SKY Journal of Linguistics 21 (2008), 125–153
Noriko Matsumoto
Bridges between Cognitive Linguistics
and Second Language Pedagogy:
The Case of Corpora and Their Potential
Abstract
Cognitive linguistics offers a way out of the dilemma between helpful, productive
linguistics and helpless, unproductive linguistics in second language pedagogy. This
paper applies cognitive linguistics insights to grammatical instruction of the verb find
and its complementation in communicative activities, searching for descriptively
adequate, intuitively acceptable, and easily accessible accounts of how the verb find
functions and how widely various uses of the verb find are systematically related to one
another. This paper also claims that the potential of learner corpora and the concept of
entrenchment in cognitive linguistics make a positive contribution to grammatical
instruction. In second language pedagogy, a data-driven analysis on the basis of both a
learner corpus and a native speaker corpus is essential to explain the concept of
entrenchment. Consequently, this paper shows some significant results in the
data-driven analysis with respect to not only complementation patterns of the verb find
that Japanese-speaking learners of English use, but also those that native speakers of
English use.
1. Introduction
Second language pedagogy is a truly multidisciplinary endeavor, because a
matter of pedagogy is a matter of linguistics as well as a matter of
acquisition. Every linguist does recognize how essential every experience
and substantial knowledge in the area of language pedagogy is. However,
the issue as to whether or not much research that we linguists have carried
out is helpful or productive has sharply divided the linguists. Generative
linguistics has focused on pure scholarship for its own sake. The only
motivation is a desire to understand language much better. This tradition is
most clearly represented by Noam Chomsky, who denies that linguistics
has, can have, or indeed should have any relevance to language teaching
NORIKO MATSUMOTO
126
(see e.g., Olson et al. 1991). On the other hand, cognitive linguistics has
claimed that the practical benefits are partly evident, because any major
innovation in linguistic theory is bound, sooner or later, to have an impact
on the teaching of grammar in foreign language pedagogy (see e.g. Achard
& Niemeier 2004; Langacker 2001; Radden & Dirven 2007; Taylor 1993).
One of the motivations is a desire to improve language teaching at school
to some extent. The aim of this paper is to defend the latter idea, which
implies that linguistics contributes substantially to language teaching,
although this paper will not of course indicate that every part of academic
research has a clear payoff in terms of practical benefits. Specifically, this
paper will apply cognitive linguistic insights to grammatical instruction of
the verb find and its complementation in communicative activities on the
basis of the corpus-based approach, that is to say, the usage-based
approach.
2. Cognitive linguistics
In order to provide my approach in this paper with an appropriate context,
it is necessary first to discuss cognitive linguistics. Cognitive linguistics
originally emerged in the 1970s and arose out of dissatisfaction with
dominant formal approaches to language at that time. Some researchers
such as Fillmore (1975), Lakoff & Thompson (1975), and Rosch (1975)
rejected the dominant ideas that syntax is separate from other aspects of
language, and that language is separate from cognition. Moreover,
cognitive linguistics has always been strongly influenced by theories and
findings from the other cognitive sciences, particularly cognitive
psychology and Gestalt psychology. Cognitive linguistics therefore
acknowledges that language is part of, dependent on, and influenced by
human cognition, including human perception and categorization, and that
language develops and changes through human interaction and experiences
in the world (see e.g., Fillmore 1975; Lakoff 1987; Langacker 1987; Talmy
2000a, 2000b).
Cognitive linguistics practice could be roughly divided into two main
areas of research: cognitive semantics and cognitive grammar. Although
the study of cognitive semantics and the one of cognitive grammar are
occasionally separate in practice, their domains of inquiry are tightly
linked. Cognitive semantics is concerned with modeling the human mind
as much as it is concerned with investigating linguistic semantics.
Cognitive semantics is not a single unified framework. However, Evans et
COGNITIVE LINGUISTICS AND SECOND LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY
127
al. (2007) point out that there are four guiding principles characterizing
cognitive semantics: (i) conceptual structure is embodied; (ii) semantic
structure is conceptual structure; (iii) semantic representation is
encyclopedic; and (iv) semantic construction is conceptualization. Some
significant theories and approaches in cognitive semantics best exemplify
the four guiding principles.1 In this paper, one of the significant theories
and approaches in cognitive semantics, cognitive lexical semantics
approach is important. Cognitive lexical semantics takes the position that
lexical items are conceptual categories. A word represents a category of
distinct related meanings. In particular, Lakoff (1987) argues that a lexical
item represents a type of complex category, which he calls a radical
category. Therefore, word meanings are stored in the mental lexicon as
highly complex structured categories of meanings.
Cognitive grammar is concerned with modeling the language system
rather than the nature of mind itself. This means that meaning is central to
cognitive grammar. Cognitive grammar assumes cognitive semantics and
builds a model of grammar which is consistent with the assumptions and
findings of research in cognitive semantics. In addition to this, the two
guiding principles of cognitive grammar are (i) the symbolic thesis, and (ii)
the usage-based thesis. The symbolic thesis holds that the fundamental unit
of grammar is a form-meaning pairing, that is to say, a symbolic unit. All
linguistic forms, from single morphemes to words, phrases, idioms,
clauses, and sentences, contribute to and express meaning. The
usage-based thesis is primarily concerned with the characterization of
language as it is spoken and understood, as well as with the dynamics of its
use.2 Langacker (1987: 494) states that the usage-based thesis constitutes a
1
The significant theories and approaches include image-schema theory, encyclopedic
semantics approach, categorization and Idealized Cognitive Models (ICMs) approach,
cognitive lexical semantics approach, conceptual metaphor theory, conceptual meto-
nymy approach, Mental Spaces theory, and conceptual blending theory.
2
The usage-based thesis is central not only to cognitive grammar but also to language
acquisition which takes a cognitive linguistic perspective. Tomasello (2000a: 237–238)
argues that usage-based models constitute strong theoretical frameworks for the
description of child language acquisition because they do not demand that a child’s
grammar be identical to the adult system. In a usage-based model, the goal of child
language acquisition research is to characterize the steps by which the child’s inventory
of conventionalized units comes to resemble the adult’s. It predominantly involves
the investigation of the development of the cognitive abilities that allow children to
eventually master the adult system.
NORIKO MATSUMOTO
128
non-reductive approach to linguistic structure. The goal of a usage-based
thesis is to depict the complexity of language use.
3. Applying cognitive grammar to pedagogical grammar
Cognitive linguistics claims that the learner’s interlanguage resembles a
child’s grammar where it is composed of an assortment of eclectic
constructions at various levels of systematicity, abstraction, and
productivity. Second language learners are attempting to master the
specific array of symbolic units that represents the linguistic conventions
of the target language. In a developing second language system, the target
units are in direct competition with the native ones because they both
represent alternative ways of construing the same reality. Second language
learning can be viewed as a gradual process by which the target system
gains increasingly more differentiation and autonomy from the native one,
because mental experience must be organized so as to conform to the
conceptual structures symbolized by the available symbolic units. Thus, it
should be emphasized here that learning a foreign language will involve
not only learning the forms of the language but also simultaneously
learning the conceptual structures associated with these forms.
The nature and purpose of pedagogical grammar requires that it focus
on learning problems. The function of pedagogical grammar is to promote
the learner’s insight into the foreign language system. In essence,
promoting the learner’s insight means reducing the perceived arbitrariness
of the foreign language system. For this reason, it is not enough to merely
inform the learner that a particular element belongs to a given formal
category. Also, it is not enough to merely state that such-and-such an
expression is grammatically correct while other word formations are
grammatically incorrect. Especially, grammatical instruction in
communicative methodologies has been at the core of the pedagogical
literature. The central concern is the perceived discrepancy between
communicative competence and accuracy in language use. Most teachers
agree that communicative activities should constitute the most important
focus of the foreign language lesson, and that students’ enthusiasm to
express themselves should not be stifled by undue expectations placed
upon accurate grammatical production. Accordingly, the grammatical
instruction in communicative approaches constitutes one of the hardest
pedagogical challenges that foreign language teachers, especially
non-native teachers face, because obviously the nature of grammatical
COGNITIVE LINGUISTICS AND SECOND LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY
129
instruction depends critically on each teacher’s view of the nature of rules
and overall organizations of the target system, as well as his/her beliefs
about the specificity of grammatical knowledge to language acquisition.
However, the potential of learner corpora in a data-driven learning
approach explicitly makes a positive, objective contribution to such
grammatical instruction.
Learner corpora are strongly related to the usage-based thesis.
Learner corpora could be applied to pedagogical material in at least three
different ways: (i) they can help to decide what features should be
particularly emphasized in teaching or even lead to the introduction of so
far neglected elements; (ii) results from learner corpus studies can give
indications on how to teach certain features; and (iii) results on
developmental sequences can help to determine in what order language
features should be taught. In other words, the more direct and probably
more important way is to use a learner corpus to identify what is
particularly difficult for a certain group of learners. The more indirect and
more problematic way is to derive insights about second language
acquisition from learner corpus analyses and to draw implications for
teaching and possibly textbook writing from these insights.
In a corpus-based approach, that is to say, a usage-based approach to
language, the concept of entrenchment is well known. ‘Entrenchment
pertains to how frequently a structure has been involved and thus to the
thoroughness of its mastery and the ease of its subsequent activation’
(Langacker 1991: 45). Entrenchment is interrelated with input.
Specifically, entrenchment can be identified by an adjustment of the
connection weights and can be brought about by the occurrence of a
specific pattern of activation which renders more likely the occurrence of
the same or a similar pattern. In cognitive linguistics, linguistic
constructions are seen as being abstracted from usage events by the
reinforcement of recurring commonalities. In second language acquisition,
the role of entrenchment has been widely accepted as one of the most
decisive factors in acquiring a second language.3 It is thus significant to
pay attention to individual occurrences of linguistic items and at the same
time to collect numerical data about types of construction. In second
language pedagogy, a data-driven analysis on the basis of both a learner
3
Tomasello (2000b: 70) points out that an important aspect of first language learning is
some form of imitative learning and that ‘it is also important that children seem to have
special difficulties in going beyond what they have heard when they have heard it
multiple times, that is, when it is entrenched.’
NORIKO MATSUMOTO
130
corpus and a native speaker corpus is essential to explain the concept of
entrenchment.
This paper focuses on both complementation patterns of the verb find
that Japanese-speaking learners of English use and those that native
speakers of English use, and shows some significant results in the
data-driven analysis on the basis of both one learner speaking corpus and
one native speakers’ speaking corpus. Obviously, native speaker corpora
are indeed useful for the improvement of language teaching. They are
useful mainly because they can reveal what native speakers of the language
in question typically write or say either in general or in a certain situation
better than native speaker intuition. In deciding what content we should
teach, we teachers not only need to focus on patterns revealed in the data
shown in native-speaker corpora as showing target frequencies, but also
need to focus on the data shown in learner corpora as showing learning
gaps and relative stages in mastery. For second language teaching,
nevertheless, it is not only essential to know what native speakers typically
write or say, but also what the typical difficulties of the learners of a certain
language, or rather of certain groups of learners of a certain language are.
4. The verb find
The reason why this paper focuses on the verb find is two-fold. One is that
every Japanese-speaking learner of English knows the verb find. The other
is that most of Japanese-speaking learners of English are not fully aware of
the fact that the familiar verb find can take various types of complements,
which gives rise to a situation where there are remarkably few
Japanese-speaking learners of English who have a good command of find.
This paper will defuse such an uncomfortable situation by focusing on the
complementation patterns of find on the basis of both one
Japanese-speaking learner corpus and one native speaker corpus.
In order to give my approach an appropriate context, it is necessary to
explain the various complementation patterns of the verb find syntactically
and semantically. Roughly speaking, find can take nine syntactic patterns,
as in (1).
(1) a. find + NP
b. find + NP + NP
c. find + that-COMP
COGNITIVE LINGUISTICS AND SECOND LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY
131
d. find + that-deleted-COMP
e. find + wh-COMP
f. find + NP + ADJ
g. find + NP + to be
h. be found (passive)
i. find out
Semantically, find is mainly divided into ten areas, as in (2)–(11), but the
various meanings of find are not always easy to keep apart.
(2) GET BY SEARCHING
a. I can’t find the car keys.
b. Can you find me my bag?
c. The child was eventually found safe and well.
(3) SEE BY CHANCE
a. Look what I’ve found!
b. I didn’t expect to come home and find him gone.
(4) DISCOVER STATE OF SOMEONE/SOMETHING
a. She woke to find a man by her bed.
b. He tried the door and found it unlocked.
c. She looked at her glass and was amazed to find it was empty.
(5) DO SOMETHING WITHOUT MEANING TO
a. She woke up and found herself in a hospital bed.
b. We came home and found him asleep on the sofa.
c. I was disappointed to find that they had left already.
d. He found he was shivering.
(6) LEARN SOMETHING BY STUDY
a. I managed to find a solution to the problem.
b. Can you find me a hotel?
c. His study found that married men and women had similar spending patterns.
(7) THINK/FEEL
a. Will Gary and Gail find happiness together?
b. She finds it a strain to meet new people.
NORIKO MATSUMOTO
132
c. She found the work very dull.
(8) EXPERIENCE
a. You might find that his work improves now he’s at a new school.
b. I find people are often surprised at how little it costs.
c. We found the beds very comfortable.
d. I found the people to be charming and very friendly.
(9) EXIST IN A PLACE
You’ll find this style of architecture all over the town.
(10) GET ENOUGH MONEY/TIME ETC
He’s struggling to find the time, the support, and the resource to do all this.
(11) IN A COURT OF LAW: to make an official decision in a court of law
The jury found him guilty of manslaughter.
The ten semantic areas correlate in interesting ways with the syntactic
patterns where find can occur, as shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Semantic areas correlating with syntactic patterns where find can occur.
NP NP+NP that-COMP that-deleted NP+ADJ NP+to be
1. GET BY SEARCHING ○ ○ ○
2. SEE BY CHANCE ○ ○
3. DISCOVER STATE OF
SOMETHING/SOMEONE ○ ○ ○
4. DO SOMETHING
WITHOUT MEANING TO ○ ○ ○ ○
5. LEARN SOMETHING
BY STUDY ○ ○ ○
6. THINK/FEEL ○ ○ ○
7. EXPERIENCE ○ ○ ○ ○
8. EXIST IN A PLACE ○
9. GET ENOUGH
MONEY/TIME ETC. ○
10. IN A COURT OF LAW ○
In this section, it is pivotal to demonstrate the complexities of the
complementation patterns of find, that is to say, the ones of various
find-constructions. A construction is defined here as follows: A
construction constitutes a conventional form-meaning pairing. Within the
functional and the cognitive paradigm, it is generally accepted that if one
COGNITIVE LINGUISTICS AND SECOND LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY
133
verb can be followed by more than one type of complement, there must be
semantic differences among the sentences with different pragmatic effects.
Most previous studies have attempted to derive each semantic
characterization from the different type of complement associated with it.
Borkin (1973, 1984), for example, provides examples of such differences,
as in (12).
(12) a. I find that this chair is uncomfortable.
b. I find this chair to be uncomfortable.
c. I find this chair uncomfortable. (Borkin 1973: 46)
Each sentence in (12) has the same propositions that the chair is
uncomfortable; however, the differences among them are closely linked to
‘whether or not a complement represents a fact based on experience or,
rather, describes the experience itself’ (Borkin 1984: 79). According to
Borkin (1984), (12a) might be used for a judgment based on indirect
evidence through asking people or learning the results of consumer
reaction tests, but (12c) implies that I myself actually sit on the chair and
directly experience the discomfort. (12b) might be used in either
circumstance. Verspoor (2000), agreeing with Borkin, modifies her
explanation. To explicate the distinctions among (12), she applies the
concept of level of consciousness, which Edelman (1989) demonstrates, to
the linguistic analysis of English complementation, as summarized in
Table 2.
Table 2. Level of consciousness with respect to E