Research background
In Vietnam, English is taught across five educational levels, reflecting its importance for the country's integration into global trade The Ministry of Education and Training (MOET) has made English a compulsory subject for graduation exams at all levels However, despite these efforts, high school students' English proficiency remains low, with average scores of 3.91, 4.36, and 4.57 from 2018 to 2020, marking it as one of the weakest subjects in graduation assessments This is particularly concerning given the emphasis placed on English through the National Foreign Language 2020 Project.
The current low level of English proficiency in Vietnam may stem from the country's approach to English language education Despite the Ministry of Education and Training (MOET) making English a mandatory subject from an early age, high school students often struggle with the National High School Graduation Examination after a decade of study This issue may be attributed to learners' disproportionate emphasis on nouns, verbs, and adjectives, which are perceived as essential components of English vocabulary As a result, students dedicate most of their study time to these parts of speech, leading to a neglect of other crucial elements of the language.
Negative L1 transfer significantly impacts English prepositional usage among EFL learners, drawing global attention due to the essential role prepositions play in sentence construction (Jarvis, 2000; Yates, 1999; ệzbay & Bozkurt, 2017) While English boasts 154 prepositions (Lindstromberg, 2010), Vietnamese lacks a comparable system, leading grammarians to interpret prepositions as tools for expressing grammatical relationships Vietnamese prepositions are categorized into various functions such as place, time, reason, and purpose (Trần Trọng Kim et al., 1940), yet there remains a lack of consensus among linguists regarding their definitions Cao Xuân Hạo (1991) describes Vietnamese prepositions as functional words that serve as sentence elements or modifiers, while Nguyễn Thiện Giáp (2008) identifies them as parts of speech that connect with nouns to form prepositional phrases Examples illustrate these definitions effectively.
(1.1) Tham chi tấm áo của người,
(1.2) Tiếc công anh đắp đập be bờ Để ai quảy đó, mang lờ đến đơm
(1.3) Một ngày đằng đẵng xem bằng ba thu
Vũ Đức Nghiệu et al (2008) do not include prepositions in their classification of Vietnamese parts of speech, which consists of nouns, verbs, adjectives, numbers, pronouns, adjuncts, linking words, particles, emotional words, and exclamation words Instead, prepositions are categorized with conjunctions under the term "conjunction-preposition words," a classification rooted in traditional grammar due to their shared role in connecting words within sentences The primary distinction lies in their dependency on clauses; conjunctions link coordinated clauses, while prepositions connect independent and dependent phrases Despite varying definitions among Vietnamese scholars, the independent-dependent clause relationship remains crucial in identifying prepositions, as illustrated in examples (1.4) to (1.7).
(1.4) Áo của ai (Trần Trọng Kim et al., 1940) (1.5) Ông ấy cất ngôi nhà để bán (Bùi Đức Tịnh)
(1.6) Viết bằng bút chì (Nguyễn Kim Thản)
(1.7) Nếu thật sự muốn đi tìm chân lý thì tuy thù đồ nhưng nhất định sẽ đồng quy (Cao Xuân Hạo et al., 2005)
The independent-dependent relationship can occur between a noun or noun phrase and its post-modifier, as illustrated in example (1.4) This relationship can also be seen between a predicate and its modifier in examples (1.5) and (1.6), as well as between a sentence and its adverbial clause in example (1.7).
The definition and number of Vietnamese prepositions have been challenging to determine, leading many scholars to overlook this aspect in their research However, this changed in the early 2000s when Trần Quang Hải and Trần Cảnh Hoa systematically identified and listed 40 Vietnamese prepositions These include: bằng, bên, bởi, cho, của, cùng, do, dưới, đặng, để, đến, giữa, hay, hòng, lại, lên, ngoài, nhằm, nhờ, như, nơi, ở, qua, quanh, ra, sang, sau, tại, tận, theo, tới, trên, trong, trước, từ, vào, về, vì, với, and xuống.
Vietnamese linguistics scholars have conducted contrastive analysis studies on Vietnamese and English prepositions to identify their similarities and differences While some recent cognitive linguistics research has focused on prepositions of motion or direction, there is a noticeable gap in studies addressing the broader implications of preposition usage Learners often undervalue prepositions, opting for similar words from their native language, which leads to negative L1 transfer and hinders their ability to achieve fluent, native-like English proficiency Furthermore, there is a lack of cognitive linguistics research specifically examining negative transfer in the use of prepositions.
Statement of the problem
Learning a first language (L1) differs significantly from acquiring a second language (L2), as L2 learners already possess an established linguistic framework This existing knowledge allows them to transfer grammatical concepts from their L1 to their L2, facilitating the learning process until they assimilate new information and develop a unique grammar for the L2 While learners generally follow similar pathways in mastering new aspects of L2, their native language influences the specific types of errors they make For instance, the pronunciation of the English word "HAVE" [hæv] can vary, illustrating how the absence of certain sounds in a learner's mother tongue, such as French, can lead to distinct pronunciation challenges in English.
French learners of English often struggle with the initial 'h' sound, leading them to pronounce words like "have" as [ổv] (Qingya & Xiaojia, 2020) In contrast, German speakers are familiar with the 'h' sound but typically lack a 'v' sound at the end of words, resulting in pronunciations such as [hổf] instead of the correct [hổv] (Němcová, 2019) These examples illustrate the influence of various first languages (L1) on English pronunciation (Daftarifard & Shirkhani, 2011; Jiang, 2011; Seddighi, 2010; Weda & Sakti, 2017).
Language teachers often grapple with the extent to which learners transfer elements from their native language (L1) to their second language (L2) production and how to identify the sources of this transfer Numerous studies indicate that language transfer can occur in various forms, including individual sounds, consonant clusters, entire words, syntactic structures, and semantic features (Bolonyai, 1998; Cardenas-Hagan et al., 2007; Daftarifard & Shirkhani, 2011; Jiang, 2011; Seddighi, 2010; Talebi, 2013; Weda & Sakti, 2017; Yu, 2011) For instance, English speakers often exhibit specific patterns of transfer in their language use.
―Barney frequently wear suits.‖ because English grammar rule governing adverb
In English, the adverb "frequently" typically precedes the verb "wear," as in "Barney frequently wears suits." However, in French, the adverb follows the verb, resulting in the sentence "Barney porte fréquemment des costumes." This difference can lead French speakers of English to incorrectly say, "Barney wears frequently suits."
Vietnamese learners of English face the same challenges when they learn or use English prepositions These challenges can be described as follows:
(i) There are not exactly the same number of prepositions in Vietnamese as there are in English
English prepositions can combine with other words to create multiple meanings, often diverging significantly from their original sense A prime example is the phrasal verb "make up," which can convey eight distinct meanings depending on the context in which it is used.
(iii) There is a significant difference in the way Vietnamese and English speakers understand prepositions
These problems are strongly interlinked with the following examples from (1.8a) to (1.13a):
In the Vietnamese sentences (1.8a) to (1.13a), at least six words serve as prepositions to indicate the relationship between two entities: "mom" and "garden." This relationship is succinctly conveyed in English with the single sentence, "Mom is in the garden." The reference frame, including the Landmark (LM) and Trajector (TR), is visually represented in Figure 1.1.
Figure 1.1 The correct Trajector and Landmark for "Mom is in the garden."
In fact, Vietnamese learners of English often use inappropriate sentences to express this concept in their daily conversations or writing, except for example (2.9b):
(1.8b) Mom is outside of/ out of the garden
(1.9b) Mom is in the garden
(1.10b) Mom is on the garden
(1.11b) Mom is under the garden
(1.12b) Mom is in front of the garden
(1.13b) Mom is behind the garden
In the examples (1.8b, 1.10b-1.13b), they failed to identify the exact LM and
TR in the English frame of reference, so they made mistakes by using terms like
„OUTSIDE‟, „ON‟, „IN‟, „FRONT OF‟, or „BEHIND‟ for the relation between LM and TR illustrated in Figure 1.1 Negative L1 transfer may account for such errors
Vietnamese learners of English often struggle with the correct use of English spatial prepositions, primarily due to the negative transfer from their native language This challenge arises from the limited number of spatial prepositions in Vietnamese compared to the more extensive range found in English, leading to difficulties in accurate usage.
LMTR is typically an ‗implicit landmark‟ in which both speakers and listeners are involved For instance, a talk between a dad and a son in the living room:
Dad: Mẹ con đang ở đâu?
Son: Mẹ đang ở sau vườn
The son indicated, "Mom is behind the garden," reflecting his understanding of spatial relationships shaped by Vietnamese linguistic norms In his cognition, the garden is a landmark at the back of the house, while the yard is in front Although his mother is actually in the garden, his use of the term 'behind' stems from ingrained linguistic conventions rather than an accurate depiction of her location This discrepancy highlights the challenges Vietnamese learners face with English spatial prepositions, particularly the confusion between 'OVER' and 'ABOVE,' as well as 'UNDER' and 'BELOW,' due to their similar meanings Vietnamese speakers utilize a single preposition 'trên' to encompass various spatial concepts that English differentiates, leading to potential misunderstandings in spatial context.
Vietnamese learners often struggle with prepositions when translating sentences like "Quả bóng ở trên đầu anh ấy" into English They may be unsure which preposition accurately describes the position of the ball relative to the man's head In reality, there are at least three possible trajectories that could apply to this scenario, illustrating the complexity of spatial relationships in language.
Figure 1.2 Possible trajectories for “Quả bóng ở trên đầu anh ấy.”
Vietnamese learners of English often struggle to select the appropriate preposition for various contexts, particularly with the word "over," which has a complex semantic network of lexical meanings and thematic roles This difficulty arises because the multiple meanings of "over" are represented by a single word, "trên," in Vietnamese Understanding the diverse trajectories of "over" can be challenging, as illustrated in the semantic network presented in Figure 1.3.
Figure 1.3 “Possible trajectories for “The cat jumped over the wall.” (Lindstromberg,
Cross-linguistic influence (CLI) occurs when knowledge and usage of one language (L1) negatively impacts the use of another language (L2), particularly in the context of prepositions This phenomenon has intrigued scholars since the dawn of international interactions and their effects on languages Historical references to bilingualism and cross-linguistics can be traced back to Homer's Odyssey, where Odysseus comments on the mixed language of Crete The widespread multilingualism of the ancient world has led to various cross-linguistic challenges, evident in personal letters, legal documents, epitaphs, and literary works, highlighting the persistent issues of negative transfer across languages.
Early philosophers and writers have made disparaging remarks about speakers of Greek dialects, reflecting negative attitudes towards Code-Switching and Language Interference (CLI) Researchers suggest that CLI arises from modified linguistic inputs, indicating that contact with other languages directly affects the learning process Furthermore, existing literature highlights that CLI is not solely influenced by linguistic exposure but is also shaped by various aspects of a learner's identity (Jarvis & Pavlenko, 2008).
Prepositions are fundamental elements that convey concepts of space, time, and manner, yet they pose significant challenges for learners due to their arbitrary and unpredictable nature Recent developments in cognitive linguistics have highlighted the semantic complexities of English prepositions, which are often affected by negative transfer from a learner's first language This has led to experimental studies exploring how individuals acquire prepositions, focusing on their meanings in specific contexts Pioneering work in this area, such as Lakoff's 1972 study, systematically examined English prepositions and their acquisition, particularly in relation to motion, location, and action, utilizing frameworks informed by contemporary research on cognitive linguistic approaches.
Aims and Objectives
The CL approach has been underexplored in relation to L1 conceptual transfer, particularly regarding negative L1 transfer in the use of English prepositions This study investigates how significant differences between English and Vietnamese prepositions—both in cognitive understanding and structural composition—lead Vietnamese learners to transfer aspects of their language, culture, and experiences into their English usage By examining various linguistic and non-linguistic factors, the research aims to identify the elements that adversely affect participants' performance with English prepositions.
English prepositions The following issues were examined to set precise and concise objectives for the study
This study aimed to identify the factors leading to negative L1 transfer in the use of English prepositions among Vietnamese learners Eight hypotheses were developed to explore the semantic features of these prepositions that may be misused The research analyzed cross-linguistic similarities to enhance understanding of linguistic transfer, addressing a gap in existing studies that often overlook the practical implications of cognitive grammar in teaching Additionally, factors such as cognitive embodiment, recency, learning environment, L1 acquisition, and language proficiency were examined The study considered Type I error to assess the validity of treatment effects, analyzing data with a significance level set at α = 0.05 Employing survey, empirical, and corpus research techniques, the study aimed to bridge the gap between linguistics and language teaching, contributing valuable insights to the field of applied linguistics.
The study aimed to identify the English preposition choices made by Vietnamese learners, focusing on negative transfer A questionnaire assessed the accuracy of preposition usage while also considering non-linguistic factors such as religion, favorite colors, and location to better understand the influence of L1 culture and background Statistical analyses, including T-tests and Chi-square tests, were employed to compare results between simple and complex prepositions, revealing significant differences in participants' choices The findings highlighted how L1 background and culture impacted Vietnamese learners' preference for simple prepositions over compound or complex ones, with only variables yielding a p-value of 0.05 or less deemed statistically significant in validating the hypotheses.
The study aimed to assess the impact of gender on negative transfer in language learning, utilizing both qualitative and quantitative methods An ANOVA test was conducted to analyze the scores of three groups: males, females, and gender-secretives The findings revealed that gender significantly influenced the use of specific English prepositions, indicating a negative effect of gender on language transfer.
This study examined the complexities and inconsistencies in the meanings of prepositions that often challenge learners It highlighted how participants grappled with the diverse meanings of specific prepositions within their semantic networks Additionally, from a negative transfer standpoint, the research revealed that prepositional errors were shaped by the communicative context, which significantly impacted individual learners' conceptual transfer.
Research questions
This study builds on previous research by examining the underexplored aspects of Contrastive Linguistics (CL) related to L1 transfer, specifically focusing on the factors that hinder the correct use of English prepositions within motivated polysemy networks To address this gap, the author formulated three key research questions aimed at uncovering unresolved issues pertinent to the study's objectives.
1 What factors negatively impact how Vietnamese learners use English prepositions from a cognitive linguistic perspective?
2 How aware are Vietnamese learners of English of the distinction between simple and complex English prepositions?
3 Is there any relationship between gender and the usage of English prepositions among Vietnamese learners of English?
This thesis will explore English prepositional use by Vietnamese learners from a CL perspective by utilizing English assignments based on the three research questions
To achieve this, eight significant hypotheses as follows were setup upon:
Within the domain of RQ 1, the following five hypotheses were set:
Hypothesis 1: Vietnamese intra-lingual interference does not affect prepositional meaning expressed by Vietnamese learners of English
Hypothesis 2 suggests that cognitive embodiment does not significantly influence negative language transfer regarding the usage of specific prepositions Additionally, Hypothesis 3 posits that learners who speak multiple foreign languages do not demonstrate superior proficiency in using English prepositions compared to those who study English as their sole foreign language.
Hypothesis 4: A suitable learning environment has no negative transfer effect on learning English prepositions
Hypothesis 5: There are no significant differences among low, intermediate, and advanced level Vietnamese learners of English in terms of negative transfer affecting specific preposition usage
For the investigation of RQ 2, the author chose the following two hypotheses:
Hypothesis 6: The way in which English is learned does not affect the choice of English prepositions
Hypothesis 7: Vietnamese English learners tend not to use simple English prepositions
For RQ 3, the author formulated the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 8: There are no significant differences between genders in terms of negative transfer when acquiring English prepositions among Vietnamese learners of English.
Definition of terms
To avoid the misconceptions about the objectives of this study, the following terminologies are considered key to the interpretation and are defined as they are used in this study
Communicative competence is pragmatic competence which implicitly refers to knowledge of linguistic norms (e.g., grammar), social norms
(Hymes, 1971; Sage, 2003); appropriate use of target language in a social and cultural context (Tanck, 2002); knowing how to use English language with a high proficiency
Conceptual transfer refers to the cross-linguistic differences and influences in how meaning is mentally constructed and verbally expressed (Jarvis, 2010) There are significant misconceptions surrounding conceptual transfer, particularly regarding its foundational assumptions, including linguistic relativity (Lucy, 1992) and the thinking-for-speaking hypothesis (Slobin, 1996), along with other frameworks (Levelt, 1989; von Studnitz & Green, 2002) In this study, "conceptual transfer" is understood at three distinct levels: as an observation, an approach, and a hypothesis.
Crosslinguistic influence (CLI) refers to how an individual's knowledge of one language affects their understanding or use of another language, a topic that has intrigued both scholars and the general public since ancient times According to Jarvis and Pavlenko (2008), this phenomenon has been a subject of interest ever since the evolution of language Weinreich (1953) identified two levels of CLI: the individual level, often referred to as the "speech level," and the societal level.
In this study, the author explores Cross-Linguistic Influence (CLI) as both a psycholinguistic phenomenon at the individual level and a societal phenomenon related to language contact, specifically focusing on the examination of English prepositions.
In Cognitive Grammar, a "domain" refers to a conceptual entity that serves as a coherent knowledge structure, capable of varying complexity and organization It can represent a concept, semantic frame, or other forms of conceptual complexes, providing a stable context for understanding various conceptual units (Evans, 2007) For example, the conceptual domain of a JOURNEY encompasses representations such as the traveller, mode of transport, route, destination, and obstacles faced along the way.
Embodied cognition posits that human thought and conceptual organization are shaped by our unique bodily interactions with the environment This means that the structure and organization of concepts are influenced by our physical experiences Consequently, since language mirrors conceptual frameworks, it inherently reflects our embodied experiences.
Embodied experience suggests that our understanding of the world is fundamentally shaped by the unique characteristics of our physical bodies This perspective highlights that our perception of reality is significantly influenced by our bodily experiences, leading to a species-specific view of existence (Evans, 2007).
Errors in speech or writing are learned flaws that indicate deviations from natural language performance These mistakes can occur during conversations or in written texts, highlighting the complexities of language use (Evans, 2007).
A foreign language is defined as a language that is learned alongside one's native language, particularly in settings where the target language is not the official language and is not used for everyday communication.
Gestalt is an organized whole or unit The central notion in the movement known as Gestalt psychology (Evans, 2007)
Ground encompasses all aspects of an utterance, including the participants involved, the timing of the conversation, and the immediate physical context The concepts of subjective construal and objective construal are defined in relation to the notion of ground (Evans).
Image schema is an abstract conceptual framework that emerges from our daily interactions and observations of the world, rooted in sensory and perceptual experiences These schemas are shaped by our embodied experiences; for instance, gravity causes unsupported objects to fall, leading us to stoop down to retrieve them while directing our gaze downward for fallen items and upward for those that rise.
Landmark (LM) refers to the secondary participant in a profiled relationship, as defined by Langacker (1987) For instance, in the sentence "Tom is in his house," the term "IN" is used to literally connect the physical Subject or Trajector (Tom) to the physical Landmark (the house).
Language transfer is ―the influence resulting from similarities and differences between the target language and any other language that has been previously (and perhaps imperfectly) acquired.‖ (Odlin, 1989, p 27)
Linguistic transfer, also known as cross-linguistic influence (CLI), impacts various aspects of linguistic and communicative competence This includes phonology, orthography, lexis, semantics, morphology, syntax, discourse, pragmatics, and sociolinguistics, as highlighted by Jarvis and Pavlenko (2008) Understanding these effects is crucial for comprehending how language learners navigate and integrate multiple languages in their communication.
Mistakes in language learning often arise from memory lapses, physical conditions like fatigue, and psychological factors such as strong emotions When learners repeatedly make errors, it typically indicates that they are still in the process of mastering the rules of the target language.
Native language is the learner‘s first language or mother tongue, in this study the author refers to the Vietnamese language
Negative transfer is defined based on four types of errors that second / foreign language learners often produce in their L2 production such as underproduction, overproduction, production errors and misinterpretation (Odlin, 1989)
Recency refers to the phenomenon where languages that an individual has recently used are more readily activated in their mind, especially when learning multiple languages (Poulisse, 1999).
Second language is any language that a person uses other than a first or native language
Target language is the new language the learners are learning (in this study pertaining to English)
The Trajector, often referred to as TR, Subject, or S, serves as the central participant in a defined relationship For instance, in the statement "Tom is in his house," the term 'IN' is used to establish a literal connection between the physical Subject, 'Tom,' and the physical Landmark, 'the house.'
Significance of the study
The findings of the thesis may be of significant benefit to the following people and organisations:
The findings of this study will significantly benefit language schools and institutions by introducing a novel approach to language transfer studies, particularly regarding the use of prepositions Prepositions, being polysemous, offer a rich area for exploration, as their meanings vary based on a user's linguistic competence rather than being confined to a single definition Furthermore, there is a notable gap in existing research concerning the underlying issues related to preposition usage, which this thesis aims to address by focusing on the negative transfer of the first language (L1) on English prepositions among EFL learners in Vietnam This targeted investigation will provide valuable insights into the specific challenges faced by these learners and encourage language institutions to adopt new perspectives on language transfer, paving the way for further research in cognitive linguistics.
The research findings provide essential guidelines for English language teachers and linguistic researchers to address challenging prepositions by taking into account students' cognitive processes and real-life experiences Additionally, the study establishes a clear hierarchy of difficulty for various prepositional concepts based on their contextual usage The summary emphasizes the conceptual framework utilized for analyzing Cross-Linguistic Influence (CLI) related to these words.
The findings of this study will assist English language learners in identifying which prepositions require more focus and practice, helping them to overcome challenges associated with mother tongue interference By highlighting the root causes of prepositional errors, this research aims to mitigate the negative effects of first language influence and address inherent linguistic difficulties Additionally, EFL learners will benefit from preliminary semantic networks that guide them in selecting the correct prepositions for various contexts.
Scope of the study
This study aimed to explore the negative factors impacting the use of English prepositions among Vietnamese learners It focused on the misunderstandings and errors in preposition usage by participants aged 11 and older, who had some prior knowledge of English Responses were categorized into subgroups to better understand the differences influenced by varying cognitive backgrounds While the research did not detail specific linguistic errors, it emphasized the significance of cognitive, experiential, and social contexts, including gender, age, location, leisure activities, and personal preferences These findings highlight the need for further investigation into factors contributing to negative L1 transfer, which differ from established language transfer theories.
Outline of the thesis
The thesis comprises seven chapters, starting with Chapter One, which introduces the challenges faced by EFL learners in using English, particularly focusing on the difficulties with English prepositions This chapter outlines the specific research objectives, key research questions, the significance of the study, its scope, and the overall organization of the thesis.
Chapter Two explores the foundational concepts of CLI research, tracing the evolution of language transfer studies through various perspectives, particularly cognitive linguistics It systematically examines different approaches to language transfer, including behaviorism, syntactic, semantic, and cognitive theories Following a review of relevant literature, a conceptual framework was chosen to establish a theoretical basis for investigating the negative influence of L1 transfer on English preposition usage among Vietnamese learners of English.
Chapter Three provides a comprehensive overview of the design and research methodologies employed to investigate the factors influencing negative L1 transfer, specifically regarding the quality of English preposition usage in relation to eight established hypotheses The chapter outlines both analytical and empirical studies conducted to validate these hypotheses Additionally, it details the data collection process, including data coding audits, normality assessments, validity checks, and criteria for data filtering.
Chapter Four reports the results and discussion of research question 1, factors determining negative L1 transfer in the use of English prepositions by
Vietnamese learners of English often experience negative language transfer, particularly with prepositions, which highlights important implications for both language educators and learners The conclusions drawn from five related hypotheses provide a comprehensive overview of this phenomenon, emphasizing the role of nonverbal factors that are closely linked to the learners' first language Understanding these dynamics is crucial for improving teaching strategies and enhancing language acquisition.
Chapter Five explores the findings related to the second research question regarding the selection of English prepositions by Vietnamese learners It examines the tendency of these learners to favor simple prepositions over more complex alternatives, attributing this preference to negative transfer from their native language Additionally, the chapter delves into the cognitive processes that influence how Vietnamese learners understand and utilize simple English prepositions.
Chapter Six presents the findings and analysis related to the third research question concerning the relationship between gender and language transfer It highlights that females, despite achieving higher overall scores on the questionnaire, exhibit specific instances of negative transfer Additionally, the chapter explores how gender acts as a significant factor in negative transfer from a Contrastive Linguistics perspective The results indicate that gender influences foreign language acquisition and usage, shaped by culturally ingrained expectations of linguistic expressions associated with each gender.
Chapter Seven concludes the thesis by summarizing key findings and implications, offering practical recommendations for language teaching and research It also addresses the limitations of the study, highlighting constraints related to time and scope.
Chapter Two LITERATURE REVIEW AND THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
This chapter explores the limited previous research on the impact of negative language transfer on prepositional usage through the lens of Cognitive Linguistics It defines language transfer, examines related issues and developments, and discusses English prepositions alongside cognitive linguistic research in second language acquisition The chapter highlights the theoretical framework for language transfer and summarizes key contributions to the understanding of English prepositional usage and L1 transfer within the field of Cognitive Linguistics A thorough analysis of the reviewed studies clarifies the issues outlined in the research questions and hypotheses.
Introducing Language transfer
In discussions of second language (L2) acquisition, the concept of "transfer" is commonly referenced alongside "prior language knowledge" and "experience." Transfer refers to the influence of previously acquired linguistic knowledge, such as a learner's first language (L1), on their performance in learning a second language According to Odlin (1989), transfer is defined as the utilization of prior linguistic knowledge to facilitate L2 learning.
“Transfer is the influence resulting from similarities and differences between the target language and any other language that has been previously (and perhaps imperfectly) acquired.”
Odlin (1989) defines transfer as a consequence of linguistic differences and similarities between a speaker's languages, a perspective supported by other researchers (Anderson, 1983; Kellerman, 1995) This viewpoint has led to the development of methodological frameworks for identifying transfer cases (Jarvis, 2000; Jarvis, 2010) However, the nature of transfer remains poorly understood, as highlighted by various studies (Jarvis & Pavlenko, 2008; Smith & Truscott, 2006, 2014; Yu & Odlin, 2016) This lack of understanding poses challenges for the research field, as we can identify instances of transfer but struggle to comprehend the underlying causes and contributing factors.
Transfer in language learning is commonly understood as the process of copying or cloning an existing L1 body of knowledge to create a new L2 body of knowledge This concept draws from the everyday understanding of transfer, such as moving water from one container to another, but is adapted for language learning since L1 knowledge is not simply relocated to L2 Instead, transfer is viewed as preserving the L1 system while hypothesizing that L2 knowledge, which starts as a copy of L1, is subsequently modified by L2 input.
Due to non-equivalents in two disparate languages, language transfer affects L2 acquisition Various terms such as language mixing (Kamimoto et al., 1992), language transfer (Lado, 1957; Odlin, 1989), cross-linguistic interference
The influence of the mother tongue (L1) on second language (L2) acquisition can be both positive and negative (Kellerman & Smith, 1986; Ringbom, 2006; Odlin, 1989) This thesis utilizes the terms "language transfer" and "cross-linguistic interference" interchangeably to describe this phenomenon "Language transfer," first introduced by Lado (1957), refers to the application of L1 forms, meanings, and cultural elements in L2 usage, a concept further refined by Odlin The term "cross-linguistic influence," coined by Kellerman and Smith, also captures this interaction between languages.
Since its introduction in 1986, the term "Crosslinguistic Influence" has gained acceptance and widespread usage, notably by scholars such as Odlin (1989) and Jarvis and Pavlenko (2008) Recently, this concept has evolved to describe a new phase in the development of language transfer, closely linked to advancements in cognitive linguistic research.
Negative transfer occurs when L2 knowledge is not fully updated or appropriately applied, leading to errors This concept raises several questions, such as the underlying causes of transfer, the role of exposure and processing difficulty, and whether the copy-and-restructure model suggests that L1 and L2 knowledge are separate entities Addressing these issues is crucial for understanding the complexities of language transfer in second language acquisition.
In this research, L1 refers to Vietnamese and L2 to English Vietnamese is part of the Viet-Muong branch of the Mon-Khmer language group within the Austro-Asiatic family, while English belongs to the Indo-European family, which includes languages like French, Italian, and German English is classified under the Western languages branch Due to their distinct linguistic backgrounds, Vietnamese and English exhibit differences in parts of speech, particularly in the use of prepositions Vietnamese speakers often overlook prepositions, viewing them as non-notional words, leading to frequent negative transfer of English prepositions in their communication.
Language transfer problems
Problems of definition
Before delving into the concept of transfer, it is essential to clarify what transfer is not clearly defined Odlin (1989) provides a comprehensive definition of transfer in his influential book, "Language Transfer: A".
Crosslinguistic influence in language learning‖ He also criticized some observations that transfer is not appropriate:
(i) Transfer is not considered because of habit formation of the learners (ii) Transfer is not simply interference
(iii) Transfer is not simply a falling back on the native language
(iv) and Transfer is not always native language influence*
Recent advancements in conceptual transfer have led to the rejection of the fourth observation, as numerous studies indicate that L2+ significantly influences L2 performance (Jarvis, 2007; Jarvis & Pavlenko, 2008) Consequently, this observation will be omitted from the current study The following discussion will address three issues pertaining to the definitions of transfer.
Transfer is not considered because of habit formation of the learners Carroll
In 1968, it was argued that the behaviorist notion of transfer differs significantly from the influence of a native language, particularly in the context of contrastive analysis and behaviorism Unlike behaviorism, which often suggests that previous habits must be eliminated, acquiring a second language does not necessarily require the learner to abandon their original language This perspective indicates that behaviorism may not be applicable to the study of language transfer, challenging previous misconceptions (Hakuta, 1986).
Transfer in language learning extends beyond mere interference, as it encompasses various aspects of second language performance, including phonetic errors The influence of a learner's first language (L1) can be beneficial, particularly when the languages share similarities For instance, Vietnamese speakers have a notable advantage in mastering the English consonant sound 'f' compared to Thai or Chinese speakers due to these linguistic similarities While 'interference' is often equated with 'negative transfer,' it is important to recognize positive transfer, which refers to the helpful effects of cognate vocabulary and other resemblances between L1 and L2.
Transfer in language learning extends beyond merely reverting to one's native language; it involves various complexities that highlight the benefits native speakers possess when acquiring a new language For example, Vietnamese learners of English face fewer challenges due to similarities in writing systems compared to Thai or Chinese learners Krashen (1977) suggests that the influence of the first language (L1) manifests through identifiable L1 rules, viewing transfer primarily as a "production technique." While he acknowledges that cross-linguistic influence can aid in listening and reading comprehension, his theory overlooks the long-term effects of language engagement in specific contexts.
Problems with comparison
Thomason and Kaufman (1991) highlight that language transfer studies primarily focus on systematic comparisons between languages through contrastive analyses (CA) While the criteria for identifying language transfer via CA are straightforward, proving these criteria poses significant challenges, leading to varying quality in cross-linguistic comparisons A comprehensive understanding of language transfer extends beyond mere structural comparisons, as L1 influence interacts with non-structural factors (Odlin, 1989) Furthermore, it is essential to analyze the outcomes of diverse learner groups with different native languages to gain deeper insights (Odlin, 1989, p 28) Consequently, the belief that 'linguistic difference' directly correlates with 'linguistic difficulty' is not solely indicative of negative transfer.
Problems of prediction
Wardhaugh (1970) highlights that prediction challenges arise from analyzing learner performance data through cross-linguistic comparisons He identifies key similarities and differences in language transfer, categorizing them as significant factors in understanding language acquisition.
‗positive transfer‘ and (ii) ‗negative transfer‘, which can be further broken into four types: underproduction, overproduction, production errors and misinterpretation; and (iii) differing lengths of acquisition (p 123)
Positive transfer occurs when learners with different native languages show varying levels of success in acquiring a target language, often influenced by the similarities between their first language (L1) and the target language When learners encounter languages with shared characteristics, they can benefit from positive transfer, which can significantly reduce the time required to learn the new language For instance, similarities in vowel systems enable learners to easily recognize vowel sounds, while comparable writing systems enhance their reading and writing skills Additionally, syntactic similarities facilitate grammar acquisition, as learners whose native language shares syntax with the target language face fewer challenges with aspects such as articles, word order, and relative clauses.
Negative transfer is easily identifiable as it results in deviations from the norms of the target language While it is commonly associated with errors in language production, there are also four other ways in which a second language learner's performance can differ from that of native speakers.
Underproduction occurs when learners produce significantly fewer examples of a target language structure compared to their native language, often leading to a phenomenon known as language distance or avoidance This avoidance happens when learners steer clear of using structures in the target language that differ greatly from those in their native language Research indicates that learners, such as Chinese and Japanese students of English, tend to use fewer relative clauses than their peers whose languages share more similarities with English's relative clause patterns (Kleinmann, 1977; Schachter, 1974).
Overproduction occurs as a result of underproduction, where learners, in an attempt to avoid certain grammatical structures, may excessively use others For instance, Chinese and Japanese students often avoid relative clauses in their speech and writing, leading to an overreliance on simple sentences in their productive skills (Bertkua, 1974).
In cross-linguistic comparisons, three common production errors are substitutions, caiques, and structural alterations Substitutions occur when speakers reuse their native language (L1) structures in the target language, such as a native Swedish speaker using the term "bort" in English sentences Caiques reflect similar structures from the native language that are inappropriate in the target language, as seen in a Finnish ESL student's incorrect SVO sentence: "This weekend got Thomas any fish," instead of "This weekend Thomas caught no fish." Additionally, structural alterations, often evident in hypercorrections, can lead to errors like Arabic speakers mistakenly replacing "p" with "b" in English spelling, resulting in words like "blaying," while also misusing "p" in attempts to avoid these substitutions.
Misinterpretation can occur when L1 language structures interfere with the understanding of a target language, leading to negative language transfer Native language influences may cause learners to infer meanings that differ from those intended by native speakers of the target language Additionally, misperceptions of target language sounds, shaped by native phonology, can alter interpretations Variations in word-order patterns and differing cultural norms between the native and target languages further contribute to these misinterpretations.
The distinction between positive and negative transfer is crucial, yet research often emphasizes specific details over the overall impact of cross-linguistic similarities and differences on language learning The cumulative effects of second language acquisition significantly influence these cross-linguistic factors A key aspect to consider is the time learners invest in mastering a language, as variations in course lengths have been linked to transfer (Ringbom, 2006) Therefore, understanding the relationship between course duration and second language acquisition is vital for studying language transfer.
Problems of generalization
The establishment of valid generalizations about language transfer relies heavily on understanding language universals Research in this area focuses not only on features shared by most languages but also on the distinct patterns that set specific languages apart These unique structures are essential for grasping the concept of language transfer.
Noam Chomsky (1957) and Joseph Greenberg (1966) represent two prominent methodologies in the study of linguistic universals Chomsky's approach focuses on a detailed analysis of individual languages to reveal the underlying principles of Universal Grammar, whereas Greenberg's method prioritizes cross-linguistic comparisons to identify commonalities among languages.
“Much, though by no means all, of the work in the Chomskyan approach has focused on various characteristics of the syntax of standard written English
In contrast, Greenbergian analyses have generally focused on the cross- linguistic variations seen in particular structures such as word order.”
Over the past thirty years, the study of language universals has intensified, focusing on the commonalities among human languages Despite this growing interest, researchers have struggled to identify universally applicable linguistic structures, with the only widely accepted notion being that all languages contain vowels A key hypothesis in this field is that Universal Grammar is an innate biological trait that activates during early language acquisition Similar to the inherent program that helps infants learn to walk, there is a corresponding mechanism that facilitates their speech development, as proposed by Chomsky This language acquisition program is typically effective, allowing children to learn to speak naturally and effortlessly, much like their progression to walking.
Language typology research focuses on language transfer through three key aspects: language distance, systematic influences, and developmental sequences Greenberg (1966) highlights that these factors play a significant role in second language acquisition, appearing as either developmental influences, instances of language transfer, or a blend of both.
Typological analyses and contrastive analysis (CA) often incorporate universalist assumptions, despite the universal grammar approach not being limited to any specific language type Two key universalist assumptions underpin this framework: the first asserts that there are categories that can be used to analyze the structures of all languages.
Greenberg's classification asserts that the subject is a universal element across all human languages, a view widely accepted by researchers However, defining what constitutes a 'subject' remains contentious, particularly in relation to the concept of an object The differentiation between subjects and objects is closely linked to an understanding of semantic, syntactic, and discourse properties, as discussed by Bates and MacWhinney (1981), Comrie (1981), Keenan (1975), and Lakoff.
The second assumption posits that equivalent meanings exist at both the discourse and semantic levels across all human languages Without the concept of translation equivalences, cross-linguistic comparisons, such as negation structures, would be impossible This idea is supported by the existence of semantic universals among languages However, the Greenbergian approach, which focused on a limited number of known languages, may not be applicable to unknown languages Consequently, studies grounded in the universal grammar approach should exercise caution when evaluating language transfer.
Language transfer development
Behaviorist view on language transfer
In the 1940s to 1950s, linguistic researcher B.F Skinner proposed that language development is significantly influenced by environmental factors His theory is grounded in two key assumptions: first, that language acquisition occurs through active engagement and repeated responses to stimuli in the target language; and second, that incorrect responses must be corrected to achieve proficiency similar to that of native speakers, while correct forms should be consistently reinforced throughout the learning journey.
Skinner proposed that children acquire language through behaviorist reinforcement principles, linking words to their meanings When children make correct utterances, they receive positive reinforcement, which helps them understand the communicative value of words and phrases.
SLA challenges are influenced by the similarities or differences between a learner's native language and the target language When the languages are similar, such as French and English, positive transfer can facilitate second language acquisition Conversely, when the languages differ significantly, like Vietnamese and English, negative transfer can hinder the learning process.
Later, Lado (1957) applied contrastive analysis theory to SLA under the term Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis (CAH) in the book entitled ―Linguistics across
Contrastive analysis is a method in applied linguistics that examines the similarities and differences between two languages' structures Popular in the 1960s and 1970s, this approach aimed to clarify why certain language elements are more challenging to learn than others Positive language transfer occurs when features of both languages align, while negative transfer arises when there are no equivalents or when the languages belong to distinct linguistic systems.
Mentalist view on language transfer
American linguist Noam Chomsky argues that language acquisition cannot be solely understood as a response to stimuli, as every sentence produced is a unique combination of words He is a key figure in the theory of Mentalism, emphasizing the innate cognitive processes involved in language development.
Mentalism, as proposed by Chomsky, asserts that a child's language ability is innate, evidenced by their capacity to produce and interpret unfamiliar sentences He argues that children can master complex language operations despite limited exposure due to inherent knowledge of universal principles derived from their community This concept is supported by the existence of over 6,000 languages, which, while diverse in grammatical styles, share common syntactic rules Chomsky's theory of "universal grammar" suggests that this innate linguistic knowledge is rooted in the human brain, reflecting individual cultural perspectives through varying grammar styles.
In 1974, Dulay and Burt conducted a significant empirical research project to investigate the hypothesis that children do not rely on language transfer but instead construct a second language as an independent system They introduced the creative construction hypothesis, suggesting that all languages share fundamental elements This perspective led Burt and Krashen to reject the idea of native language transfer, advocating instead for the concept of transfers originating from Universal Grammar (UG).
Critics argue that the mentalist perspective lacks sufficient empirical evidence to support its conclusions, suggesting that linguists may have hastily drawn their findings without a robust foundation.
In the 1980s, mentalists acknowledged their limitations and initiated research projects to explore the connection between native language transfer and Universal Grammar (UG) A notable study during this period was conducted by Zobl, focusing on the formal and developmental selectivity of first language (L1) influence on second language (L2) acquisition.
Zobl's transfer hypothesis posits that the properties of the target language and Universal Grammar (UG) influence the transferability of language features While their research has moved beyond criticism from a mentalist perspective, it continues to face scrutiny due to insufficient empirical backing.
Cognitive view of language transfer
The cognitive view of language learning, developed in response to the limitations of the mentalist perspective, posits that acquiring a language is a complex cognitive skill involving processes such as perception, memorization, problem-solving, and information processing (Kamimoto et al., 1992) Key language skills, including the use of grammatical rules, appropriate vocabulary selection, and adherence to pragmatic conventions, are integral to this learning process (McLaughlin, 1990) As learners engage with the target language, they must organize and restructure their existing knowledge, linking it to new information to achieve fluency This progression is characterized by fluctuations in skill levels, as McLaughlin (1990) illustrates that language performance is not linear but rather resembles a curve, reflecting the challenges and advancements in mastering a second language.
“Performance may follow a U-shaped curve, declining as more complex internal representations replace less complex ones, and increasing again as skill becomes expertise.”
Therefore, cognitive linguistics viewed language transfer not solely as the result of topological similarity or difference but also as interacting with other (linguistic/ nonlinguistic) factors (Faerch & Kasper, 1987)
Jarvis and Pavlenko (2008) outline a four-phase framework for transfer research in language and cognition The first phase involves identifying potential explanans that may influence second language acquisition (SLA), where researchers focus on recognizing instances of language transfer and measuring its effects The second phase treats the transfer phenomenon as an independent variable, aiming to verify transfer effects, identify their causes, and explore their constraints and selectivity The third phase emphasizes the development of theories to explain the phenomenon within the context of social, situational, and mental factors, including the formulation of CLI models and empirical research Finally, the fourth phase, which overlaps with the previous two, examines the neurophysiology of language production and storage in the brain.
English prepositions
English prepositions from the Morphological perspective
English prepositions are unique in that they do not undergo inflection like nouns, verbs, adjectives, and adverbs While they remain uninflected, historical developments in the English language have led to the formation of certain prepositions through specific inflections For instance, during the Middle English period, the suffixes –ward or -s were added to existing prepositions to create new forms, such as "onward" and "towards."
The emergence of new adverbs like southward, backward, and eastward highlights a notable linguistic trend (Nevalainen, 1999) From a morphological perspective, this phenomenon provides a clearer understanding of bound prepositions compared to complex ones These developments play a crucial role in distinguishing English prepositions and their forms, contributing significantly to linguistic research.
English prepositions from the Syntactic perspective
From a syntactic perspective, English prepositions are examined at both the phrase and clause levels A prepositional phrase (PP) is formed by a head preposition paired with an object or complement, usually a noun phrase (NP) (Delahunty & Garvey, 2010) Several examples of typical prepositional phrases illustrate this structure effectively.
(2.2a-e): a on the waterfront b of human bondage c beyond the blue horizon d from the halls of Montezuma e with malice toward none
(Delahunty & Garvey, 2010) The structure of PPs can be summarized as follows:
Alternatively, its basic elements can also be represented by the following diagram:
In prepositional phrases (PPs), the preposition (P) serves as the head, governing the entire phrase along with its complement or object Typically, the preposition precedes the nouns, which can be further modified by an adjective to create a noun phrase (NP).
(2.3c) In examples (2.3d) and (2.3e), one PP can be found inside the other This type of PP can be represented in the following diagram of example (2.3e)
Pro with malice toward none
It is important to distinguish between a preposition and a particle in examples (2.4-2.8):
(2.4) He fell off the cliff
(2.6) He fell off of the cliff
(2.7) She came in the house
In the provided examples, the word "OFF" serves as a preposition in example (2.4) and as an adverb in examples (2.5) and (2.6) Similarly, "IN" functions as a preposition in example (2.7) and as an adverb in example (2.8) Additionally, the prepositions in examples (2.5), (2.6), and (2.8) are closely linked to the main verbs, classifying them as particles.
Furthermore, English prepositions can also act as subordinate adverbial conjunctions This usage of the preposition „AFTER‟ can be seen in sentences (2.9)
(2.9) We started the exam after 9 o‘clock
(2.10) We started the exam after hearing the bell
(2.11) We started the exam after the teacher told us to begin
In the examples provided, the word "AFTER" serves different grammatical functions In examples (2.9) and (2.10), "AFTER" acts as a preposition, appearing before the noun phrase "9 o'clock" and the gerund "hearing the bell." Conversely, in example (2.11), "AFTER" functions as a subordinate conjunction, as it precedes the clause "the teacher told us to begin."
In summary, English prepositions in prepositional phrases can function as prepositions, particles, or subordinate conjunctions, depending on their role in sentences The syntax of English prepositions primarily involves phrases and clauses, highlighting their significance in the language This complexity contributes to the challenges faced by English learners from diverse linguistic backgrounds.
English prepositions from the Cognitive Linguistics Perspective
2.4.3.1 The trajector/ subject and landmark of prepositions
Recent interest in the semantic perspective of prepositions has highlighted their complex networks of meaning, attracting the attention of modern linguists The mapping of prepositional meanings and their relationships with other parts of speech is both extensive and unpredictable Spatial prepositions specifically define relationships through the concepts of trajector (TR) and landmark (LM) While the foundational meanings of these terms have been established by researchers like Lakoff and Johnson, Lindstromberg introduced the term "Subject" as an alternative for "trajector," although he retained the term "Landmark."
‗The most typical preposition is a word which says where one physical thing is located in relation to another.‘ (Lindstromberg, 2010, p 6)
(2.12) There is a candle on the table
(2.13) This [photo] is of her with her best friend
In the example provided, "a candle" serves as the theme referent (TR), while "the table" acts as the location marker (LM), with the preposition "ON" illustrating the spatial relationship between the two This indicates that "ON" functions as a preposition of place, highlighting that the candle is the object of focus for the speaker or writer Additionally, it is noted that the LM, typically larger than the TR, is not commonly described as being beneath the TR, as seen in the unusual phrasing "There is a table under the candle."
Lindstromberg (2010) categorizes individuals as Theme Referents (TR) and Location Markers (LM) in the context of prepositions, exemplified by the sentence, "This [photo] is of her with her best friend," where "her" serves as the TR and "her friend" as the LM Additionally, TR and LM can be plural, as demonstrated in the sentence, "There were some candles on the tables."
The term "domain," introduced by Langacker in the 1980s, refers to cognitive domains as mental experiences, representational spaces, or conceptual complexes These domains encompass the cognitive processes occurring within a sentient mind and the spatial relationships that shape them Radden and Dirven (2007) categorize prepositional meanings into three domains: spatial, temporal, and abstract, highlighting that prepositions often function across multiple domains in real-life contexts For instance, "IN" can denote spatial relationships, as in "IN the class," or temporal contexts, such as "IN 2015," and may also involve metaphorical mappings that require distinguishing between source and target domains While the concept of domain is extensive, Langacker's work provides a useful framework for understanding it This article will explore the English prepositions "in," "on," and "at" within these three domains.
Table 2.1 The domains for three English prepositions: AT, ON, and IN
AT At the theater At noon At war
ON On the street On Monday 24 hours on call
IN In the class In 2015 In love
Because of the different understandings of the concept ―image schema‖ in
The categorization of English prepositions' image schema involves various terms and classifications, with the most prevalent being a partial schema that connects concrete structures to abstract meanings Lakoff and Johnson (1980, 1983, 2008) initially defined image schema, highlighting its roots in bodily experiences.
Image schemas are fundamental structures that emerge from our everyday bodily experiences, such as CONTAINERS, PATHS, LINKS, FORCES, and BALANCE They are organized in various orientations and relations, including UP-DOWN, FRONT-BACK, PART-WHOLE, and CENTER-PERIPHERY These image-schematic structures, along with "basic level" concepts, hold intrinsic meaning due to their frequent and direct experiences shaped by our body's interactions with the environment.
In 1987, Johnson introduced various schemas associated with physical experiences, including PART-WHOLE, CENTER-PERIPHERY, LINK, CONTACT, ADJACENCY, SUPPORT, BALANCE, and CONTAINER These concepts are effectively illustrated using three common prepositions, particularly highlighting the notion of CONTAINMENT represented by the preposition "IN."
CONTACT for „ON,‟ and ADJACENCY for „AT.‟
Research on metaphor has garnered significant attention, revealing its cognitive nature and influence on thought processes in everyday life For instance, phrases like "He is happy" and "He is feeling up" convey the same meaning despite their different wording, illustrating the synonymous relationship between the abstract concept of happiness and the metaphorical use of "up." This highlights the effectiveness of the cognitive perspective in understanding the polysemic nature of prepositions Conceptual metaphor theory underscores that approximately 70% of our everyday language is rooted in conceptual metaphors, which are deeply embedded in our interactions with the socio-physical world Metaphor serves as a fundamental instrument of thought, allowing us to understand abstract subjects through more concrete ones via cross-domain mappings, thereby shaping the relationship between the source and target domains.
Tyler and Evans (2001) argue that the concepts expressed in language largely stem from human perceptions of spatial and physical experiences Their research focuses on the expression of spatial scenes, emphasizing the role of embodied cognition, which encompasses various approaches They propose that cognition is influenced not only by the brain but also by the physical body, as supported by Gibbs (2005) and Shapiro (2007) Additionally, Lakoff (2012) contributes to this discussion on embodiment, highlighting its significance in understanding cognition.
The CL framework incorporates various grounding theories in gesture communication, as explored by Adams and Aizawa (2010) and Arbib (2012) Additionally, it draws on Anderson's concept of 'neural reuses' (2015), Goldman's 'bodily formats of thought' (2012), and Gallagher and Zahavi's 'front-loaded phenomenology of mind' (2008) Furthermore, it includes O'Regan and Noë's 'sensorimotor accounts of vision and visual consciousness' (2001), highlighting the interdisciplinary nature of these theories in understanding cognitive processes.
Embodiment encompasses various definitions, primarily focusing on the relationship between the mind and body (Dancygier, 2017, p 11) Cognitive embodiment illustrates how language mirrors our experiences and cognitive capabilities in relation to the physical environment we inhabit and understand.
Our perception of the world is shaped by our physiological and neural makeup, which influences the way we form thoughts and concepts This perspective is backed by extensive research, leading us to assert that meaning is fundamentally embodied.
This study investigates cognitive embodiment to analyze the meanings and uses of spatial prepositions It explores how the first language negatively influences English preposition usage among Vietnamese learners, highlighting the impact of language transfer on their English proficiency.