (Eds.). (2008). Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosch, E., & Mervis, C. (1975). Cognitive representations of semantic categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 104, 382–439.Google Scholar
Rudzka-Ostyn, B. (2003). Word power: Phrasal verbs and compounds: A cognitive approach. Berlin, Germany: Mouton De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanders, T., & Spooren, W. (2005). Discourse and text structure. In Geeraertz, D. & Cuyckens, H. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 916–937). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Schleppegrell, M. J. (2004). The language of schooling: A functional linguistics perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schleppegrell, M. J. (2008). Grammar, the sentence, and traditions of linguistic analysis. In Bazerman, Charles (Ed.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 549–564). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Schleppegrell, M. J., Greer, S., & Taylor, S. (2008). Literacy in history: Language and meaning. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 31, 174–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmid, H. (2007). Entrenchment, salience and basic levels. In Geeraerts, D. & Cuyckens, H. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 117–138). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. I. (1996a). Two ways to travel: Verbs of motion in English and Spanish. In Shibatani, M. & Thompson, S. A. (Eds.), Grammatical constructions: Their form and meaning (pp. 195–220). Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slobin, D. I. (1996b). From “thought and language” to “thinking for speaking.” In Gumperz, J. & Levinson, S. (Eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity. Studies in the social and cultural foundations of language, No. 17 (pp. 70–96). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. I. (2003). Language and thought online: Cognitive consequences of linguistic relativity. In Gentner, D. & Goldin-Meadow, S. (Eds.), Language in mind: Advances in the investigation of language and thought (pp. 157–191). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slobin, D. I. (2009). Relations between paths of motion and paths of vision: A crosslinguistic and developmental exploration. In Gathercole, V. M. (Ed.), Routes to language: Studies in honor of Melissa Bowerman (pp. 197–221). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Strauss, S., Lee, J., & Ahn, K. (2006). Applying conceptual grammar to advanced-level language teaching: The case of two completive constructions in Korean. Modern Language Journal, 90, 185–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sweetser, E. (1990). From etymology to pragmatics: Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Talmy, L. (2000a). Toward a cognitive semantics: Vol. I. Concept structuring systems. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Talmy, L. (2000b). Toward a cognitive semantics: Vol. II. Typology and process in concept structuring. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Tannen, D. (1989). Talking voices: Repetition, dialogue, and imagery in conversational discourse. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Taylor, J. R. (2003). Linguistic categorization. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, J. R. (2004). Cognitive grammar. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M., & Brooks, P. (1998). Young children's earliest transitive and intransitive constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 9, 379–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomlin, R. (1994). Functional grammar, pedagogical grammars, and communicative language teaching. In Odlin, T. (Ed.) Perspectives on pedagogical grammar (pp. 140–178). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomlin, R. (1997). Mapping conceptual representations into linguistic representations: The role of attention in grammar. In Nuyts, J. & Pederson, E. (Eds.), Language and conceptualization (pp. 162–189). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tyler, A. (2008a). Cognitive linguistics and second language instruction. In Robinson, P. & Ellis, N. C. (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition (pp. 456–488). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Tyler, A. (2008b). Applied cognitive linguistics: Putting linguistics back into second language learning. In Pütz, M. (Ed.), Cognitive approaches to second/foreign language processing: Theory and pedagogy (pp. 904–923). Essen, Germany: LAUD.Google Scholar
Tyler, A., & Evans, V. (2001). The relation between experience, conceptual structure and meaning: Non-temporal uses of tense and language teaching. In Pütz, M., Dirven, R., & Niemeier, S. (Eds.), Applied cognitive linguistics I: Theory and language acquisition (pp. 63–105). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Tyler, A., & Evans, V. (2003). The semantics of English prepositions: Spatial scenes, embodied meaning and cognition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tyler, A., & Evans, V. (2004). Applying cognitive linguistics to pedagogical grammar: The case of over. In Achard, M. & Neimeier, S. (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics, second language acquisition, and foreign language teaching (pp. 257–280). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tyler, A., Kim, Y., & Takada, M. (Eds.). (2008). Language in the context of use: Discourse and cognitive approaches to language. Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verspoor, M., & Lowie, W. (2003). Making sense of polysemous words. Language Learning, 53, 547–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verspoor, M., & Tyler, A. (2009). The role of cognitive linguistics in second language research. In Ritchie, W. & Bhatia, T. K. (Eds.), The new handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 160–177). Oxford, UK: Emerald.Google Scholar
von Stutterheim, C. (2003). Linguistic structures and information organisation: The case of very advanced learners. In Foster-Cohen, S. (Ed.), EUROSLA Yearbook 3 (pp. 183–206). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Walker, C. (2008). Factors which influence the process of collocation. In Boers, F. & Lindstromberg, S. (Eds.), Cognitive linguistic approaches to teaching vocabulary and phraseology (pp. 291–308) Berlin, Germany: Mouton De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zyzik, E. (2009). The role of input revisited: Nativist and usage-based models. L2 Journal, 1, 42–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar