國立臺灣師範大學英語學系

碩 士 論 文

Master Thesis

Graduate Institute of English

National Taiwan Normal University

台灣學生英語介系詞之第二語言習得

Second Language Acquisition of English Spatial Prepositions

by Taiwanese Students

指導教授：陳純音博士

Advisor: Dr. Chun-yin Doris Chen

研究生：楊雅婷

Student: Ya-ting Gina Yang

中 華 民 國 一 百 零 二 年 六 月

June, 2013

i

摘要

本研究旨在探討以中文為母語的學生對四類英語介系詞之第二語言習得，主要的議

題包括對不同空間類型的介系詞之習得順序、介系詞之習得是否受到空間概念(接觸及

非接觸)的影響、介系詞在具體及抽象意義上的習得是否不同、題型效應以及英語能力

是否影響介系詞之習得。本研究採用兩個實驗題型：文法判斷題與語句完成題，試題皆

以情境式對話呈現。受試者為八十位以中文為母語的大一學生以及二十位英語母語人

士，依據其英語程度，分為初、中初、中高以及高四組。

整體實驗結果顯示，受試者在學習英語介系詞時，受到空間概念詮釋、第一語言轉

移以及第二語言複雜度的影響。根據受試者的表現，在四種空間類型的介系詞中，面及

體的介系詞表現最好，最易習得；而點及線的介系詞最讓受試者感到最困難。在空間概

念的影響上，蘊含接觸概念的英語介系詞較易習得，而受試者對於蘊含非接觸概念的英

語介系詞表現較差，較難習得。此外，受試者對介系詞在具體意義上的表現較好，而對

於介系詞在抽象意義上的表現較差，顯示介系詞的抽象意義較難習得。在題型效應方

面，受試者在文法判斷題的表現比語句完成題的表現來得好，顯示介系詞之理解優先於

其表達。另外，英語程度的因素也證實會影響介系詞之習得，受試者的表現隨著其英語

能力的提升而進步。

關鍵字：空間介系詞、空間概念、情境效應、題型效應、語言程度效應、第二語言習得

ii

ABSTRACT

English prepositions are considered notoriously difficult that even learners at a high

proficiency level in English may still have to contend with them (Celce-Murcia and

Larsen-Freeman 1983, 1999). However, little research explored the issue in both

comprehension and production of English spatial prepositions by Chinese EFL learners.

Therefore, the present study aims to conduct an empirical study to investigate Chinese

learners’ acquisition of four types of English spatial prepositions. A comprehension task (i.e.,

grammaticality judgment task) and a production task (i.e., sentence completion task) were

designed, both of which were presented in conversations. Factors such as difficulty order,

spatial information effects, context effects, task effects, and L2 proficiency effects were

examined. The subjects were eighty college freshmen in Taiwan and they were further

divided into four groups (low, mid-low, mid-high, and advanced) according to their English

proficiency levels. In addition, twenty native speakers of English were recruited as a control

group.

The overall results showed that the four geometric types of English prepositions

exhibited different degrees of difficulty. Surface and Volume were found the easiest while

Point and Line were found the most difficult to acquire. Moreover, English prepositions with

the Contact spatial information were found easier than those with the Non-contact spatial

information for the subjects to acquire, due to L1 interference and L2 semantic complexity.

Furthermore, it was found that our L2 learners performed better on literal contexts, whereas

they had more difficulty in acquiring English prepositions in metaphorical contexts owing to

the lack of transparency and a high degree of conventionality of some extended meanings.

With regard to task effects, our subjects consistently performed better on the comprehension

task than the production task, implying that comprehension preceded production in L2

acquisition. Finally, with regard to L2 proficiency effects, it was found that the subjects at

iii

higher proficiency levels performed better than the lower proficiency groups, and the

subjects’ performances improved with the increase in their proficiency levels.

Keywords: spatial prepositions, spatial information, context effects, task effects,

proficiency effects, second language acquisition

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This thesis would not have been possible without the assistance of many people. I am

very grateful to those who have contributed in direct or indirect ways to this thesis.

First of all, I would like to express my indebtedness to my thesis advisor, Dr. Chun-yin

Doris Chen who led me into the field of second language acquisition. In the process of my

thesis writing, her expert suggestions and guidance helped me to develop and organize the

thesis and her patience and encouragement always made me keep looking on the bright side

and working with confidence.

Further, I would like to show my deepest respect and gratitude to my thesis committee

members, Prof. Nai-xian Lindsey Chen and Prof. Shu-hui Eileen Chen for their insightful

remarks and constructive advice on my thesis proposal. Their meticulous reading and

invaluable comments and suggestions improve the quality of this thesis.

Many thanks are also owed to Tammy Chang, Janet Chu, Irene Lu, Bess Tzean, and

Julian Yang by alphabetical order. Without their kindly help, I could not have recruited

enough subjects and collect data efficiently. I am also grateful to those English native

speakers who were willing to spend their time participating in the experiment.

In addition, I would like to express my heartfelt appreciation to all the other professors

who taught me during my graduate school year at the Department of English, National

Taiwan Normal University (NTNU): Dr. Yung-O Biq, Dr. Hsaio-hui Chan, Dr. Maio-hsia

Chang, Dr. Miao-ling Hsieh, Dr. Jen-I Li, Dr. Hsueh-O Lin, Dr. Hsi-yao Su, Dr. Kwock-ping

Tse, Dr. Hsiao-hung Wu by alphabetical order. Their teaching and intellectual inspirations

brought me to the immense field of linguistics.

Moreover, my gratitude is extended to all my classmates of the MA Program in

Linguistics, NTNU: Alison Chan, Katherine Chen, Helen Chien, Lina Chiu, Monica Hsu,

Abbie Hsu, Sam Jheng, Ann Lee, Vicky Lin, Stella Liu, Bonnie Wei, and Bebe Wu by

v

alphabetical order. I gained much benefit from their knowledge, experiences, and friendship.

Special thanks go to my forever warmhearted great friends: Kevin Cheng, Jerry Chuang,

Winnie Hsiao, Claire Huang, Craig Hwang, and Pomme Tasi for all the laughter, courage and

support during my lows and highs, and for contributing for all the great moments and

wonderful memories that I always carry in my heart.

Last and most importantly, I am forever grateful to my beloved family for showing me

support, love and understanding, for believing in me when I did not, for listening and

reasoning with me. They are always tolerant of my emotional fluctuations and give me

support when I encounter difficulties. I would like to dedicate this thesis to them.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHINESE ABSTRACT .................................................................................................. i

ENGLISH ABSTRACT................................................................................................. ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .......................................................................................... iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS .............................................................................................. vi

LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................ ix

LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................... xi

Chapter One Introduction ........................................................................................... 1

1.1 Motivation ........................................................................................................ 1

1.2 Theoretical Background ................................................................................. 4

1.3 Research Questions ........................................................................................ 8

1.4 Significance of the Study ............................................................................... 8

1.5 Terms Defined in the Study ............................................................................. 9

1.6 Organization of the Thesis ............................................................................. 9

Chapter Two Literature Review .............................................................................. 10

2.1 Theoretical Approaches to Spatial Prepositions .......................................... 10

2.1.1 Landau and Jackendoff’s (1993) Approach ......................................... 10

2.1.2 Coventry and Garrod’s (2004) Functional Geometric Account .......... 14

2.1.3 Summary .............................................................................................. 19

2.2 Previous Empirical Studies of English Spatial Prepositions ....................... 20

2.2.1 Coventry, Carmichael and Garrod (1994) ............................................. 20

2.2.2 Lin (2004) .............................................................................................. 23

2.2.3 Hsu (2005) ........................................................................................... 26

2.2.4 Lin (2009) .............................................................................................. 28

2.2.5 Summary ............................................................................................. 30

2.3 A New Approach to Spatial Prepositions in English and Chinese ............... 32

2.3.1 Point Description ................................................................................... 33

2.3.1.1 Contact ..................................................................................... 33

2.3.1.2 Non-Contact ........................................................................... 34

vii

2.3.2 Line Description .................................................................................... 35

2.3.2.1 Contact ..................................................................................... 36

2.3.2.2 Non-Contact ........................................................................... 37

2.3.3 Surface Description ............................................................................. 38

2.3.3.1 Contact ..................................................................................... 38

2.3.3.2 Non-Contact ........................................................................... 39

2.3.4 Volume Description ............................................................................. 40

2.3.4.1 Contact ..................................................................................... 40

2.3.4.2 Non-Contact ........................................................................... 41

2.3.5 Summary .............................................................................................. 42

2.4 Summary of Chapter Two ............................................................................ 44

Chapter Three Research Design ................................................................................ 46

3.1 Subjects .......................................................................................................... 46

3.2 Methods and Materials ................................................................................... 47

3.2.1 The Comprehension Task ...................................................................... 48

3.2.2 The Production Task .............................................................................. 50

3.3 Procedures ...................................................................................................... 52

3.3.1 Pilot Study ............................................................................................. 53

3.3.2 Formal Study ......................................................................................... 54

3.3.3 Scoring and Statistical Analysis ............................................................ 55

3.4 Summary of Chapter Three ............................................................................ 56

Chapter Four Results and Discussion ....................................................................... 57

4.1 Learning Difficulty of Geometric Types of English Prepositions ................. 57

4.1.1 Overall Findings ................................................................................. 57

4.1.2 General Discussion ............................................................................. 62

4.2 Contact vs. Non-Contact Spatial Information ................................................ 64

4.2.1 Overall Findings ................................................................................. 64

4.2.2 General Discussion ............................................................................. 67

4.3 Literal vs. Metaphorical Contexts .................................................................. 70

4.3.1 Overall Findings ................................................................................. 70

viii

4.3.2 General Discussion ............................................................................. 72

4.4 Task Effects .................................................................................................... 74

4.4.1 Overall Findings ................................................................................. 74

4.4.2 General Discussion ............................................................................. 77

4.5 Proficiency Effects ......................................................................................... 79

4.6 Summary of Chapter Four ............................................................................. 81

Chapter Five Conclusion........................................................................................... 82

5.1 Summary of the Major Findings .................................................................... 82

5.2 Pedagogical Implications ............................................................................... 83

5.3 Limitations of the Present Study and Suggestions for Future Research ........ 84

Bibliography ................................................................................................................ 86

Appendix A: Results of the Pilot Study ....................................................................... 91

Appendix B: Consent Form ......................................................................................... 93

Appendix C: The Sentence Completion Task .............................................................. 94

Appendix D: The Grammaticality Judgment Task ...................................................... 98

ix

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2-1 An Example of the LS Task in Coventry et al.’s (1994) Study .................. 21

Table 2-2 An Example of the SC Task in Coventry et al.’s (1994) Study ............... 21

Table 2-3 Major Findings and Limitations of the Previous Studies ........................... 31

Table 2-4 A Comparison of Spatial Prepositions in English and Chinese ................. 43

Table 3-1 A Summary of the Subjects ........................................................................ 47

Table 3-2 Test Items Designed for the Grammatical Judgment Task ...................... 49

Table 3-3 A Test Sample for Part I of the GJ Task .................................................. 50

Table 3-4 A Test Sample for Part II of the GJ Task ................................................. 50

Table 3-5 Test Items Designed for the Sentence Completion Task .......................... 51

Table 3-6 A Test Sample for Part I of the SC Task .................................................. 52

Table 3-7 A Test Sample for Part II of the SC Task ................................................. 52

Table 4-1 Subjects’ Overall Performances on the Four Geometric Types of

English Prepositions.................................................................................. 58

Table 4-2 The p-values for the within-group Differences among the Four Geometric

Types of English Prepositions .................................................................. 60

Table 4-3 The p-values for the Four Geometric Types of English Prepositions ........ 61

Table 4-4 Subjects’ Overall Performances on the Contact and Non-Contact Spatial

Information in the Four Geometric Types of English Prepositions .......... 65

Table 4-5 The p-values for the within-group Differences between the Contact and

Non-Contact Spatial Information about English Prepositions .................. 66

Table 4-6 The p-values for the Contact and Non-contact Spatial Information about

the English Prepositions ............................................................................ 66

Table 4-7 Subjects’ Overall Performances on English Prepositions in Literal and

Metaphorical Contexts .............................................................................. 70

Table 4-8 The p-values for the within-group Difference between the

English Prepositions in Literal and Metaphorical Contexts ..................... 71

Table 4-9 The p-values for English Prepositions in Literal and

Metaphorical Contexts .............................................................................. 72

x

Table 4-10 Subjects’ Overall Performances on the SC Task and the GJ Task ........... 75

Table 4-11 The p-values for the within-group Differences on the SC Task and

on the GJ Task ........................................................................................ 76

Table 4-12 The p-values for the SC Task and the GJ Task ........................................ 76

xi

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2-1 Component Parts of the Functional Geometric Framework ................... 16

Figure 3-1 The Procedures of the Study ................................................................... 56

Figure 4-1 Overall Performances of Each Group on the Four Geometric Types

of English Prepositions ............................................................................. 59

Figure 4-2 Overall Performances of Each Group on the Contact and

Non-Contact Spatial Information .............................................................. 65

Figure 4-3 Overall Performances of Each Group on English Prepositions in Literal

and Metaphorical Contexts ....................................................................... 71

Figure 4-4 Overall Performances of Each Group on the SC Task and the GJ Task ... 75

Figure 4-5 Subjects’ Performances on the Four Geometric Types of

English Prepositions in the SC Task and in the GJ Task .......................... 77

Figure 4-6 The Developmental Stages of the English Prepositions ........................... 79

Figure 5-1 The Meaning Extension of the Preposition at ........................................... 84

1

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Motivation

English prepositions play a key role not only in clarifying relationships between time and

space but also in expressing of abstract notions carried by a verb. Different abstract meanings

and functions of prepositions are derived from the interaction between our bodily experiences

and spatial experiences (Langacker 1987, Brugman and Lakoff 1988, Lindstromberg 1996,

1997).

Some studies of spatial categorizations in second language acquisition lay great stress on

prototypicality (Ijaz 1986) and others focus more on conceptual mappings, acquisition orders,

facilitating factors affecting the acquisition of spatial relations (Becker and Carroll 1997).

Besides, many cross-linguistic studies have found that among different spatial relations,

containment and contiguity/support are acquired first in the acquisition sequence (Johnston

and Slobin 1979, Johnston 1985a, Sinha, Thorseng and Hayashi 1994). These studies show

that English prepositions are difficult for EFL learners. In Taiwan, there have not been many

studies focusing on L2 learners’ acquisition of English prepositions (Hsu 2006, Lin 2004, Lin

2009); however, some studies concerning English writing have stated that English

prepositional phrases are among the major misuses to account for learner errors (Chen 2002,

Tang 2004, Tseng 2002). In spite of various meanings of prepositions, as Celce-Murcia and

Larsen-Freeman (1999) pointed out, in order to help students learn more abstract senses of

prepositions, familiarizing them with the spatial relations is the first step, since one

preposition may generate distinct spatial relationships, as illustrated below.

(1) The man is in the house.

(2) There is a picture on the wall.

(3) They both live on this street.

2

(4) Two police officers are standing at the corner.

(5) The boy throws the mud at the wall.

(6) Mom likes shopping at the supermarket.

Sentence (1) shows that the preposition in only has a spatial meaning (i.e., enclosure) while

the preposition on as in (2) and (3) has two spatial meanings (i.e., contact, along) and the

preposition at as in (4-6) denotes three different spatial meanings (i.e., point, target, and

general area). It is likely that these different senses may increase complication for EFL

learners when they identify spatial information of on and at. Furthermore, the learning

difficulty will also increase when these prepositions are extended to metaphorical contexts.

As shown in the following examples, other than the spatial sense, the preposition in can be

used to demonstrate the temporal sense in (7) and much more abstract senses in (8) and (9).

(7) There are two semesters in a school year.

(8) Vacuum cleaners are in common use.

(9) She spoke more in disappointment than in anger.

In addition, the difficulties of learning English prepositions with different usages have

been pointed out by some previous studies (Khampang 1974, Rastall 1994). The most

common difficulty L2 learners confronted with is the loose correspondence between L1 and

L2 in their spatial uses of prepositions. The difference between L1 and L2 can be explicated

by the one-to-many correspondence in which zai in Chinese corresponds to in, on, or at in

English. As (10)-(12) show, zai in Chinese is corresponding to on, in, and at in English.

(10) a. Ta zhu zai Zhongzheng lu (shang).

3SG live at Zhongzheng road (on)

b. He/She lives on Zhongzheng Road.

(11) a. Ta zai jiaotang (li) daogao.

3SG at church (in) pray

b. He/She is praying in the church.

3

(12) a. Ta zai juhui shang yudao yi wei gaozhong tongxue.

3SG at party on meet a CL senior high school classmate

b. He/She met one of his/her senior high school classmates at the party.

In addition, as (10)-(12) show, Chinese spatial expressions are presented in the structure of

‘Figure + zai + Ground + (postposition)’. Whereas English prepositional expressions

normally involve a locative prepositional phrase with whatever the phrase modifies (e.g.,

nouns, clause), there are three simple types of English locative expressions pointed out by

Herskovits (1986: 7) which are shown in (13)-(15).

(13) The spider on the wall.

(14) The spider is on the wall.

(15) There is a spider on the wall.

They come in the structure of ‘Figure + Preposition + Ground’ in which they can be

structured by one preposition with two noun phrases as in (13), or around a copulative verb as

in (14), or even with an existential quantifier as in (15). Therefore, the specific spatial relation

in English prepositional phrases is usually neglected due to the cross-linguistic differences

between the two languages. Also, L2 learners, even with a high level of proficiency, are often

confused with wide varieties of meanings and functions of English prepositions

(Celce-Murcia and Larsen-freeman 1999). However, few studies provide insights into their

conceptual mapping process in Chinese EFL learners’ acquisition of prepositions.

Task effects have been often discussed in the acquisition research (Larsen-Freeman 1976,

Tarone 1985) and the relation between comprehension and production has also been a hot

issue to be concerned. It is commonly assumed that comprehension precedes production

(McCarthy 1954) and that different task demands would yield different performance scores

(Munnich, Flynn and Martohardjono 1994). There are some studies concerning spatial

representation examined with rotation tasks (Levinson 2001, 2003, Li and Gleitman 2002),

naming and spatial memory tasks (Munnich et al. 2001). Munnich, Landau and Dosher (2001)

4

further claimed that the contextual information provided in their task significantly influenced

performance on memory tasks. Moreover, some psycholinguistic researches have mentioned

the strong effect of context to the processing of metaphoric language (Gibbs 1984, Keysar

1989).

Therefore, the present study aims to conduct an experiment to examine Chinese-speaking

students’ acquisition of English spatial prepositions. Possible influential factors, L1 transfer,

cognitive universal, and L2 proficiency will be taken into consideration to see if these factors

affect the performance of Chinese-speaking subjects on different types of prepositions. Both

comprehension and production tasks will be employed and the results of the two tasks will be

compared to see if subjects perform differently.

1.2 Theoretical Background

There have been a multitude of spatial semantic concepts discussed in the literature, and

some of them are presented quite often and become the essential nature of spatial concepts as

universal (e.g., Talmy 2000, Levinson 2003, Tyler and Evans 2003). The terms “trajector”

(TR) and “landmark” (LM) have been widely used in cognitive semantics. As Langacker

(1987) claimed, “landmark” refers to the reference entity which can be static, dynamic, a

person or an object, or a whole event while “trajector” refers to the entity whose location is of

relevance. The TR-LM relation is closely related to the notions of figure and ground (Talmy

1975, 1983, 2000, Levinson 1996, 2003). Moreover, Jackendoff (1990) and Landau and

Jackendoff (1993) draw attention on spatial representations underlying object nouns and

spatial prepositions by discussing geometric properties and distinctions of figures, reference

objects, and regions in English. Certain geometric types (points, lines, surfaces, and volume),

their axial structure, and quantity are regarded as the constraints on figure or reference

objects in spatial expressions. Another related concept is “path.” In a more common usage,

“path” refers to actual trajectory or imagined motion of the trajectory with respect to

5

landmark (Talmy 1983, Lakoff 1987). From the cross-linguistic generalization, the alternative

usage of “path” is called “minimal path,” which distinguishes three components of a motion

event, involving beginning, middle, and end (Jackendoff 1990). In this regard, the meaning of

preposition into is derived by combining the minimal path information (e.g., end) with region

information (e.g., interior).

Furthermore, two kinds of spatial organization as the axial structure of the reference

object and contact/support with respect to its surface were examined by Munnich, Landau

and Dosher (2001). It was found that both properties of spatial organization were likely to be

fundamental to language and cognition. Although the axial structure seems to be an

obligatory property of spatial language and encoded in all languages (Hayward and Tarr

1995), Munnich, Landau and Dosher (2001) further found out that contact/support showed a

strong effect in their language and memory tasks even there were clear cross-linguistic

differences in obligatory linguistic use of these terms. For example, their English speakers

tended to obligatorily encode contact/support with on when their attentions focused strongly

on support and encode the lack of contact/support with above. However, such distinction was

rarely encoded in Korean, that is, the contact or non-contact relation between the figure and

the ground is not specifically signified in Korean. Also, when using contact terms, their

Japanese speakers symmetrically focused around the reference object while their English

speakers focused on the top side than the other sides. Therefore, these properties such as axial

structure and contact/support of spatial organization appeared to constitute strong universal in

spatial cognition. Based on these different discussions over the spatial language, the present

study attempts to integrate geometric types (points, lines, surfaces, and volumes) and

extra-geometric information (dynamic-kinematic routines and object knowledge) in order to

figure out how conceptual mapping varies between Chinese and English.

Different from spatial uses, the abstract uses of prepositions are claimed to be learned

individually and hence convey idiomatic meanings (Yates 1999). There are some pieces of

6

evidence showing that spatial language can be used to structure abstract concepts. In other

words, prepositions can be regarded as productive metaphorical devices. As Lakoff and

Johnson (1980) mentioned, due to spatial metaphors and extended uses of spatial prepositions,

spatial representations are basic and act as productive means for metaphors. The fact that

spatial terms can be used in temporal contexts (Clark 1973, Traugott 1978, Heine 1997,

Boroditsky 2000, and Gentner, Imai and Boroditsky 2002), emotional contexts (Nagy 1974),

communication (Reddy 1979) and other domains of experiences is also confirmed by Keysar,

Shen, Glucksberg and Horton (2000). To process the metaphorical extensions, image schemas

can be used to account for metaphorical extensions in various uses of prepositions. Heine et

al. (1991) observed a tendency in the process of categorical metaphors, as follows:

(16) PERSON > OBJECT > ACTIVITY > SPACE > TIME > QUALITY

This procession of metaphorical extension starting from PERSON to QUALITY is

unidirectional and always proceeds from concrete to abstract. In addition, Boers (2000a,

2000b) suggested that learners’ comprehension be enhanced by drawing their attention to the

literal sense. Since figurative expressions are derived from their literal senses, they can be

traced back to a limited number of source domains while retaining aspects of spatial

meanings systematically. As the aforementioned, geometry and function of the figure-ground

relationship have been regarded as factors which distinguish spatial prepositions. In this way,

in tends to be used if the geometry of spatial relationship denotes inclusion of the figure in

the ground and if the ground functions as a container for the figure. However, to what extent

the metaphorical interpretations depend upon the geometry of the underlying spatial relations

is seldom explored. According to Jamrozik and Gentner (2011), locus of control contributes

to distinguish in and on in abstract meanings in which conventional figure on ground phrases

have greater control than figure in ground phrases. Hence, the locus of control aspect of

prepositions is suggested to be retained not only in conventional contexts but also can be

extended to novel abstract contexts. Whether other aspects of spatial meaning remain

7

pervasive or in what way these aspects of figure and ground affect different types of spatial

prepositions in literal and metaphorical contexts will be the issues to be addressed in the

present study.

Looking to the points of differences between L1 and L2, we can predict interference by

comparing and contrasting learners’ L1 and L2 systematically. In terms of the negative effect

of the L1 on second language acquisition, it is claimed by Wode (1978) that the interference

only occurs when L1 and L2 have structures with a certain amount of similarities. In addition,

Zobl (1982) claimed language transfer accommodates to natural developmental processes in

which the normal developmental sequence will not be changed by L1 influence, but the

passages through the sequence may be modified. The complex structures would undergo

modification by simpler ones. In this way, there may be a delay when learners restructure the

forms on the process to the next developmental stage. Also, L2 learners may extend the scope

of the existing developmental structures. Then, they may attempt to go through with rule

changes which allow a certain degree of structural consistency with an existing

developmental structure. Moreover, the linguistic markedness is defined by complexity or

relative infrequency of use from something which is more basic, typical or canonical in a

language (Greenberg 1966). It is generally claimed that unmarked linguistic features of L1

will tend to transfer while the marked L1 features will not (Eckman 1977, Zobl 1983). In

addition, learners’ proficiency is relevant to the language transfer (Taylor 1975). Kellerman

(1983) further proposed the U-shaped hypothesis to illustrate the behavior of learners at

different levels of proficiency. It was found that beginners were more willing to transfer

marked linguistic features, and intermediate learners tended to be conservative to transfer the

marked items. The advanced learners were willing to assume transferability. As a result, error

frequency at the three stages was low at first, then rose and fell again at last. Conversely, the

learners’ accuracy was high at first, then fell and finally rose again, generating the ‘U’ shape.

In the present study, L1 influence and L2 learners’ proficiency will be considered possible

8

factors in data analysis.

1.3 Research Questions

Motivated by the previous literature and the theoretical background mentioned in the

previous section, the present study aims to address the following five research questions.

1) What is the learning difficulty of different geometric types of English prepositions?

2) Does the prototypical spatial information (contact vs. non-contact) influence Chinese

EFL learners’ performance on English prepositions?

3) Do Chinese EFL learners perform alike on English prepositions in literal and

metaphorical contexts?

4) Is the L2 proficiency a factor affecting Chinese EFL learners’ performance on English

prepositions?

5) Do different task formats elicit different experimental results from Chinese EFL

learners when they acquire English prepositions?

1.4 Significance of the Study

The present study attempts to investigate the second language acquisition of English

spatial prepositions with regard to the different types of prepositions, acquisition orders and

influential factors affecting Chinese-speaking subjects’ comprehension and production of

English prepositions. This study hence provides a new approach to English prepositions and

it also bridges the gap between conventional and abstract spatial senses of prepositions and

provides insight into the nature of spatial cognition. Finally, the results of this study help to

understand how and to what extent the interaction between language and cognition and

demonstrate substantial impact on pedagogy.

9

1.5 Terms Defined in the Study

The technical terms used in the present study are defined as follows.

1) Comprehension

Comprehension is an active and complex process in which one constructs meaning from

aural or written information (Anderson 1985). During the process, one’s attention can be

directed to the task or the context which will be useful in comprehension. Hence, the subjects

in the grammaticality judgment task of the present study may go through the process to infer

meanings to the existing knowledge and choose the appropriate spatial prepositions.

2) Production

Language production refers to a process of meaning construction and expression which

applies to speaking and writing. The stages of the language production can be divided into

construction, transformation, and execution (Anderson 1985). Hence, the subjects in the

sentence completion task of the present study may go through the process to decide the

appropriate spatial prepositions and write them down.

1.6 Organization of the Thesis

This thesis is organized as follows. Chapter Two introduces two theoretical studies on

English prepositions, reviews four empirical studies on the acquisition of English

prepositions, and proposes a new approach to spatial prepositions in English and Chinese.

Chapter Three introduces the research design and expected findings of the present study.

Chapter Four presents the results and discussion of the experiments. Finally, Chapter Five

summarizes the major findings of the present study.

10

CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

In this chapter, theoretical viewpoints and empirical studies along with a comparison

between the spatial prepositions in Mandarin Chinese and English are discussed. Section 2.1

reviews some theoretical studies of English spatial relations and Section 2.2 reviews four

previous empirical studies on spatial cognition and spatial prepositions in language learning.

Section 2.3 presents a new classification to the spatial prepositions in English and Mandarin

Chinese. Finally, Section 2.4 is a summary of this chapter.

2.1 Theoretical Approaches to Spatial Prepositions

Language can be regarded as an intergraded part of human cognition, hence

investigations into the meaning of spatial language has been the interest of linguists. In this

section, two different views are recapitulated. Landau and Jackendoff (1993) specify what

geometric properties are preserved in the representations of object nouns and spatial

prepositions in English while Coventry and Garrod (2004) focus more on the extra-geometric

functions of spatial language.

2.1.1 Landau and Jackendoff’s (1993) Approach

Following the premise that any aspect of space expressed in language must be present in

nonlinguistic spatial representations, Landau and Jackendoff (1993) explore the language of

objects and places to see what geometric properties are stored in the representations of object

nouns and spatial prepositions in English. There must be a translation between spatial

representations and language. The words and simple phrases encoding objects and places turn

to be an issue. Generally, objects are represented by count nouns and places are represented

by prepositions or prepositional phrases in English. It is suggested that there are significant

11

differences in the geometric richness with which objects and places are encoded in the

language.

When talking about objects (i.e., with count nouns), the principal criteria for

identification and naming is the shape and its basic units including axes, solid and hollow

volumes, surfaces, and parts are represented as well. Hence, the constraint on the relation

between spatial representations and language is emphasized by the importance of shape. The

spatial representations which are linked to object names provide different shape descriptions

to distinguish all the kinds of objects that are categorized linguistically on the basis of shape.

Linguistic and nonlinguistic facts about shape motivate the use of axial system for object

representations. As Landau and Jackendoff (1993) suggested, there are three types of axes

which are required to account for linguistic terms describing aspects of an object’s

orientation. First, the generating axis refers to the principal axis of the object. In the case of a

human, the generating axis is vertical. Second, the orienting axes are perpendicular to the

generating axis and to each other. To consider the object as a generalized cone, orienting axes

serve to orient the principal cone and determine the front-to-back and side-to-side directions.

Third, directed axes distinguish two ends of each axis such as top from bottom or front from

back. These basic units of shape possessing such an axial structure are combined to form

complex object descriptions (Landau and Jackendoff 1993: 221).

In contrast, only very coarse geometric object properties are to be represented when an

object plays a role as either ‘figure (i.e., the located object)’ or ‘ground (i.e., the reference

object)’ in a locative expression. There are three basic elements involving figure, reference

object, and region required for the linguistic representation of an object’s place. When talking

about an object’s location in English, the figure and the reference object are encoded as noun

phrases and the relationship is encoded as a spatial preposition that defines a region where the

figure object is located. As shown in (1), the figure (the boy) is located in the region

described by the prepositional phrase on the chair while the region is further described by the

12

reference object (the chair) and the spatial relation expressed by the preposition on, hence to

denote the contact with the surface of the reference object.

(1) The boy is sitting on the chair.

As Landau and Jackendoff (1993) claim, the preposition is the key point in the English

expression of place, but the number is small since the notion that prepositions can mean is

extremely limited.

Several factors defining spatial relations expressed in English are pointed out. The first

factor refers to the asymmetry between the figure and the reference object, as can be seen in

the following examples, (2a-b) and (3a-b) are taken from Landau and Jackendoff (1993: 224).

Note that (2a) and (2b) can describe the very same stimulus even they organize it differently.

That is, the primary attention just switches from one object to the other. However, such

exchange is unusual in (3). It is claimed that the reference object tends to be the larger and

more stable one when objects are unequal in size and mobility, as (3a) shows. Hence, it

would be odd and unusual to produce a sentence like (3b).

(2) a. The circle (figure) lies around the star (reference object).

b. The star (figure) is inside the circle (reference object).

(3) a. The book is on the table.

b. ?The table is under the book.

Second, the restrictions on reference objects by expressions for spatial relations involve

certain geometric types such as volumes, surfaces, points and lines with their axial structures.

To illustrate, prepositions in, on, near, and at denote little of detailed geometry. The reference

object for in can be regarded as a volume with an interior relation, as shown in (4), while

near and at are considered to be bounded in extent, as in (5). Being a bit more complex, on

requires its reference object possessing a surface, whether it can be a line as in (6), a surface

as in (7), or an object with a boundary that is a line or a surface as in (8).

13

(4) A cat is sleeping in the box.

(5) Students are standing near/at the entrance.

(6) A town is on the Canadian border.

(7) A school neighbors on the square.

(8) A house is on the river / on the hill.

Since the object’s shape is relevant to the meaning of the preposition, the axial structures of

the reference objects are to be drawn upon for along and across. Along requires its reference

object to be linear and horizontal, as can be seen in (9). The reference object (river) denotes a

significant linear elongation. Meanwhile, the figure object is also required to have a linear

axis which can be presented differently. As shown in (9), the main axis of figure (the road) is

parallel to that of the river. Or, the figure object, though has no main horizontal axis, can be

an aggregate (the trees) forming a linear figure with an axis parallel to the main axis of the

river. Also, when the figure object is in motion, it is the trajectory of the figure (dog’s path),

not the figure itself (the dog), to be conceptualized as linear and parallel to main axis of the

river.

(9) The road is

The trees are along the river. (Landau and Jackendoff 1993: 228)

The dog loped

In case of across, its reference object is required to be or to have a surface with sides, that is,

across denotes a linear region which goes from one side to the other of the reference object.

Different senses of across specify the figure object differently with regard to the region. Two

most relevant senses indicate the figure object within the region, as shown in (10) and (11).

Sentence (10) indicates that the figure object (the stick) is linear and coaxial with the region

while the figure object (the trees) as in (11) is indicated to be distributed along the axis of the

region.

(10) The stick lay across the road.

14

(11) The trees extend across the field. (Landau and Jackendoff 1993: 228)

Finally, spatial representations can encode regions by the distance and direction from the

reference object. The distance between the figure and reference object, as described by

Landau and Jackendoff (1993: 229), is divided into four levels which include (a) the location

in the region interior to reference object (i.e., in, inside), (b) the location in the region exterior

to the reference object and in contact with it (i.e., on, against), (c) the location in the region

proximate to reference object (i.e., near), and (d) the location distant from reference object

(i.e., far, beyond). As for the direction between the figure and reference object, it is derived

from the axial structure. To specify, prepositions like over, above, under, and below indicate

the region determined by the vertical axis. The horizontal plane helps to define prepositions

like beside, by, and next to. In addition, there are prepositions serving as operators such as to,

from, toward, away from for regions relevant to describing trajectories or object motion.

These operators specify the location of the path and where the path begins or ends in place

description.

In sum, Landau and Jackendoff (1993) claim that different kinds of spatial

representations can be drawn upon by language describing objects and places. In this way,

object nouns and spatial prepositions serve to encode certain geometric properties. When

expressing spatial relations, great attentions are attached to geometric types such as points,

lines, surfaces, and volumes with its axial structure. These properties are regarded as the

constraints on the figure or reference objects in spatial representations.

2.1.2 Coventry and Garrod’s (2004) Functional Geometric Account

As opposed to the view that spatial prepositions depend on merely coarse-grained

“schematised” (Talmy 1983) properties of objects in spatial expressions (Clark 1973, Talmy

1983, Landau and Jackendoff 1993), the functional geometric framework proposed by

Coventry and Garrod (2004) states that factors (i.e., extra-geometric routines) other than the

15

relative positions of objects as what we see in the space contribute to specifying the specific

meaning of spatial terms and are important in the comprehension and production of spatial

prepositions. To illustrate, with regard to the scope of locatives, it is claimed that even in the

most appropriate geometry, the preposition in may not fully capture what it denotes. As

illustrated in (12), when there is a pile of pears which are located in the bowl, the one on the

top can be described as in the bowl. Whereas, in a bowl may not be normally described in the

way when a pear is hanging high above a bowl or when an upside-down bowl is covering a

pear in the air. It seems to be a geometric contradiction in that the acceptable expression

denotes containment without enclosure while the two unacceptable cases denote enclosure

without containment. As Coventry and Garrod (2004) concern, differences in the functional

and physical relations between the pear and the bowl as in (12) result in the contrast in the

two cases. Another case in (13) also can be described when a man is partially enclosed in the

car where his arm is outside the car, but (13) cannot be used to describe a man who is also

partially enclosed when his arm is inside the car.

(12) The pear is in the bowl.

(13) The man is in the car. (Coventry and Garrod 2004: 38-39)

Therefore, the functional geometric framework involves two components as geometric

routines and extra-geometric information. A combination of these two components would

provide information around the establishment of the specific meaning of a wide range of

spatial prepositions. First, geometric routines refer to the description of the geometry of the

scene. As in other cases, where objects are located in space is significant to the process of

how one describes the location by using language. Second, extra-geometric information is

composed of dynamic-kinematic routines and object knowledge. It is suggested that

extra-geometric properties can be drawn forth from the dynamic-kinematic aspects of scenes,

such as location control. Object knowledge includes general knowledge of the functions of

the objects and how they generally interact with each other in specific situations. These

16

components are shown in the figure below (Coventry and Garrod 2004: 55).

Figure 2-1 Component Parts of the Functional Geometric Framework

As the aforementioned, the combination of geometric routines (i.e., where objects are

located) and dynamic-kinematic routines (i.e., how objects interact with each other) has

influence on how one chooses or interprets spatial expressions. Coventry and Garrod (2004)

also mentioned Johnson-Laird’s (1983) idea that we build up mental models of situations and

draw spatial inferences about them due to the recognition of spatial relations between objects.

However, as Coventry and Garrod (2004:56) claim, geometry alone is inadequate to support

many spatial inferences. If X is in Y and Y in Z, then one may draw a geometric inference

that X is in Z1. Nevertheless, there are only a few geometric inferences related with spatial

relations, such as in or on, and they are both not secure and of no specific consequence. On

the other hand, functional geometric relations including containment and support explicate to

a much wider range of spatial inferences which go beyond what can be inferred from the

geometry of the scene alone. In the case of containment, if Y contains X, then Y controls the

location of X. Hence, X will move when Y moves. Or, if we want to move X independently

of Y, then X has to be removed from Y in advance. In the same way, the case of support

relation indicates that if X is on a support of Y, then it can be inferred that X will fall to the

1 There is a limited number of geometric inferences related to spatial relations, only the topological spatial

relations such as in and on are more likely to be applied with such relatum, the projective spatial relation (e.g.

over, above, under) and the euclidean spatial relation (e.g. across, between, through) are seldom applied with

it.

17

ground if Y is moved.

It follows that the link between the geometry of the situations and the extra-geometric

spatial relation are indicated when we try to comprehend a range of spatial prepositions. The

functional relation like location control is claimed to define the range of geometric

configurations that support the function. The configurations which can serve to support

location control are thought of as the prototypical configurations or prototypes for certain

kinds of geometry. For example, as the preposition in shows, the location control and

geometric enclosure are highly correlated. It is suggested that the configurations which have

the association with the function like enclosure may be geometrically distinct, as shown in

(14) and (15). The case of containment as in (14) shows that the configuration display the

located object (soup) is minimally surrounded by the reference object (the shallow bowl). Or,

the located object (beans) is completely enclosed by the reference object (a sealed can), as

shown in (15).

(14) Soup in the shallow bowl.

(15) Beans in a sealed can. (Coventry and Garrod 2004: 58)

In addition, this framework suggests that the identification of objects may have effects

on the relationships we judge to hold between those objects in two ways. First, the

identification of objects may affect the visual routines which are applied to objects in a

configuration. Specifically, location control only happens to be crucial when an object is

identified as a container or supporting surface. One can consider that identification of a

container-like object will generate a convex hull routine and a related location control

routine. When both routines are satisfied, such an object should be identified as a potential

container. As shown in (16), in the cup is acceptable in that the reference object (the cup) has

the convex hull and the location of figure (the ball) is controlled by the reference object (the

cup). However, in the table is unacceptable since the identification of the reference object

(the table) does not generate the convex hull routine for a container.

18

(16) The ball is in the cup / *in the table. (Coventry and Garrod 2004: 60)

Also, objects posses particular functions, and such information from memory contributes

to the application of different routines. For instance, a case where the same object can be

categorized as a plate or a dish is clear to illustrate. The same configuration of located and

reference objects can be conceptualized differently in that on is appropriate when the

reference object is regarded as a plate while in becomes appropriate when the reference

object is labeled as a dish. The second way in which the identification of objects may

influence the relationships between them is the knowledge about how objects interact in the

specific situation. For example, the preposition at denotes that the proximity of the objects

relative to activity or situation is of interest. As can be seen in (17), when someone is at a

piano, at the office, or at a desk, in terms of the geometric routine, it is assumed that they are

in the position to the piano, the office, and the desk. In terms of the extra-geometric

information, these particular situations along with the knowledge brought about from each

reference object (piano, office, desk) inferred that the figure object (the man) is interacting

with each reference object, hence, playing the piano, working in the office, and studying or

working at the desk. It is noted that the geometry is reliant on how we interact with the

reference objects.

(17) The man is at a piano / at the office / at a desk.

Similarly, preposition in as shown in (18) implicates that the knowledge of objects and

functional relations between objects constrain the application of the geometric and

extra-geometric routines. In this regard, the boy’s location is controlled by these reference

objects. That is, the boy needs to be enclosed completely by the car, the closet, and the house.

(18) A boy is in the car / in the closet / in the house.

Simply stated, both geometric and extra-geometric aspects of spatial relations are

involved in the functional geometric framework. The situation-specific meaning in spatial

language is not only established by the geometric routines but also the dynamic-kinematic

19

routines and object knowledge.

2.1.3 Summary

To sum up, theoretical studies on spatial prepositions are recapitulated from two

different perspectives. On the one hand, as Landau and Jackendoff (1993) claim, different

kinds of spatial representations are drawn upon by language describing objects and places.

When objects are named for a certain category, their descriptions concern a lot with the

complex representations of shapes and surfaces. Also, in locative expressions, descriptions

seem to be highly schematized when the same objects serve as the figure or reference object.

That is, a reference object can be schematized as a point, a surface, and a container with its

axial structure. Likewise, a figure object can be schematized as something with no geometric

structure like a lump or blob, a unit with axial structure along one of its dimensions, or either

a single or distributed entity. Landau and Jackendoff (1993) claimed that only a limited

number of different spatial relations between objects are encoded in natural languages, and

these spatial relations have to embrace all the possibilities in the real world. On the other

hand, by arguing for Landau and Jackendoff (1993) claim, Coventry and Garrod (2004) place

much more emphasis on the extra-geometric information (i.e., dynamic-kinematic routines

and object knowledge). In order to capture meanings of the whole range of spatial

representations, the functional geometric framework has been highlighted. In addition to how

we see in the representation of spatial relations, how we act in the world and how the objects

meaningfully interact in the world may give rise to the specific meaning of spatial

prepositions. In the acquisition of spatial prepositions, many factors mentioned by these two

approaches are likely to play a role, but it seems that the extra-geometric information like

object knowledge needs to be accumulated through experiences while the information about

relative positions tends to be noticed and used during the learning process. Besides, whether

children acquiring spatial language can present the evidence of the influence of

20

extra-geometric routines needs to be explored. There has been little direct investigation of the

relative influence of extra-geometric information. Given that the two approaches point out the

factors distinguishing spatial prepositions in English, the present study aims to explore the

conceptual mapping between languages and spatial understanding of L2 learners and to

provide empirical evidence for the way how these factors affect spatial prepositions of

different types by conducting an L2 acquisition study.

2.2 Previous Empirical Studies of English Spatial Prepositions

This section reviews some previous studies on English spatial prepositions. Coventry,

Carmichael, and Garrod (1994) examined the object-specific effects on the use of spatial

prepositions. Lin (2004) conducted experiments with native Chinese speakers to see if his

subjects could use English locative spatial terms by analyzing their errors and acquisition

patterns. Hsu (2005) investigated the functions and uses of prepositions in, on, at and further

explored the effect of the cognitive semantic approach on the acquisition of English

prepositions. Lin (2009) focused on the spatial cognition by investigating whether Chinese

EFL learners’ spatial thinking would be affected during their process of learning English

spatial prepositions. These relevant empirical studies will be reviewed in the following

sections.

2.2.1 Coventry, Carmichael and Garrod (1994)

Following Garrod and Stanford (1989), who argued that a mental model2 could be

employed to mediate the use of spatial prepositions, Coventry, Carmichael and Garrod (1994)

conducted an experiment to investigate the roles of object specific functions and task

requirement3 in the use of spatial prepositions.

2 Garrod and Stanford (1989) referred ‘mental model’ to a temporary structure in working memory which

served as an interface between language and the spatial world. 3 Coventry, Carmichael, and Garrod (1994) referred 'task requirement' to an experimental measure, indicating

21

In their experiment, spatial prepositions in, on, over, and beside were examined with

their object specific functions which might contribute to the building of mental models4 of

spatial scenes. Two tasks were employed, i.e., a Lickert scale judgment task and a sentence

completion task. The subjects’ responses to each task were compared to see if their

comprehension and production patterned alike.

The subjects included 40 undergraduate students who were native speakers of English.

They were further divided into two groups: a Lickert-scale group and a sentence completion

group. The Lickert scale group was asked to rate sentences on a scale of 1-5 for

appropriateness of the corresponding scenes, as shown in Table 2-1 while the sentence

completion group needed to complete the sentences with prepositions they considered most

appropriate to the scenes, as shown in Table 2-2.

Table 2-1 An Example of the Lickert Scale Task in Coventry et al.’s (1994) Study

The ball is in the jug. 1 2 3 4 5

Table 2-2 An Example of the Sentence Completion Task in Coventry et al.’s (1994) Study

The ball is the jug.

the effects of two tasks in their study.

4 Subjects might come up with information associated with spatial preposition and information related to the

visual scene they perceived.

22

Each group was asked to watch a video with 103 scenes of objects5 in different positions.

By comparing results of the two tasks, it was found that highlighting the functional

relationship between figure and ground had effects on the use of prepositions. In the case of

in with scenes of a jug vs. a bowl, the results of the Lickert scale group and the sentence

completion group showed significant effects on the use of in with addition of liquid. In the

Lickert scale group, in was judged to be more appropriate with the scene when the bowl had

liquid (M = 21.5)6 than when the jug had the liquid (M = 16.8). Similarly, the sentence

completion group also used in more when the bowl had liquid (frequency of use = 76) than

when the jug had liquid in it (frequency of use = 52). As they claimed, the addition of liquid

highlighted the specific function of the jug but it did not affect that of the bowl, hence, such

scene provided the greatest specific function contrast. Such object specific effects could also

be seen on the use of over with scenes of a jug with liquid versus an empty jug. However, the

significant effect was only found in Lickert scale group. The use of over for the scenes with a

jug poised above a glass was judged to be significantly more appropriate when the jug had

liquid (M = 12.7) than when liquid was not present (M = 10.7). The frequency of use of over

remained the same whether the liquid was present or not in the sentence completion group. It

was claimed that the presence of liquid in the jug also emphasized the functional interaction

between the jug and the glass. The results indicated that functional relations between objects

were closely related to the use of spatial prepositions. Their correlation provided the base for

conceptualizing the visual scene and describing such spatial arrangement of the scene.

To sum up, it was noticed that functionality effects had been investigated by

manipulating objects in various positions in their experiment. However, the presence of

certain scenes (i.e., to describe an object on top of a pile in a bowl or in a jug) may not

5 The materials were: a glass fruit bowl, a coffee jug, oranges, apples, bananas, a blue tennis ball, an orange

tennis ball, ping-pong balls, a table lamp, a book, a glass mug, water, black currant cordial, and a saucer. 6 M referred to the mean of summed Lickert-scale ratings. The number was derived according to the formula

“sum of each subject’s ratings / total number of subjects”.

23

normally apply in our daily life; therefore, it would take more time for the subjects to process

and produce. Besides, due to the fact that the sentence completion task was only concerned

with frequency of the use of tested prepositions in their study, the prepositions the subjects

produced were not further analyzed. Lastly, there might be a task bias for comparing the

subjects’ responses to the two tasks and evaluating their comprehension and production at the

same time since they recruited different subjects for the tasks.

2.2.2 Lin (2004)

In order to delve into the issue in the interwoven relationship between language and

thought, Lin (2004) conducted several experiments on the acquisition of English locative

prepositions for native Chinese speakers. Her research questions were concerned with

common learning patterns, order of learning difficulty, and mechanisms underlying the

common learning patterns of the acquisition of English locative prepositions for native

Chinese speakers.

Four experiments were conducted in her study. Experiment 1 was considered an

exploratory study of data collection which served to explore how native Chinese speakers

used English locative prepositions. Experiments 2 and 3 were served to test hypotheses

generated from data collected in Experiment 1 by employing training procedures. Experiment

4 was conducted as a supplementary to explore how native English speakers learned the

spatial terms in Chinese.

The subjects of each experiment were different. Experiment 1 involved 58 students from

National Taiwan University. The subjects of Experiment 2 were adults who were randomly

grouped into AdultIn7 (trained on the contrast of in and on) and AdultOver (trained on the

contrast of over and on) while those of Experiment 3 were children who were also grouped

7 There were 17 subjects in the AdultIn group (mean age 25.88 years) and 16 subjects in the AdultOver group

(mean age 26.00 years).

24

into ChildIn8 (trained on the contrast of in and on) and ChildOver (trained on the contrast of

over and on). Experiment 4, as a supplementary experiment, involved 8 native English

speakers who were taking Chinese lessons at Harvard University.

The four experiments were conducted step by step. In Experiment 1, the most frequently

used locative prepositions in, on, at, over, and under (Funk and Wagnalls 1953, Jackson 1990)

were tested to investigate how native Chinese speakers described static spatial relation. Three

tasks (i.e., two free production tasks and a multiple-choice task) were conducted with 22

hand-drawn pictures9. After the three tasks, a general English reading proficiency test and an

interview about the subjects’ English learning history were conducted respectively.

Experiments 2 and 3 were conducted to investigate how the Figure/Ground manipulation

related to the cognitive process in learning English locative terms. Thus, in the pretest,

posttest and postponed posttest, a set of hand-drawn pictures were given along with their own

respective incomplete sentences with two options (in vs. on or over vs. on). Also, regarding to

the asymmetrical error patterns on versus over and on versus in, the ManMade objects with

pseudo-names were designed to control the Figure and Ground. What the two experiments

concerned was how redirecting the subjects’ attention to the scenes and linking the scenes to

English prepositions would enhance the scores of test items. Experiment 4 was designed to

explore native English speakers’ use of Chinese locative terms. The 22 hand-drawn pictures

used in Experiment 1 were adopted again. The subjects’ written Chinese sentences for the

pictures were compared with the Chinese free production data collected from the native

Chinese speakers in Experiment 1.

The results of Experiment 1 indicated several issues. First, it was not easy for the native

Chinese speakers to use English locative prepositions correctly in that more than half of the

test items in the multiple-choice task had a correct response rate of less than 80%. Second,

8 There were 18 subjects in the ChildIn group (mean age 9.94 years) and 19 subjects in the ChildOver group

(mean age 9.96 years). 9 There were 2 exemplars and 20 test items (i.e., 4 pictures provided for each of the 5 prepositions).

25

according to the scores on the five prepositions in the multiple-choice task, the degree of

difficulty was arranged in a one-dimensional hierarchy by the following order: on (M = 2.16)

> at (M = 2.40) > over (M = 2.52) > under (M = 3.07) > in (M = 3.74) (starting from the most

difficult one), meaning the easier items were learned better. Third, it was found that there was

asymmetrical error distribution in which 77.9% of errors under over and 66.6% of errors

under in categories were replaced with on. However, errors under the on category were

replaced between at (63.9%) and in (29.6%). Also, it was found that the same spatial terms in

Chinese (i.e., zai…shang / zai…shangmian) were elicited by on pictures (68.7%) and over

pictures (65%) in the free production task. Hence, Lin stated that L1 interference must play

an essential role for differentiating on from over. The errors with over were attributed to the

lack of obligatory specification of contact/contiguity in Chinese. The higher frequency and

the lower complexity of on accounted for the preference for using it.

Moreover, the results of Experiments 2 and 3 also showed the asymmetrical error

patterns and supported the claim that the cognitive universal was related to the acquisition of

locative prepositions. In terms of the order of difficulty, it was found that on and over were

difficult for both the adults and the children. For the children, on and over were fairly hard.

For the adults, on was the more difficult than over. Lin stated that certain concept about on

seemed to be fossilized and that the subjects were confused with over that both the children

and the adults had difficulty in learning it. On the other hand, the result of the supplementary

experiment showed that the difficulty for the native English speakers was not the selection of

Chinese locative postpositions but the sentence structure. It was found that L1 transfer was

more likely to apply to sentence structures for native English speakers learning Chinese.

In sum, it was concluded that L1 transfer and cognitive processes were the two factors

affecting the acquisition of English locative prepositions. However, not all the manipulations

of the ManMade objects presented effectively. Some of the scenes with on and in appeared

visually ambiguous, which resulted in poor effects found in the ChildIn group. Besides, the

26

necessity of using ManMade objects needed to be reconsidered since the subjects’ usage of

prepositions were determined by the shape or spatial functions of the object. Also, the number

of subjects in Experiment 4 was pretty small, the results of which might not be comparable

with those of other experiments. Last but not least, it was the reading proficiency that Lin

employed to reveal the relationship between the English proficiency that and the acquisition

of English prepositions. Arguably speaking, the role of general L2 proficiency needs to be

further explored.

2.2.3 Hsu (2005)

Hsu (2005) conducted an empirical study of the effects of the cognitive semantic

approach and the traditional approach10

on the acquisition of English prepositions. She

investigated three most frequently used prepositions in, on, and at11

along with their

respective concrete senses (i.e., spatial meanings) and abstract senses beyond space and time

(i.e., figurative use). Her research questions were (1) whether the cognitive semantic

approach facilitated preposition learning, (2) which uses (e.g., spatial, temporal, or other

figurative use) of English prepositions presented the greatest difficulty to students and how

they were affected by negative L1 transfer, (3) what learners’ attitudes were toward the

instruction of English prepositions.

Seventy high school students at an equivalent proficiency level were divided into a

control group and an experimental group. All the subjects of the two groups took the pretest

first and received two one-hour preposition instructions12

. The control group was instructed

with the traditional approach and the experimental group was instructed with the cognitive

10

The traditional approach usually exhibits a random list of definitions with phrases or sentences item by item

in dictionaries or textbooks in dealing with English prepositions. 11

Prepositions in, on, at are on the list of 1,000 basic words proposed by the Ministry of Education for

elementary school and junior high school students. They are words for Level One (i.e., most frequently-used

vocabulary proposed by the CEEC). 12

Instruction I for both groups was the same, it focused on the spatial senses of prepositions which were

introduced along with corresponding pictorial graphs.

27

semantic approach. These two different approaches were applied in Instruction II13

in which

various senses of prepositions were illustrated. Then, Posttest I along with a questionnaire

with three open-ended questions14

were conducted immediately after Instruction II while

Posttest II was managed one week after Posttest I. The questions for the three tests (Pretest,

Posttest I and II) were presented in the multiple-choice and blank-filling formats.

In comparing the performance of the two groups on Pretest I and Posttest I, the t-test

results showed that both groups made progress in their mean score after the treatment. It was

indicated that both of the traditional approach, t (35) = -6.575, p < .001, and the cognitive

semantic approach, t (33) = -5.553, p < .001, were beneficial to the subjects in learning

English prepositions. However, when comparing the scores on Posttest I and Posttest II for

two approaches, the t-test results did not show any significant differences. It was found that

the claim that the cognitive semantic approach was more effective than the traditional

approach.

Moreover, as the respective top ten difficult items in the pretest and the posttest, it was

found that the expressions with on and at were more difficult than the expressions with in for

the EFL learners. These difficult uses were abstract senses beyond space and time. Hsu stated

that the spatial sense of in was more straightforward while those of on and at were more

divergent. Hence, it was easier for the subjects to acquire expressions with in since various

senses of in could be unified by its core meaning, containment within an enclosure. By

contrast, relating the various senses of on and at to their core meaning was difficult for the

subjects.

What’s more, the subjects’ responses to the questionnaire items revealed that they tended

13

In Instruction II, various senses of prepositions in, on, and at in control group were presented in a consistent

way with the layout on English dictionary in random order while those in the experimental group were

displayed according to the relativity across the abstractness continuum along metaphorical extensions with

schematic graphs. 14

The questions included: (1) what is your way in learning English prepositions before the treatment? (2) what

will your way of learning English prepositions be like after the treatment? (3) what is(are) the most difficult

preposition(s) for you?

28

to learn English prepositions by rote memory before the instruction (66.66% for the control

group and 55.80 % for the experimental group). Furthermore, 75% for the control group, but

only 50% for the experimental group, were positive toward the given preposition instructions

after the treatment. Apart from the three prepositions in, on, and at, which were considered to

be difficult to tell apart since they were the high-frequency words with various senses, other

prepositions like above, through and within were also found difficult for the two groups in

both groups in that those were the prepositions they seldom encountered.

All in all, Hsu explored the effect of the cognitive semantic approach to teaching

expressions with English prepositions for Chinese EFL learners. However, the results of her

study were mainly discussed by comparing the subjects’ general performances on three tests.

The subjects’ comprehension and production in the process of the acquisition of English

prepositions were not specifically explained. Moreover, the format of the three tests was not

consistent. Pretest I and Posttest I were in a multiple-choice format and a blank-filling format,

but the number of test items in the two formats were small and uneven. Posttest II was only

conducted in a blank-filling format without fillers. Besides, since the number of test items

was pretty small, how different senses were allotted in each test was unknown. Also, the

clarification of the sense of activity was indefinite. For example, at funerals was claimed to

be the most difficult item while at first sight was the least one for both groups. However, it

was noticed that funerals was more concrete than sight, and it should be easier for the

subjects to comprehend.

2.2.4 Lin (2009)

In line with the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis (Whorf 1956), Lin (2009) conducted an

empirical study to explore how Taiwanese EFL learners’ spatial cognition was influenced by

English learning. It was assumed that people at different English proficiency levels would

perform differently on spatial thinking. Her research questions were about whether EFL

29

learners at different proficiency levels conceptualize space in English differently, and whether

their space tendency in Chinese and in English is different.

The subjects were eighty college students from Chung Yuan Christian University. Forty

of them joined Experiment 1 and they were equally divided into two groups (i.e.,

advanced-level and beginning-level) according to their GEPT scores and scores of the college

entrance examination. The other forty subjects joined Experiment 2 and were recruited and

categorized into the advanced group and the beginning group in the same way as in

Experiment 1.

The two experiments, composed of two tasks, were conducted respectively. Experiment

1 included an English preposition task and a spatial judgment task. The English preposition

task was conducted in the written blank-filling format. The subjects needed to fill in

prepositions according to the given pictures and provide reasons to each answer. The spatial

judgment task was designed to investigate the subjects’ general spatial tendency in Chinese

by selecting pictures. Forty trials were involved, and the stimulus in each trial included one

Chinese sentence along with two pictures15

about locative relations. Experiment 2 involved

an English preposition task and a priming task. The English preposition task was the same as

the one used in Experiment 1 while the priming task was conducted to evaluate whether the

subjects’ spatial cognition influenced by their English proficiency. The priming task involved

thirty-four trials. In each trial, an English paragraph describing spatial arrangement which

followed a True/False comprehension question was given to the subjects. Then, two possible

pictures along with one Chinese sentence were shown to the subjects. The reaction time was

considered an indicator for the priming effect.

The findings can be concluded as follows. First, there was a positive correlation between

the subjects’ English proficiency and accuracy rate of the preposition task. It was found that

15

Though both pictures were applicable for the given Chinese sentence, the subjects still needed to intuitively

select the most suitable one.

30

the significant difference in the performance between the advanced group and the beginning

group was found in Experiment 1, t (38) = -13.44, p < 0.001, and in Experiment 2, t (38) =

-10.3, p < 0.001. Also, the result of the priming effect for the two groups showed that the

effect of English proficiency was significant (F = 6.50, p = 0.011< 0.05). Second, the results

of pairwise comparisons showed that the beginning learners needed a longer reaction time

after receiving negative priming sentences than positive ones ( t (339) = 2.4, p < 0.05).

Nevertheless, there was no significant difference between the two types of priming sentences

for the advanced learners. Third, there was no statistically significant difference between the

results of picture selection in both experiments. Hence, the subjects’ spatial thinking was

found to be determined by their mother language, Chinese.

To sum up, the claim that Mandarin Chinese was still the primary language leading the

subjects to conceptualize space was not clarified enough by comparing the results of picture

selection in both experiments. Besides, it seemed that it was the linguistic difference between

Chinese and English that influenced the subjects’ spatial expressions. Other potential factors

in relation to the acquisition of spatial prepositions were not analyzed in Lin’s study.

Moreover, some methodological problems were found. Since the provided pictures for every

Chinese sentence were both accurate, the distinction between them was not fully illustrated

and to what extent or under what context the subjects’ spatial tendency was observed was not

mentioned. Also, the necessity for conducting the same English preposition task twice should

be reconsidered in that the results were almost the same.

2.2.5 Summary

Table 2-3 summarizes the major findings and limitations of the four empirical studies

reviewed in this section.

31

Table 2-3 Major Findings and Limitations of the Previous Studies

Major findings Limitations

Coventry,

Carmichael,

and Garrod