Zbigniew Kopeć 1. What Is Pedagogical Grammar?
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
PRACE NAUKOWE A ademii im. /ana Dugosza w Cz5stoc.owie SeriaD STUDIA NEOnI-O-OHICZNE 2010, z. VI Zbigniew Kopes THE EbPLANATORL POWER OF ICONIC PRINCIPLES IN PEDAGOGICAL GRAMMAR : A COGNITIVE LINGUISTIC APPROACH W arty ule omMwiona i wy azana zostaje stosownops zastosowania narz5dzi j5zy oznawstwa ognitywnego w nauczaniu j5zy a obcego. Autor przybli(a podstawowe zao(enia teorii ognitywnej i wy azuje ic. szczegMlnr relewancj5 w pra tyce nauczania gramaty i. W uj5ciu ognitywnym natura j5zy a nie ma c.ara teru arbitralnego, lecz ujawnia si5 w postaci stru tur semantycznie motywowanyc.. Pozwala to uzasadnias i wyjapnias zjawis a s adniowe za pomocr sc.ematycznyc. zasad i onicznopci oraz metafory poj5ciowej. 1. What is pe a.o.ical .rammar? Pedagogical grammar may be regarded as a description of linguistic constructions aimed at t.e foreign language learner. Its purpose is to raise foreign language consciousness in t.e learning process, w.ic. cannot be accomplis.ed by t.e rote learning of grammar rules. T.e vconsciousness raising” 1 may be successfully ac.ieved by offeringD veNplanations t.at are at once succinct, readily compre.ensible, and intuitively plausible q as to w.y t.e foreign language s.ould be as it is. ENplanations constitute a powerful promoter of insig.t, and wit.out insig.t, learning can scarcely progress beyond rote memorization” 2. 1 Ellis, Rod. 2001. Form-Focused Instruction and Second Language Learning . ONfordD Blac well. 2 /o.n R. Taylor. 2008. Some pedagogical implications of cognitive linguistics. InD Hitte Kristiansen. Mic.el Ac.ard. Rene Dirven. nrancisco /. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibanez (eds.) Cognitive 1pproaches to Pedagogical ,rammar 1pplications of Cognitive Linguistics 9 . Berlin and New Yor D Mouton de Hruyter. 38. 138 Zbigniew Kopes Regrettably, Kras.en and .is acolytes may entertain some doubts on t.e matter at .and insofar as .is t.eory of language acouisition seems to be t.e source of an unbridgeable gap between conscious learning and un- conscious acouisition. T.e former v.as only a very limited role to play. In fact, conscious learning will only come to fruition in t.ose rare cir- cumstances in w.ic. a learner .as t.e time and t.e incentive to ‘focus on form.K Crucially, it is claimed t.at t.e conscious application of a learned rule cannot cause learning to ‘turn intoK acouisition” 3. And since pedagogical grammar relies on raising t.e learnerKs consciousness of foreign language structures, its significance seems to disappear into t.in air. nortunately enoug., .is t.eoretical constructs .ave been ouestioned, specifically .is claim t.at learning does not result in acouisition. Ellis 4 provides plenty of empirical evidence for t.e learnerKs vconsciousness raising” by directing .is attention to matters of form. Cognitive -inguistics offers a promising basis for language instruction and pedagogical grammar in terms of vconsciousness raising”, eNplanations, and providing motivations for linguistic constructions. nirst and foremost, language is not an independent and autonomous faculty, but an intrinsic part of cognition I. T.is means t.at pedagogical grammar .as t.e potential to draw upon cognitive processing t.eories, suc. as, for instance, dual coding theory 6, w.ic. .olds t.at associating mental images wit. t.oug.t processing facilitates recall A. Secondly, t.ere seems to be no mysterious innate language acouisition device or facultyD Instead, acouisition is mar edly influenced t.roug.out early c.ild.ood and beyond by ouantity and ouality of input. nreouency of encounter is ey q if a language user encounters a linguistic unit often enoug., it eventually becomes a standard item in t.e learnerKs linguistic inventory. Concomitant 3 /o.n R. Taylor. 2008. 40. 4 Ellis, Rod. 2001. Form-Focused Instruction and Second Language Learning . ONfordD Blac well. I -angac er, Ronald W. 198A. Foundations of Cognitive ,rammar . )ol r5 Theoretical Prerequisites . Stanford, CaliforniaD Stanford University Press. 6 Paivio, Alan. 1986. Mental Representations5 1 Dual Coding 1pproach . New Yor D ONford University Press. A nran Boers and Set. -indstromberg. 2006. Cognitive linguistic applications in second or foreign language instructionD rationale, proposals, and evaluation. InD Hitte Kristiansen. Mic.el Ac.ard. Rene Dirven. nrancisco /. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibanez (eds.) Cognitive Linguistics5 Current 1pplications and Future Perspectives 1pplications of Cognitive Linguistics r Berlin and New Yor D Mouton de Hruyter. The Explanatory Power of Iconic Principles in Pedagogical ,rammar5 139 wit. suc. learning is t.e formation in t.e mind of an over-arc.ing sc.ema, w.ic. can be said to ‘sanctionK its instantiations 8. T.us pedagogical grammar becomes specifically usage-based and t.e freouency of particular grammatical constructions, instantiating sc.emas, .as a considerable influence on language acouisition. T.irdly, language acouisition does not consist in acouiring vocabulary separately from grammar. Cognitive linguistics does away wit. t.e grammar-leNis dic.o- tomy. v-eNicon and grammar form a gradation consisting solely in assemblies of symbolic structures” 9. T.is gradation is a cline in t.e compleNity of linguistic structures from simple lower-level structures, suc. as morp.emes, to .ig.er-level structures, suc. as teNts. nourt.ly, language is conceived as an ecological system in w.ic. meaningful linguistic constructions occupy ecological nic.es, or nodes in compleN semantic networ s. T.eir meanings are defined relative to proNimate constructions and t.e system at large in suc. a way t.at t.e emergence of a new construction affects ot.er constructions. T.e traditional distinction between ideal, ‘dictionaryK meaning and pragmatic meaning is a fallacy. vPut simply, words and ot.er constructions in t.e mental leNicon carry many more associations (ranging from t.e culturally s.ared to t.e idiosyncratic) t.an earlier t.eory allowed” 10 . nift.ly, imaginative abilities, suc. as metap.or and metonymy, w.ic. are pervasive in everyday t.oug.t and language, play a special role in providing linguistic motivations for words and linguistic constructions. And finally, meaning is a matter of conceptualisation, t.at is, different spea ers can construe a particular scene differently. Construals are operations t.at .elp select t.e appropriate structural possibility among various alternatives. In principle, construals very often differ across different languages and learners s.ould be aware of suc. linguistic va- riations in construal. All t.e above-mentioned points are t.e areas of linguistic motivation to be eNploited by language teac.ers. 2. Where there is motivation, there is explanation T.e basic tas of cognitive linguists is to searc. for linguistic motivations and eNplanations for form-meaning lin s in languageD 8 nran Boers and Set. -indstromberg. 2006. 306. 9 -angac er, Ronald W. 2008. Cognitive ,rammar5 1 /asic Introduction . ONfordD OUP. I. 10 nran Boers and Set. -indstromberg. 2006. 30A. 140 Zbigniew Kopes Any finding t.at portions of natural language are motivated rat.er t.an arbitrary s.ould be ta en as a cordial invitation for educational linguists to investigate t.e pedagogical potential of presenting linguistic p.enomena as motivated in conteNts of second or foreign language learning 11 . Advancing t.e idea t.at large portions of language are motivated and t.us eNplainable is particularly beneficial for learners as it may improve compre.ension, retention and recall, and en.ance cultural awareness and positive affect. According to Radden and Pant.er 12 (2004), a process of linguistic motivation involves 1) meaning-meaning links , 2) form-form links , and 3) form- meaning links . -angac er 13 describes a symbolic structure of language as bipolar, t.at is, consisting of its semantic pole (conceptualisation eouated wit. meaning) and p.onological pole (form as not only sounds but also ort.ograp.ic representations). Most of t.e cognitive linguistics researc. .as focused on meaning-meaning relations, t.at is to say in -angac erKs terms, on t.e semantic poles of symbolic assemblies. T.is includes studies of meaning eNtensions (polysemy) from a prototypical sense to less central or more perip.eral senses of a linguistic construction via metap.or and metonymy or image-sc.emas. A good case in point is t.e study of .ig.ly polysemous prepositions by Tyler and Evans 14 , or t.e study of p.rasal verb particles and its pedagogical implications in Rudz a-Ostyn 1I , w.ere a particular particle does not .ave a single, fiNed meaning, but rat.er an array of meanings related in principled ways to its prototypical sense. T.e acouisition of verb + particle constructions is en.anced by t.e realization t.at t.e c.oice of particle is motivated rat.er t.an arbitrary. Boers 16 compares t.e senses of t.e near-synonyms under and below , using -angac erKs terms of t.e trajector and t.e landmar . He starts wit. defining t.e prototypical meanings of t.ese prepositions, s.owing t.at t.e core spatial sense of under involves contact between t.e trajector and t.e 11 nran Boers and Set. -indstromberg. 2006. 309. 12 Radden, HFnter, and Klaus-Uwe Pant.er (eds.) 2004. IntroductionD reflections on motivation. InD Studies in Linguistic Motivation Cognitive Linguistics Research st . Berlin/New Yor D Mouton de Hruyter. 13 -angac er, Ronald W. 2008. 1I. 14 Tyler, Andrea, and Vyvyan Evans. 2003. The Semantics of English Prepositions5 Spatial, Embodied Meaning and Cognition . CambridgeD Cambridge University Press. 1I Rudz a-Ostyn, Brygida. 2003. -ord Power5 Phrasal )erbs and Compounds 1 Cognitive 1pproach . Berlin and New Yor D Mouton de Hruyter. 16 Boers, nran . 1996. Spatial Prepositions and Metaphor5 1 Cognitive Semantic Journey along the up-down and the front-bac Dimensions .