Cover not available
Article published In:
Construction Grammar across Borders
Edited by Tiago Timponi Torrent, Ely Edison da Silva Matos and Natália Sathler Sigiliano
[Constructions and Frames 12:1] 2020
► pp. 121–148

From construction grammar to embodied construction practice

 | Université Saint-Louis Bruxelles
In recent years, foreign language pedagogy has recognized the need to focus on larger meaningful sequences of words and on communicative goals. Construction grammar (CxG) has a number of assets to address these issues. First, with the postulate of meaningful schematic templates, CxG makes it possible to establish a structured inventory of abstract constructions. In this paper, this is illustrated by the inventory of German constructions with the preposition bis ‘up to, until’. Second, constructions, having a certain degree of schematicity, are particularly suitable to be practiced as whole sequences. Interactive activities based on ‘embodied teaching and learning’ can help foster the entrenchment of constructions.
Keywords: applications of construction grammar, foreign language teaching, foreign language learning, construction practice, embodiment, German preposition bis ‘up to/until’
Article outline
  • 1.The learning of patterns
  • 2.Assets of construction grammar for FLT/FLL
    • 2.1Syntactic variety of German constructions with bis
    • 2.2Semantic variety of German constructions with bis
    • 2.3Complex constructions with bis and directional adverbs
    • 2.4Morpho-syntactic description of German constructions with bis
  • 3.Pedagogical issues and teaching strategies
    • 3.1The learning of constructions – a challenging enterprise
    • 3.2Generalization and scaffolding
    • 3.3First studies on embodiment
    • 3.4Embodied construction practice
      • 3.4.1Interactive exercises with bodily engagement
      • 3.4.2Exercises with pictures
  • 4.Conclusions and future perspectives
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 29 July 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.00037.kno
References (95)
References
Achard, M. (2008). Teaching construal: Cognitive pedagogical grammar. In P. Robinson & N. Ellis (Eds), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition (pp. 432–456). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Asher, J. J. (1982). Learning another language through actions. The complete teacher’s guidebook. Los Gatos, CA: Sky Oaks Productions.Google Scholar
Baicchi, A. (2013). The ontological status of constructions in the mind of Italian University learners of English: Psycholinguistic evidence from a sentence-sorting experiment. In L. Di Michele (Ed.), Regenerating community, territory, voices (pp. 26–32). Napoli: Liguori.Google Scholar
(2016). The role of syntax and semantics in constructional priming. Experimental evidence from Italian university learners of English through a sentence-elicitation task. In S. De Knop & G. Gilquin (Eds.), Applied construction grammar (pp. 211–236). Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bencini, G., & Goldberg, A. E. (2000). The contribution of argument structure constructions to sentence meaning. Journal of Memory and Language, 431, 640–651. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bergen, B., & Chang, N. (2005). Embodied construction grammar in simulation-based language understanding. In J-O. Östman & M. Fried (Eds.), Construction grammars: Cognitive grounding and theoretical extensions (pp. 147–190). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Birchfield, D. (2015). Embodied learning: Origins and implications. Available at: <[URL]>
Boers, F. (2011). Cognitive semantic ways of teaching figurative phrases. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 9(1), 227–261. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boers, F., & Demecheleer, M. (1998). A cognitive semantic approach to teaching prepositions. English Language Teaching Journal, 531, 197–204. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boers, F., De Rycker, A., & De Knop, S. (2010). Fostering language teaching efficiency through cognitive linguistics: Introduction. In S. De Knop, F. Boers, & A. de Rycker (Eds.), Fostering language teaching efficiency through CL (pp. 1–27). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bowerman, M. (1996). Learning how to structure space for language: A cross-linguistic perspective. In P. Bloom, M. A. Peterson, L. Nadel, & M. F. Garrett (Eds.), Language and space (pp. 385–436). Cambridge, Mass./London: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Carroll, M. (2000). Representing path in language production in English and German: Alternative perspectives on Figure and Ground. In C. Habel & C. von Stutterheim (Eds.), Räumliche Konzepte und sprachliche Strukturen (pp. 97–118). Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carstensen, K. (2000). Räumliche Mikroperspektivierung und die Semantik lokaler Präpositionen. In C. Habel & C. von Stutterheim (Eds.). Räumliche Konzepte und Sprachliche Strukturen (pp. 237–260). Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Choi, S., & Bowerman, M. (1991). Learning to express motion events in English and Korean: The influence of language-specific lexicalization patterns. Cognition, 411, 83–121. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Corder, S. P. (1967). The significance of learners’ errors. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 51, 160–170. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Knop, S. (2016). German causative events with placement verbs. Lege Artis. Language yesterday, today, tomorrow, 1(2), 75–115.Google Scholar
De Knop, S., & Gilquin, G. (Eds.) (2016). Applied construction grammar. Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Knop, S., & Mollica, F. (2016). A construction-based analysis of German ditransitive phraseologisms for language pedagogy. In S. De Knop & G. Gilquin (Eds.), Applied construction grammar (pp. 53–88). Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2019). Verblose Direktiva als Konstruktionen: ein kontrastiver Vergleich zwischen Deutsch, Französisch und Italienisch. In J. Erfurt & S. De Knop (Eds.), Konstruktionsgrammatik und Mehrsprachigkeit (pp. 127–148). Universität Duisburg-Essen: Universitätsverlag Rhein-Ruhr OHG.Google Scholar
Della Putta, P. (2016). Do we also need to unlearn constructions? The case of constructional negative transfer from Spanish to Italian and its pedagogical implications. In S. De Knop & G. Gilquin (Eds.), Applied construction grammar (pp. 237–267). Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Di Pietro, R. J. (1987). Strategic interaction: Learning languages through scenarios. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Draye, L. (1996). The German dative. In W. Van Belle & W. Van Langendonck (Eds.), The dative: Descriptive studies. Vol. 11 (pp. 155–215). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eisenberg, P. et al. (2009). Duden – Die Grammatik. Mannheim; Wien; Zürich: Dudenverlag.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (2009). Optimizing the input: Frequency and sampling in usage-based and form-focused learning. In M. H. Long & C. J. Doughty (Eds.), Handbook of language teaching (pp. 139–158). London: Blackwell Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C., & Cadierno, T. (2009). Constructing a second language. Introduction to the special section. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 71, 1–139. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C., & Ferreira-Jr., F. (2009a). Construction learning as a function of frequency, frequency distribution, and function. The Modern Language Journal, 93(3), 370–385. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009b). Constructions and their acquisition. Islands and the distinctiveness of their occupancy. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 71, 187–220. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. (1990). Instructed second language acquisition. Learning in the classroom. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Evans, V. (2003). The structure of time. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Feldman, J., & Narayanan, S. (2004). Embodied meaning in a neural theory of language. Brain and Language, 891, 385–392. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Filipovic, L. & Ibarretxe-Antuñano, I. (2015): Motion. In: E. Dabrowska & D. Divjak (Eds.), Mouton Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 526–545). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Flecken, M., Carroll, M., Weimar, K., & Von Stutterheim, C. (2015). Driving along the road or heading for the village? Conceptual differences underlying motion event encoding in French, German, and French–German L2 users. The Modern Language Journal, 991, 100–122. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fries, C. C. (1945). Teaching and learning English as a foreign language. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Gilquin, G., & De Knop, S. (2016). Exploring L2 constructionist approaches. In S. De Knop & G. Gilquin (Eds.), Applied construction grammar (pp. 3–17). Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. (1995). Constructions. A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
González Rey, M. I. (2013). Presentation: Phraseodidactics, an applied field of phraseology. In M. I. González Rey (Ed.), Phraseodidactic studies on German as a foreign language / Phraseodidaktische Studien zu Deutsch als Fremdsprache (pp. 7–10). Hamburg: Dr. Kovac.Google Scholar
Gries, S. Th. (2003). Towards a corpus-based identification of prototypical instances of constructions. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 11, 1–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gries, S. Th., & Wulff, S. (2005). Do foreign language learners also have constructions? Evidence from priming, sorting, and corpora. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 31, 182–200. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009). Psycholinguistic and corpus-linguistic evidence for L2 constructions. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 71, 163–186. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grießhaber, W. (2009). Präposition. In L. Hoffmann (Ed.), Handbuch der Deutschen Wortarten (pp. 629–656). Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Handwerker, B. (2008). ‛Chunksʼ und Konstruktionen – Zur Integration von lern-theoretischem und grammatischem Ansatz. Estudios Filológicos Alemanes, 151, 49–64.Google Scholar
Handwerker, B., & Madlener, K. (2006). Multimedia-Chunks für Deutsch als Fremdsprache. Ein Lernmodul zur Entwicklung lexikalisch-grammatischer Kompetenz. In A. Hahn & F. Klippel (Eds.), Sprachen Schaffen Chancen (pp. 199–206). München: Oldenbourgs.Google Scholar
Hausmann, F. J. (1984). Wortschatzlernen ist Kollokationslernen. Praxis des neusprachlichen Unterrichts, 311, 395–406.Google Scholar
Herbst, T. (2016). Foreign language learning is construction learning – what else? Moving towards pedagogical construction grammar. In S. De Knop & G. Gilquin (Eds.), Applied construction grammar (pp. 21–52). Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Holme, R. (2010). Construction grammars: Towards a pedagogical model. AILA Review, 231, 115–133. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ibarretxe-Antuñano, I. (2017). Introduction. Motion and semantic typology: A hot old topic with exciting caveats. In: I. Ibarretxe-Antuñano (Eds.), Motion and Space across Languages (pp. 13–36). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Iwata, S. (2002). Does manner count or not? Manner-of-motion verbs revisited. Linguistics, 40(1), 239–292. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2008). Locative alternation: A lexical-constructional approach. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jarvis, S. (2007). Theoretical and methodological issues in the investigation of conceptual transfer. Vigo International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 41, 43–71.Google Scholar
Jarvis, S., & Pavlenko, A. (2008). Crosslinguistic influence in language and cognition. New York/London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Klein, W. (1991). Raumausdrücke. Linguistische Berichte, 1321, 77–114.Google Scholar
Lado, R. (1957). Linguistics across cultures. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Lado, R., & Fries, C. C. (1961). English pattern practices. Michigan: The University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to Western thought. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 11. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Lapaire, J.-R. (2013). Gestualité cogrammaticale: de l’action corporelle spontanée aux postures de travail métagestuel guidé. Maybe et le balancement épistémique en anglais. Langages, 192 (4), 57–72. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lapaire, J.-R., & Etcheto, P. (2010). Postures, manipulations, déambulations: comprendre la grammaire anglaise autrement. La nouvelle revue de l’adaptation et de la scolarisation, 49(1), 45–58.Google Scholar
Leys, O. (1989). Aspekt und Rektion räumlicher Präpositionen. Deutsche Sprache, 171, 97–113.Google Scholar
(1995). Dativ und Akkusativ in der deutschen Sprache der Gegenwart. Leuvense Bijdragen, 841, 39–62.Google Scholar
Liang, J. (2002). How do Chinese EFL learners construct sentence meaning: Verb-centered or construction-based? M.A. thesis, Guangdong University of Foreign Studies.Google Scholar
Lutzeier, P. R. (1995). Von der Wortbedeutung zur Satzbedeutung: Überlegungen zum Beitrag der Präpositionen. In I. Pohl (Ed.), Semantik von Wort, Satz und Text: Beiträge des Kolloquiums “Semantik von Wort, Satz und Text“ in Rostock (1994) (pp. 171–189). Frankfurt a. M.: Peter Langs.Google Scholar
Nattinger, J. R., & DeCarrico, J. S. (1992). Lexical phrases and language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nunan, D. (1991). Communicative tasks and the language curriculum. Tesol Quarterly, 25(2), 279–295. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Kinder, Computer und neues Lernen. New York: Basic books.Google Scholar
(1986). Constructionism: A new opportunity for elementary science education. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Paul, H. (1916–1920). Deutsche Grammatik. Halle: Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Pavlenko, A. (2005). Bilingualism and thought. In J. F. Kroll & A. M. B. de Groot (Eds.), Handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches (pp. 433–453). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pawley, A., & Syder, F. (1983). Two puzzles for linguistic theory: Nativelike selection and nativelike fluency. In J. C. Richards & R. W. Schmidt (Eds.), Language and communication (pp. 191–226). New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Politzer, R. L. (1961). The impact of linguistics on language teaching: Past, present and future. Modern Language Journal, 48(3), 146–151.Google Scholar
Radden, G. (2003). The metaphor TIME AS SPACE across languages. In N. Baumgarten, C. Böttger, M. Motz, & J. Probst (Eds.), Übersetzen, Interkulturelle Kommunikation, Spracherwerb und Sprachvermittlung – das Leben mit mehreren Sprachen. Festschrift für Juliane House zum 60. Geburtstag. Zeitschrift für Interkulturellen Fremdsprachenunterricht, 8(2/3), 226–239.Google Scholar
Radden, G., & Dirven, R. (2007). Cognitive English grammar. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rathunde, K. (2009). Nature and embodied education. The journal of developmental processes, 4 (1), 70–80.Google Scholar
Rys, J., Willems, K., & De Cuypere, L. (2014). Akkusativ und Dativ nach Wechselpräpositionen im Deutschen. Eine Korpusanalyse von ‘versinken’, ‘versenken’, ‘einsinken’ und ‘einsenken in’. In I. Doval & B. Lübke (Eds.), Raumlinguistik und Sprachkontrast: neue Beiträge zu spatialen Relationen im Deutschen, Englischen und Spanischen (pp. 217–234). München: Iudicium.Google Scholar
Robinson, P., & Ellis, N. (2008). Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J., & Agustín Llach, M. P. (2016). Cognitive pedagogical grammar and meaning construction in L2. In De Knop, S. & Gilquin, G. (Eds.), Applied construction grammar (pp. 151–184). Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Savignon, S. J. (2000). Communicative language teaching. In M. Byram (Ed.), Routledge encyclopedia of language teaching and learning (pp. 125–129). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Schmitz, W. (1964). Der Gebrauch deutscher Präpositionen. München: Hueber Verlag.Google Scholar
Schröder, J. (1986). Lexikon deutscher Präpositionen. Leipzig: VEB Verlag.Google Scholar
Serra-Borneto, C. (1997). Two-way prepositions in German: Image and constraints. In M. Verspoor, K. D. Lee, & E. Sweetser (Eds.), Lexical and syntactical constructions and the construction of meaning (pp. 187–204). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Skulmowski, A., & Rey, G. D. (2018). Embodied learning: introducing a taxonomy based on bodily engagement and task integration. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 3(6), 1–10.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. (1996). From “thought and language” to “thinking for speaking”. In J. Gumperz & S. Levinson (Eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity (pp. 70–96). Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(2000). Verbalized events: A dynamic approach to linguistic relativity and determinism. In S. Niemeier & R. Dirven (Eds.), Evidence for linguistic relativity (pp. 107–138). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Smith, M. B. (1995). Semantic motivation vs. arbitrariness in grammar: Toward a more general account of the DAT/ACC contrast with two-way prepositions. In I. Rauch & G. F. Carr (Eds.), Insights in Germanic linguistics: Methodology and transition (pp. 293–323). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a cognitive semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Taylor, J. (2008). Prototypes in cognitive linguistics. In P. Robinson & N. Ellis (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition (pp. 39–65). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Thieroff, R., & Vogel, P. M. (2011). Flexion. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Valenzuela Manzanares, J., & Rojo López, A. M. (2008). What can language learners tell us about constructions? In S. De Knop & T. de Rycker (Eds.), Cognitive approaches to pedagogical grammar: A volume in honour of René Dirven (pp. 197–230). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Wardhaugh, R. (1970). The contrastive analysis hypothesis. TESOL Quarterly, 4(2), 123–130. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weideman, A. (2016). Responsible aesign in Applied linguistics: Theory and practice. Heidelberg: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
Willems, K. (2011). The semantics of variable case marking (accusative/dative) after two-way prepositions in German locative constructions. Towards a constructionist approach. Indogermanische Forschungen, 1161, 324–366. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Willems, K., Rys, J., & De Cuypere, L. (2018). Case alternation in argument structure constructions with prepositional phrases. A case study in corpus-based constructional analysis. In H. C. Boas & A. Ziem (Eds.), Constructional approaches to argument atructure in German (pp. 85–130)s. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wong-Fillmore, L. (1976). The second time around. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Wray, A. (2002). Formulaic language and the lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (7)

Cited by seven other publications

FÜREDER, Birgit
2024. Frequency effects in acquisition and processing of complex verbal constructions in Romance: Experimental and corpus perspectives on Spanish as well as potential implications for foreign language acquisition. Ampersand ► pp. 100199 ff. DOI logo
Comisso, Elena & Paolo Della Putta
2023. Fostering the learning of the Russian motion verbs system in Italian-speaking students. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 21:1 ► pp. 64 ff. DOI logo
Della Putta, Paolo & Ferran Suñer
2023. Using the body to activate the brain. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 21:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Boas, Hans C., Alexander Ziem, Françoise Gallez & Manon Hermann
2022. Debunking some myths about the role and relevance of (restricted) semantic role sets: Some thoughts on Ágel & Höllein 2021. In Cognition and Contrast, ► pp. 65 ff. DOI logo
Bouveret, Myriam, Françoise Gallez & Manon Hermann
2022. Constructionalization of verbal causative periphrases in French faire, laisser, mettre à, donner à + Vinf. In Cognition and Contrast, ► pp. 133 ff. DOI logo
Gallez, Françoise, Manon Hermann, Françoise Gallez & Manon Hermann
2022. Lexikalisierungsmuster zum Ausdruck der Lokalisierung und Fortbewegung im Deutschen: ein didaktischer Ansatz. In Cognition and Contrast, ► pp. 211 ff. DOI logo
Habermann, Mechthild, Thomas Herbst, Françoise Gallez & Manon Hermann
2022. The German so-was-von construction. In Cognition and Contrast, ► pp. 97 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 10 october 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.