Cover not available
Part of
Perspectives on Abstract Concepts: Cognition, language and communication
Edited by Marianna Bolognesi and Gerard J. Steen
[Human Cognitive Processing 65] 2019
► pp. 263–286

Chapter 12
The development of the abstract scientific concept of heat energy in a naturalistic classroom setting

Science aims to understand the physical and living world around us. To do this, it requires us to develop abstract ways of thinking. The aim of this chapter is to describe and explain how the abstract concepts of heat energy and heat transfer emerge and evolve during two secondary (high) school science lessons, by providing an account of how they are linguistically represented in discourse using a cognitive discursive framework. The analysis of a teacher-led demonstration, a group writing task, and an interview, during which pupils externalize their mental images in speech, writing, and in visual representations, shows how the discourse as well as the social and concrete here-and-now physical contexts, affect the development of these abstract concepts.
Keywords: classroom discourse, cognitive discursive framework, heat energy
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Theoretical framework: Text World Theory
  • 3.Methodology
  • 4.Class demonstration of heat transfer
    • 4.1Adding levels of complexity
    • 4.2Introduction of heat energy into the discourse: Creating a hypothetical world
    • 4.3‘Capturing’ pupils’ mental SOURCE-PATH-GOAL schemas
    • 4.4Profiling the GOAL part of the schema
  • 5.Group task: Explaining heat transfer
    • 5.1Stimulated recall with pupils
    • 5.2Drawing mental images
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Transcription conventions
  • References
Published online: 6 June 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.65.13zac
References (37)
References
Ainsworth, S., Prain, V., & Tytler, R. 2011. Drawing to learn in Science. Science 333, 1096–1097. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barsalou, L. W. 1999. Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22,577–660.Google Scholar
Bergen, B. 2012. Louder than Words: The New Science of How the Mind Makes Meaning. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Carter, R., & McCarthy, M. J.. 2006. Cambridge Grammar of English: A Comprehensive Guide. Spoken and Written English Grammar and Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cox, R. 1999. Representation construction, externalised cognition and individual differences. Learning and instruction 9(4), 343–363. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Duit, R., & Treagust, D. F. 2003. Conceptual change: A powerful framework for improving science teaching and learning. International journal of science education 25(6), 671–688. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fauconnier, G. 1994. Mental Spaces: Aspects of Meaning Construction in Natural Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Pres. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. 1996. Blending as a central process of grammar. In A. Goldberg (Ed.), Conceptual structure, discourse, and language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
2002. The way we think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic books.Google Scholar
2003. Conceptual blending, form and meaning. Recherches en communication 19(19), 57–86.Google Scholar
Gavins, J. 2000. Absurd tricks with Bicycle Frames in the Text world of The Third Policeman. Nottingham Linguistic Circular 15, 17–33.Google Scholar
2007. Text World Theory: An Introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gavins, J., & Lahey, E. 2016. World Building in Discourse. In J. Gavins and E. Lahey (Eds.), World-Building: Discourse in the Mind (1–15), London: Bloomsbury Academic.Google Scholar
Giovanelli, M. 2016. Text World Theory as cognitive grammatics: A pedagogical application in the secondary classroom. In J. Gavins and E. Lahey (Eds.), World-Building: Discourse in the Mind (109–126), London: Bloomsbury Academic.Google Scholar
2017. Readers building fictional worlds: visual representations, poetry and cognition. Literacy 51: 26–35. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grice, H. 1975. Logic and Conversation. In P. Cole (Ed.), Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts (41–58), New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. 2004. Halliday’s introduction to functional grammar (3rd edition). Oxon, Routledge.Google Scholar
Hutchins, E. 2005. Material anchors for conceptual blends. Journal of Pragmatics 37, 1555–1577. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jensen, T. W. 2017. Metaphoricity in Discourse. In B. Hampe (Ed.), Metaphor: Embodied Cognition in Discourse (257–276), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johnson, M. 1987. The body and the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. Chicago, University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. 1985. Topics in cognitive grammar. Series of workshops at Universitaire Faculteit Sint-Aloysius, Brussels.Google Scholar
1987a. Foundations of cognitive grammar, Volume I: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA, Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
1987b. Nouns and verbs. Language 63, 53–94. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1991. Concept, Image, and Symbol: The Cognitive Basis of Grammar. Cognitive Linguistics Research. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Peplow, D., Swann, J., Trimarco, P., & Whiteley, S. 2016. The Discourse of Reading Groups: Integrating Cognitive and Sociocultural Perspectives (Vol. 6). London and New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, D. L. 1995 The emergence of abstract representations in dyad problem solving. The Journal of the Learning Sciences 4(3), 321–354. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Semino, E. 2003. Discourse Worlds and Mental Spaces. In J. Gavins and G. Steen (Eds.), Cognitive Poetics in Practice (83–98), London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Stenning, K., & Oberlander, J. 1995. A cognitive theory of graphical and linguistic reasoning: logic and implementation. Cognitive Science 19(1), 97–140. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
ten Have, P. Doing conversation analysis: A practical guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Tomasello, M. 2003. Constructing a Language: A Usage-Based Theory of Language Acquisition. Cambridge, MA and London: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Ungerer, F., & Schmid, H. J. 2006. An introduction to cognitive linguistics (2nd Edition), Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.Google Scholar
van der Bom, I. 2015. Text World Theory and Stories of Self: A Cognitive Discursive Approach to Identity. PhD Thesis, University of Sheffield.Google Scholar
van der Bom, I. 2016. Speaker Enactors in Oral Narrative. In J. Gavins and E. Lahey (Eds), World-Building: Discourse in the Mind (91–108), London: Bloomsbury Academic.Google Scholar
Warren, W. 2002. An alternative account of the interpretation of referential metonymy and metaphor. In R. Dirven and R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (113–132). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Werth, P. 1995. How to build a world (in a lot less than six days and using only what's in your head. In K., Green (Ed.), New Essays on Deixis: Discourse, Narrative, Literature, (49–80). Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Werth, P. 1999. Text Worlds: Representing Conceptual Space in Discourse, London: Longman.Google Scholar
Zacharias (2018.) A Linguistic Representation of Abstract Concepts in Learning Science: A Cognitive Discursive Approach.Google Scholar