SPATIAL CONCEPTUALIZATION OF POSITIONAL PREPOSITIONS \" IN \" AND \" ON \" IN ENGLISH AND VIETNAMESE: A COMPARISON FROM A COGNITIVE VIEW

$Page 1: SPATIAL CONCEPTUALIZATION OF POSITIONAL PREPOSITIONS \" IN \" AND \" ON \" IN ENGLISH AND VIETNAMESE: A COMPARISON FROM A COGNITIVE VIEW$
SPATIAL CONCEPTUALIZATION OF POSITIONAL PREPOSITIONS “IN”

AND “ON” IN ENGLISH AND VIETNAMESE: A COMPARISON

FROM A COGNITIVE VIEW

Dinh Truong My Hanh

Class: 4A-10

Instructor: Nguyen Ngoc Vu, PhD

Department of English

Ho Chi Minh University of Pedagogy

Ho Chi Minh City, December 24th 2013

Abstract

In light of reference frames used in spatial location coined by cognitive linguist Talmy in

2000, this paper aims to make a comparison between prepositions of position “in” and

“on” in English and in Vietnamese from a cognitive viewpoint. The reason for this choice

of topic is that spatial conceptualization is basic in a human being’s development and it

reveals meaningful insights into the patterns of thinking and viewing the world in cross-

linguistics. This paper compiles a set of typical cases using prepositions “in” and “on” in

the two languages, pointing out the ways they are conceptualized and making a

comparison from the data collected. The final aim is to give valid construals about

spatial conceptualization processes that native speakers employ in the language and

draw out pedagogical implications.

Dinh Truong My Hanh-4A10 Page 1

ContentsAbstract.......................................................................................................................................................1

Introduction.................................................................................................................................................3

Theoretical framework................................................................................................................................5

The cognitive appoach to spatial conceptualization.................................................................5

Patterns in the conceptualization of spatial relation................................................................5

Conceptualization of prepositions of position “on”, “in” in English and in Vietnamese: a comparison from cognitive viewpoint.....................................................................................................................................9

Conceptualization of prepositions of position “on”, “in” in English.........................................9

Conceptualization of prepositions of position “on”, “in” in Vietnamese................................15

Summary of comparison:.......................................................................................................22

PEDAGOGICAL IMPLICATIONS...................................................................................................................24

References.................................................................................................................................................26


Introduction

“The children are swimming happily in the river.”

“ The bird is flying in the sky.”

“ Lũ trẻ đang nô đùa vui vẻ dưới sông.”

“ Chim đang bay lượn trên (bầu) trời.”

Prepositions of position, especially “in” and “on”, play an important role in our

every day communication. Even though native speakers of a language are not

consciously aware why and how they use those prepositions, prepositions truly reveal

their understanding of the world as well as their spatial conception, “which reflects the

interaction of social, cultural, psychological, communicative and functional

considerations” (Casad and Palmer,2003:455). Levinson (1992) also emphasizes that

spatial conceptualization is fundamental and central to human thinking. More

interestingly, from the examples and cross-linguistic evidence above, it is noticeable

that even in the same positional situations, each language uses different prepositions to

describe the spatial relations of the entities. In other words, there are different and

diverse modes in perceiving and conceptualizing the space. Specifically in this paper,

the different modes of spatial conceptualization between English and Vietnamese are

examined.

Particularly, I attempt to collect typical cases using the prepositions “in” and “on”

in English. Then, I give some construals of the relation between their semantics and

their cognitive categories based on Talmy’s proposal of reference frames used in spatial


location (2000). Meanwhile, I also conduct the same research on Vietnamese

prepositions of position which are conceptually equivalent to “in” and “on” in English to

see whether Talmy’s theory can be applied or not. I assume that my analysis may

highlight the difference in human spatial orientation in the two languages.

In the end, after comparing such phenomena in one language and in another,

some conclusions and pedagogical implications are put forward for the language

teachers to apply them into their practical teaching of prepositions of position.

Key words: spatial conceptualization, embodiment, reference frames,

geometrical configurations, neutral viewer coordinate system


Theoretical framework

The cognitive approach to spatial conceptualization

In the light of cognitive linguistics, especially the theory of experiential realism

proposed by cognitive linguists George Lakoff and Mark Johnson, we are aware that

when we use language in our daily life, we must go through complicated patterns of

conceptualization in our mind. Such conceptualization happens as a reflection and a

retrieval of what we perceive and conceive the world surrounding us:

“Our cognitive abilities integrate raw perceptual information into a coherent and

well defined mental image. The meanings encoded by linguistic symbols then, refer to

our projected reality (Jackendoff 1983): a mental representation of reality, as construed

by the human mind, mediated by our unique perceptual and conceptual systems.”

(Evans & Green, 2006)

In other words, our experience with the world “out-there” are classified into

different experiential frames in our mind. Such experiential frames or mental models

are provoked and retrieved to create our mental representation of a concept or

conceptualization. Also, according to Heine (et al. 1991), there are some basic

concepts or domains to human beings, one of which is space.

Patterns in the conceptualization of spatial relation

The recurring patterns of spatial conceptualization are considered systematic

image-schemas which are “are gestalt structures, consisting of parts standing in


relations and organized into unified wholes” (Johnson 1987, xix; cf. Miller & Johnson-

Laird 1976, 47-57 on the relationship between parts and wholes in object perception).

From spatial experience, our world-view on space is shaped. Consequently,

particular language speakers focus their attention on particular aspects of a scene to

express or describe it through their language. It means that different regions have

different conceptual frames, even in the same spatial scenes, so there are various

ways to talk about spatial relation between two entities. In English and Vietnamese

language, prepositions are examined under the scope of cognitive linguistics as a tool

to stimulate spatial relation in the domain of space. Here are fundamental insights:

Firstly, our conceptualizations of spatial relation “derive from and are linked to

human pre-conceptual experience: experience of the world directly mediated and

structured by the human body.” (Evans & Green, 2006) For example, when we say:

“There is some tea in the cup.” , we conceptualize the state of “in” as a spatiogeometric

representation, a CONTAINER image schema in which one entity is contained or

included in another entity. Such image schema has been formed in our mind as a pre-

conceptual experience since we were born and has stayed there as a foundation for

our conceptualization of spatial scenes.

The point that spatial conceptualization is embodied is stated by Evans and Tyler

(2004) in their study:

“ 1) The concepts encoded by prepositions are image-schematic in nature and

thus have an embodied basis. In other words, prepositions are not appropriately

modeled as constituting linguistic propositions or semantic feature bundles (the

received view in formal linguistics).


2) An English preposition encodes an abstract mental idealization of a spatial

relation, derived from more specific spatial scenes. This forms the primary meaning

component of a semantic network.

3) The idealized spatial relation, also encodes a functional element, which

derives from the way spatial relations are salient and relevant for human function and

interaction with the physical environment.

4) The additional senses in the semantic network have been extended in

systematic, constrained ways. We discuss two key principles of extension: ways of

viewing a spatial scene and experiential correlation.”

Secondly, according to Talmy (2000), spatial scenes are encoded by language

through three parameters:

1) figure-ground segregation

2) the relative proximity of the figure and the ground

3) the location of the figure with compared to the ground, which involves the

employment of a specific reference frame

In more details, we can consider these aspects:

1) Figure-ground segregation:

It is highlighted that to talk about the spatial relations of two entities, we must

decide which is the figure and which is the ground. The figure is the object that is

moving or placed upon the other object. The ground is the reference object that the first

object is located (Talmy,1983).

e.g: The cup (FG) is on the table (G).

2) Relative proximity of the figure (the trajector) and the ground (the landmark):


3) Reference frames

Talmy(2000) points out four kinds of reference frames that languages use to take

reference objects to locate their figures:

In conclusion, Talmy tries to specify the location of the figure with the respect to

its ground by satisfy three parameters above. In order to achieve that condition, he

argues that we must process two broad kinds of information:

1) the geometrical and topological properties of the spatial scenes, which means

mapping the spatial relations of the figure and the ground in our mind

2) the directions provided by the ground or reference objects

For example, when we say: “The toy car is in the box.” , we make up our

mapping of the spatial relation of the figure “the toy car” and the ground “the box”. Such


Rela

tive

prox

imity

Direct physical contact (1)

Adjacency (2)

Removal from the ground (3)

reference frames

Two reference objects as the ground

Field-based (1)(encompassive second

reference object)

Guide-post based (2)(external reference

object)

Projector-based (3)( the speaker

involvement in locating the figure)

Just one reference object as the ground

Ground-based (4)(the intrinsic geometry of the reference object)

mapping can be demonstrated by a set of geometrical and topological properties, which

we called “proto-scene” (an abstract mental idealization) of “in” or “in” image-schemas.

These image schemas are “abstract away from the concrete and detailed properties of

referents” (Fortis, 2010) and are “largely built up from some rudimentary spatial

elements as points, bounded and unbounded lines, bounded and unbounded planes,

and the spatial elements as points, bounded and bounded lines, bounded and

unbounded planes” (Talmy, 1983). In this case, “in” is construed as a geometric shape

of a container, which has a boundary distinguishing internal and external part.

A proto scene of “in” in English (Tyler, Andrea, & Evans, 2003)

Conceptualization of prepositions of position “on”, “in” in English

and in Vietnamese: a comparison from cognitive viewpoint

Conceptualization of prepositions of position “on”, “in” in English

Conceptualization of “on” Some cases

In cases from number (1) to number (9), we can see

that English speakers conceptualize the concept “on”

basing on the real physical contact of two entities (figure

and ground).Then, specifically, we have a proto scene to

show the topological and spatiogeometric properties of

1. The book in on the table.

2. The little boy is lying on


this spatial scene:

A (figure) is on B (ground).

The proto scene demonstrates the way we map the

scene in our head. It points out that the conceptualization

of “on” has a contact of one entity on an outer surface of B

and often makes reference to the gravitational (absolute)

updown axis.

The speaker also categorizes this proto scene into the

functional and topological notions of support relation. For

example, the table must be strong enough to let the book

situated on it or the floor must be stable enough not to let

the little boy shake or fall.

In these cases, we can conclude that English speakers

employ the ground –based reference frame (Talmy, 2000)

to locate the position of the figure. They observe the

reference object with its intrinsic geometry. For example,

they use the surface of the table to locate the book. They

regard the surface of the floor to locate the little boy. Even

as in case number (3), though the door is standing with

vertical axis, the speakers just focus their attention to the

the floor.

3. His name is written on

the door.

4. A paper boat is floating

on the water.

5. The house is on the

lake.(Lý Toàn Thắng,2009)


surface of the door, mapping it into the gravitational axis

while observing the spatial relation of the name and the

door, to talk about the location of the name. In case

number (4) and (5), the river and the lake are just

observed the surface part only, and the paper boat and

the house locations are decided by their relation with that

surface part. As in number (5), although the house is not a

kind of floating house on the surface of the lake, English

speakers tend to conceptually understand “ on the lake”

similarly to “ at the same level with the surface of the

lake.”

In case number (6), the conceptualization of “on” is

used for transportation such as bus, plane, boat, etc.

Some may argue that such means of transportation are

likely trigger us to think of a containment, so it is more

logical to use “in” for them rather than “on”.

As far as we know, the conceptualization is strongly

based on the native speakers’perceptual experience.

English speakers think of the concept “on” for such means

of transportation because they must get onto their

platform to reach their seat. Moreover, as long as the

speakers are on those means of transportation, they are

able to walk on the aisle of them. They seem to have

6. There are a lot of people

on the bus.


more freedom and comfortable, not possessing a sense of

being contained in a closed space.

Thus, in these cases, the geometric properties seem

not enough to explain the spatial realtion. The

conceptualization of spatial relation in such cases also

involve the people’s actual spatial experience. In other

words, the embodied experience is applied to account for

the conceptualization of “on”.

Conceptualization of “in” Some cases

Cases number (7) to (10) involves the physical-spatio

geometric conceptualization of “in”. It is a CONTAINMENT

image schema. It shows that one entity interferes or partly

interferes into the internal part of another entity:

In the proto scene above, the spatial configuration

demonstrates the figure within some bounded landmark of

container. Some bounded landmark is easy to see and

understand. For example, in the sentence “The apple is in

the box.”, the speaker can easily see the box as a

container. However, in other cases, the bounded

landmark is just imaginary or conceptualized in the

7. The children really enjoy

swimming in the river.

8. James is looking at a kite

flying in the sky.


speaker’s mind. For instance, the water of the river is

conceptualized as a dense space and enclosed by the

river bank. Thus, the speaker observes the river as a

container and the children are getting into it to swim.

Though the speaker cannot see the bounded mark

directly, he can imagine the contour line in his spatial

scene mapping. With the same view of geometrical

conceptualization, English speakers perceive the part

made up by the branches and the leaves as a 3-D dense

space and there is an imaginary contour around that

dense space as bounded landmark (Herskovits, 1988).

Another interpretation can be made from real

perceptual experience. A speaker may not see the bird

when it stands on a branch of the tree because the upper

part of the tree is too dense with leaves and branches, so

he has the feeling that the bird is contained in that part of


imaginary bounded landmark


Internal space

the tree. Thus, the position of a bird is perceived as an

object inside that dense space: “The bird is in the tree.”

Similar conceptual process happens in case (8) when

we imagine that the sky is a dense space and is limited by

an imaginary contour, which shapes the boundary of the

globe. Hence, the position of the sky is inside that

enclosed space.

The globe

In case (9), the conceptualization of “in” only happens

in case of expressing the spatial relation of the human

beings or animate objects that sleep (figure) and the bed

(ground). That’s why English people say “A book is put on

your bed.”, not “in your bed”. As for people or animate

objects, “in bed” means “inside” the imaginary bounded

area of the bedding environment and cover oneself with

covers or blankets.

9. She lay in bed struggling

with her fever.

In case (10), the speaker conceptualizes this spatial

scene with the involvement of a containment function. It

means that the consequences of this spatial relation

10. There is a man waiting

for you in that taxi.



Internal space of the sky

the kite

include limiting or constraining the activities of the

contained entity. For example, being contained in the car

prevents the man from walking or standing. Whereas on

the bus or on the plane, he can walk or stand freely.

That’s why English speakers say “in a car” or “in a taxi”.

Another interpretation comes from the human’s

perceptual experience in the way people use those means

of transportation. People must stand up and get onto the

platform of the bus or the plane, whereas they must back

down to get into the car or the taxi. This interpretation can

be understood as we point out that our conceptualization

is embodied. (See also case number 6)

Conceptualization of prepositions of position “on”, “in” in

Vietnamese

Conceptualization of “in”, “on” in Vietnamese Some cases

Vietnamese people also focus on the real physical

contact to talk about spatial relation between the figure and

the ground. (compare to case number 4 for further

interpretation)

1. Sách để trên (mặt)

bàn.

Vietnamese people employ a different coordinate

system in space. Thus, the reference frames of Talmy

(2000) cannot be enough to apply to explain the spatial

2.1 Cậu bé nằm trên sàn

nhà.


relation in the cases number (2.2) and (7),etc. To locate the

position of the figure in case number (2), Vietnamese

speakers have two ways of conceptualization:

(1) Like English speakers, Vietnamese speakers focus on

the real physical contact between “cậu bé” (the little boy)

and “sàn nhà”(the floor). ( using geometric proto scene)

(2) Vietnamese speakers can use a neutral viewer (“người

quan sát vô hình”(Lý Toàn Thắng, 2009)), a conceptual

human-being, as a coordinate system and compare the

spatial relation between that viewer and the ground to

decide the position of the figure. Everything that is higher

than the position of the neutral viewer is called “trên”

whereas everything that is lower than the position of the

neutral viewer is called “dưới”. In (2.2), “sàn nhà” (the floor)

is at the equal level to the lower part of the neutral viewer,

which is his feet. Every figure relates to that ground will be

viewed as “dưới sàn.” That’s why the speaker then choose

the preposition “dưới” to describe the spatial relation of the

figure “cậu bé” and the ground “sàn nhà”.

2.2 Cậu bé nằm dưới

sàn nhà.


Vietnamese people have two different modes of viewing

the world in order to talk about the spatial relations, so both

(3.1) and (3.2) are acceptable and similar in

conceptualization, which can be interpreted in these ways:

(3.1) The speaker uses the geometrical

conceptualization of real physical contact between the two

entities. He conceptualizes that the door has a side (a

surface) and the name is located “on” (trên) that surface. In

other words, he uses the ground-based reference frame as

in English.

(3.2) The speaker applies the neutral viewer system into

his conceptualization. The neutral viewer has this

geometrical conceptualization:

3. 1. Tên của ông ta

được treo trên cánh cửa.

3.2. Tên của ông ta

được treo trước cửa.


Cậu bé nằm dưới sàn nhà.

The speaker

The neutral viewer

The figure to be located

The level of the floor (the ground)

Trên

Dưới

trước (mặt)

sau (lưng)

The speaker regards the conceptualization of the door

as an embodied experience. It means that just like a human

being, now the door has two sides “mặt trước” and “mặt

sau”. That’s why Vietnamese says “treo (ở mặt) trước (của

cánh) cửa”.

In this case we may explain that the Vietnamese people

use the same way of conceptualization as English people,

which focus on the real physical contact between the figure

“chiếc thuyền giấy” and the ground “nước”. However, there

is a slight difference in this case between two country’s

conceptualization.

English speakers immediately conceptualize “the water”

in the sentence “The paper boat is on the water.” as a

stretch surface. It means that “the water” in the sentence

conceptually understand as “the surface of water”.

However, Vietnamese people think that it’s weird to say “

Chiếc thuyền giấy trôi trên nước.” because they usually

don’t conceptualize “nước” as “mặt nước” when they hear

that sentence.

With the word “nước”, they usually conceptualize it into

the categogy of “dưới” due to the fact that they are

influenced by the neutral viewer system (see case number

2). Thus, they find it more logical and natural to say “dưới

4. Chiếc thuyền giấy trôi

trên mặt nước.


nước” rather than “trên nước”. That’s why Vietnamese

people tend to specify the part on which the figure has the

impact in such cases. They must say “Chiếc thuyền giấy

trôi trên mặt nước.”

Unnatural sayings Natural sayings

trên đất trên mặt đất, trên bờ (ao,

đê)

dưới trời dưới bầu trời

trên bò ( ngựa, lạc đà….) trên lưng bò (ngựa, lạc

đà…)

As in case (1), because the surface of the table belongs

to the upper part “trên” of the neutral viewer, which is like

case number (9), it is enough to say “Sách trên bàn.”

without any more specification.

This case is somehow equivalent in conceptualization to

the sentence “ The house is on the lake.” in English. As we

point out in case number (4), it’s natural for Vietnamese

speakers to say “dưới hồ” due to the way they

conceptualize the position of “hồ (nước)” using the neutral

viewer system. Thus, in Vietnamese, more specific

information of the ground should be given to locate the

figure. For example, they tend to say “Ngôi nhà trên mặt

hồ.” However, when hearing that sentence, Vietnamese

5. Ngôi nhà

bên/ven/cạnh/bên cạnh

hồ.(Lý Toàn Thắng,

2009)


speakers will also tend to conceptualize the real physical

contact between the house and the lake. They think the

house in that case is a kind of floating house, which called

“nhà nổi”, “bè nổi” in Vietnam. That’s sentence, therefore, is

not similar to the conceptualization of the original sentence

“The house is on the lake.” Eventually, Vietnamese

speakers must choose other prepositions such as “ven”,

“bên cạnh”… to preserve the original conceptualization in

English.

Vietnamese people have two different modes of viewing

to talk about the spatial relations, so both (6.1) and (6.2) are

acceptable and can be interpreted in these ways:

(6.1) The speaker uses the geometrical

conceptualization. He observes the bus as a closed space,

in which the figure is contained. Thus, he chooses the

preposition “trong”.

(6.2) The speaker compares his position or the neutral

viewer position with the platform of the bus. The speaker

conceptualizes that to get on the bus, a person must climb

some steps up. It means that the level of the platform

compared to the level of the ground where the speaker

stands is higher. Thus, the speaker categorizes any figure

belongs to the bus into “trên” reference frame. Thus, he

6.1 Cô ta đang ngồi

trong chiếc xe buýt đó

kìa!

6.2 Rất nhiều người đang

ở trên xe buýt.


chooses the preposition “trên”.

Considering the explanation in case number (2), we see

that the neutral view can also be used to apply into these

cases. In case number (7), the speaker observes that the

river “sông” belongs to the lower part “dưới” of the neutral

viewer. In case number (8), the speaker observes that the

sky belongs to the upper part “trên” of the neutral viewer,

which is opposite to the lower part “dưới”. Thus, the

speaker categorizes the figure “ lũ trẻ” relating to the

ground “sông” into “dưới” referencece frame and “chiếc

diều” (the kite) relating to the ground “trời” into “trên”

reference frame.

That’s why even when the speaker is swimming in the river,

he can still say: “ Tôi đang ở dưới sông.” And, the position

7. Lũ trẻ rất thích bơi lội

dưới sông.

8. James ngắm nhìn

chiếc diều bay lượn trên

trời.


Trên

Dưới

Tôi đang bơi dưới sông nè!

The neutral viewer

of the bird in the conceptualization of Vietnamese speakers

is “Chim trên cành (cây).”

Considering the explanation in case number (2), we see

that the neutral view can also be used to apply into this

case. The speaker observes that the bed position is higher

than the feet level of the neutral viewer . Thus, the speaker

categorizes the figure “cô ấy” relating to the bed into “trên”

reference frame.

9. Cô ấy nằm trên

giường, chiến đấu với

cơn sốt.

( Similar explanations with case number 6) 10.1 Một người đàn ông

ngồi trong chiếc taxi đó

đang chờ cậu.

10.2 Một người đàn ông

ngồi trên chiếc xe taxi đó

đang chờ cậu.

Summary of comparison:

This brief examination of the contrast between English and Vietnamese

prepositions of position “in”, “on” reveals that the way prepositions apply depends on:


Trên

Dưới

1) our embodied experience ( the way people interact and perceive the spatial

relation)

2) different vantages on the scene of different linguitics (the privileged points

native speakers choose to perceive)

3) the different models of viewing or the different reference frames native

speakers employ

In English, in most cases the real physical relationship of two entities is

concentrated to decide the prepositions to express the position of the figure. Thus, the

ground-based reference frame is applied to explain the use of “on” and “in” in some

spatio-physical relations. Another common way of viewing and interpreting such spatial

scenes is using geometrical figuration.

The English native speakers categorize the spatial relations basing on the state

of the figure. They focus their attention on whether the figure is being placed on a

surface or in a container. Whereas, Vietnamese native speakers put such spatial

scenes into different and more complicated categories. The most noticeable thing is to

put the position of a conceptual human-being into the conceptualization process. That’s

why in English “on the ceiling” and “on the floor” have the same reference frame

whereas in Vietnamese, they belong to different categories. “On the ceiling” is

conceptualized as “trên trần nhà”, which employs “trên” reference frame while “ on the

floor” is conceptualized as “dưới sàn nhà”, which employs “dưới” reference frame.

Another thing is because influenced by that way of perceiving spatial relations between

two entities, Vietnamese people in some cases must point out the specific part on which

the two entities have some contact.


PEDAGOGICAL IMPLICATIONS

In the light of the analysis set forth by this dissertation, the understanding of spatial

conceptualization from a cognitive study plays a key role in helping students to learn

prepositions in English more effectively, avoiding inaccurate translations into

Vietnamese as well as being aware of the variety in cross-linguistic conceptualization.

Thus, teachers can adopt some techniques in teaching process to increase students’

motivation, provides profound knowledge on prepositions of positions and stimulate

their curiosity to investigate further similar cases in the future.

Firstly, translation can be fruitful in an attempt to find Vietnamese equivalents of

English prepositions “in” and “on”. It can be a quick and easy-to-conduct way to teach

prepositions. In the cases where English and Vietnamese spatial conceptualization is

similar, teachers can make use of native language context to make the students

understand the meaning of “in”, “on” right away. However, as we have seen some

noticeable difference in our cognitive conceptualization on this point, teachers must be

very careful when applying this technique. They should pay attention to situations they

use in their translation activity. For example, the students may get confused about the

meaning of “on” in the phrase “on the floor” because they can translate it into two

possible sentences “trên sàn” or “dưới sàn”.

Secondly, teachers can get students infer meaning and the use of prepositions

from their conceptualization rather than forcing them to merely memorize fixed phrases

such as “in a car”, “on a bus”, “in the river”, etc. As an example, teachers can explain

why English speakers say “in a tree”, “in the sky”, etc. by drawing geometrical

configuration and telling a story for their students to imagine like: “ A little bird wanted to


find a shelter. He saw a tree. He flew into the part of tree which has a lot of leaves and

branches. That’s why now, he was in the tree and we could not see him…” Through

such way, teachers have to build up and shape the way students conceptualize the

prepositions in their mind, so that piece of information will stay firm in their memory.

Finally, teachers should consolidate their memorization of the prepositions by

designing cognitively constructive exercises in practice and production stage of

teaching. In practice stage, teachers should let the students use the prepositions along

with picture cues or real life situations. Such visual aids and prompts will make them

retrieve their conceptualization of the preposition. After repetition of that pattern of

conceptualization, students can use the preposition confidently. Similarly, in production

stage, teachers should give students as many chances as possible to use the

prepositions. That is a good way to strengthen the link between the word form and the

mapping of its meaning in their mind.

Not stop here, teachers can involve students to explore more prepositions by

investigating the way they are conceptualized by English native speakers. For advanced

students, teachers may ask them to think of the correlation of English and Vietnamese

prepositions in some situations. Students will find prepositions more interesting and

appealing to learn and understand.


References

Evans, V., & Green, M. (2006). Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction. Great Britain: Edinburgh University

Press.

Fortis, J.-M. (2010). Space in Language. Part 1: Figure- ground and reference frames, p. 4.

Heine, B., Claudi, U., & Hunnemeyer, F. (1991). Grammaticalization: A conceptual framework. USA:

University of Chicago Press.

Herskovits. (1988). Language and spatial cognition. Cambridge Press.

Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1976). Language and Perception. Belknap Press.

Schneiderheinze, K. (2003). The Acquisition of The Concept of Space. Technical University of Chemnitz.

Talmy, L. (1983). How Language Structures Space. USA: University of California, Berkeley.

Talmy, L. (2000). Towards A Cognitive Semantics. MIT Press.

Thắng, L. T. (2009). Ngôn Ngữ Học Tri Nhận: Từ lý thuyết đại cương đến thực tiễn Tiếng Việt. Ho Chi

Minh: Nxb Phương Đông.

Tyler, A., & Evans, V. (2004). Applying Cognitive Linguistics to Pedagogical Grammar. Cognitive

linguistics, second language acquisition, and foreign language teaching, 257-280.

Tyler, Andrea, & Evans, V. (2003). The Semantics of English Prepositions: Spatial. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.


Documents

SPATIAL CONCEPTUALIZATION OF POSITIONAL PREPOSITIONS \" IN \" AND \" ON \" IN ENGLISH AND VIETNAMESE: A COMPARISON FROM A COGNITIVE VIEW