of learning points that identify a sense of the preposition ‘‘which is worth bringing to the attention of individual students at some point in their learning career’’ (Lindstromberg 1996: 228). In particular, exploiting the notion ‘‘prototypicality,’’ he attempts to demonstrate that a wide range of nonspatial meanings of the prep- osition on can be regarded as special instances or metaphorical extensions of its spatial meanings. Just like on in its concrete meaning denotes ‘contact’ (e.g., The pencil is on the book) and, we may add, ‘support’ (e.g., The man is sitting on the chair), in its metaphorical extensions it also means mental contact (e.g., I spoke to her on the phone) or mental support (e.g., You can rely on me). All in all, Lind- stromberg’s study provides one of the first attempts to consider the applied cog- nitive linguistic aspects of prepositional meaning (see also his more comprehensive volume on explaining prepositions, Lindstromberg 1998). The prototype perspective is also employed by Ungerer (2001), who is con- cerned with the notion of basic-level terms and their application in vocabulary acquisition. Ungerer holds that superordinate and subordinate concepts in First Language Acquisition are acquired later than basic ones and that this order should also serve as a model in context of Second Language Acquisition, especially in the teaching of vocabulary. Traditionally, frequency lists or pedagogical vocabularies have been devised without any semantic principles underlying the composition of basic vocabulary lists. Ungerer attempts to show that a more systematic ordering of vocabulary is possible when basic terms are discussed and taught in light of their intrinsic connection with the superordinate and subordinate terms. On the basis of a corpus study comprising German textbooks of English and several newspapers, he demonstrates that vocabulary selection, for example, would benefit mostly from the basic/nonbasic distinction if basic-level terms were preferred as entry points, ‘‘where the respective superordinate concepts involve less tangible taxonomic no- tions’’ (2001: 216), rather than being introduced at a later stage. To conclude this section, let us consider a different view of radial categories put forward by Tyler and Evans (2001). Their approach is likely to have an impact on the way English tenses may be taught in the classroom setting. Tyler and Evans’s comprehensive and detailed discussion is centered around the analysis of a sche- matic account of tense phenomena in English. The central thesis of their paper is that the so-called exceptional, nontemporal uses of tense are related to its time- reference function in a motivated way. A number of distinct and fundamentally nontemporal meanings associated with tense can be distinguished, such as inti- macy (between speakers), salience (foregrounding vs. backgrounding), actuality (realis vs. irrealis), and attenuation (linguistic politeness), all of which are shown to be related to each other in a systematic principled way. However, unlike Lakoff, Tyler and Evans do not consider ‘‘metaphorical extensions’’ an all-revealing ex- planation. Rather, they assume that the exceptional meanings associated with tense are grounded in experience, by virtue of so-called experiential correlations, that is, ‘‘independently motivated and recurring correspondences in experience’’ (2001: 68). All in all, Tyler and Evans’s approach to language seems to be particularly 1150 martin pu ¨ tz helpful for teachers as well as learners. The traditional view, treating nontemporal uses as exceptions or ignoring them altogether, often led to difficulties for language learners as they tended to be discussed in terms of arbitrary meaning patterns to be memorized. Tyler and Evans’s unified approach offers a systematic, motivated account of how English tense usage works. 4.5. Cross-Cultural Learning: Different Conceptualizations Contrastive Analysis, the comparison of the linguistic systems of two languages, was developed and practiced in the 1950sand1960s as an application of Structural Linguistics to language teaching. The Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis broadly claims that difficulties in second language learning derive from the differences between the target language and the learner’s first language and are mainly caused by interference from the first language. As Taylor (1993) points out, Contrastive Analysis is com- patible with a cognitive approach to grammar as well; however, this cognitive ap- proach will focus on semantic content and conceptualization rather than on merely formal entities. In other words, target language structures will be difficult to learn to the extent that they symbolize conceptual categories which are not found in the learner’s first language (e.g., for learners of English, the distinction between simple and progressive tense forms). Specific conceptualizations may thus exhibit, for a learner, a high or low degree of cognitive naturalness, depending on the similarity or the differences between conceptual categories found in the source and target lan- guage. In this respect, a fine-grained comparison between the ways a conceptual metaphor is linguistically construed in two languages has been provided by Barce- lona (2001), who compares English and Spanish conceptual metaphors for emotional domains such as ‘sadness’/‘happiness’, ‘anger’, and ‘romantic love’. For instance, speakers of English and Spanish conceptualize the domain of anger differently in that English invokes the container image while Spanish is not container-oriented (e.g., The news threw him into a terrible rage vs. Su conducta me puso furioso [His behavior me put furious] ‘His behavior made me furious’). Such an analysis may uncover the differences in metaphorical themes and ultimately predict a number of errors a learner may engage in. Similarly, Soffritti and Dirven (1998) make a strong claim that Second Language Acquisition research must take into consideration any previously acquired linguistic structure (first language) and linguistic categories. This generally means, from the perspective of Cognitive Linguistics, that the learners’ task must be to revise first language categories, schemas, and prototypes at all levels of language and that the revision means ‘‘adapting an old mental situation to specific data from a foreign language’’ (1998: 268). These similarities and dissimilarities in conceptualization should be made explicit to the foreign language learner. A theoretically interesting, contrastive analysis is provided by Boers and Demecheleer (1998), who investigate prepositional semantics from an applied cognitive linguistics and applied linguistics 1151 cognitive linguistic perspective. They discuss the pedagogical importance of drawing learners’ attention to the links between a preposition’s spatial sense and its metaphorical extensions. From a cross-linguistic perspective, obviously, the factor of first language interference plays a vital role in the conceptualization of linguistic expressions or metaphors. For French learners of English, one of the spatial senses of the English preposition behind in which the trajector pushes the landmark for- ward (e.g., the man behind the wheelbarrow) is absent from its French equivalent derri eere (l’homme aa la brouette). Since French derri eere does not have this spatial sense, it also lacks its extension; that is, the figurative, causal sense of behind also appears to be absent from French derri eere,asinWhat’s the motive behind this crime? versus Quel est le motif ( aa l’origine) du crime? (1998: 200). Boers and Demecheleer hypothesize that the lack of the causal sense of the French derri eere causes more comprehension problems than may be evident in regard to the other figurative senses of behind. They suggest that it may be pedagogically fruitful to draw learners’ attention to the spatial sense behind an unfamiliar figurative sense. In particular, they suggest highlighting the conceptual links between the spatial sense and its fig- urative extension by offering to the language learner similar examples which involve different levels of abstraction such as (i) the man behind the wheelbarrow, (ii) the man behind the wheel of the company, and (iii) the people behind the strike (1998: 200). Obviously, drawing learners’ attention to the contrastive uses of figurative senses refers to the important dimension of metaphor awareness in Foreign Lan- guage Teaching (already discussed in section 4.1). In several language learning ex- periments, Boers (2000b) has shown that unfamiliar figurative expressions can systematically be traced back to a limited number of metaphorical themes or con- ceptual metaphors. Raising metaphor awareness in language learners constitutes a motivating factor and makes it possible to enhance in-depth comprehension and to facilitate the acquisition of vocabulary. In a similar vein, Deignan, Gabrys ´ , and Solska (1997) discuss the need for students to develop ‘‘metaphorical competence’’ and to teach metaphors to them using awareness-raising activities. Their cross- linguistic comparison between the English and Polish metaphor system revealed similarities and differences between the two languages both in terms of conceptual metaphor and linguistic expressions. From the perspective of language transfer, it turned out that some types of metaphor were particularly difficult for Polish learners of English. For example, due to the lack of an identical metaphor in the two languages, linguistic expressions such as bring something (a fact, situation) home to someone and drive a message/idea home do not have semantically similar equivalents in the students’ first language (Polish) (Deignan, Gabrys ´ , and Solska 1997: 355). In order to encourage students to explore and discuss the ways in which metaphorical use varies across two languages, the authors designed a series of awareness exercises focusing mainly on the cultural aspects of metaphors. As a result, students expe- rienced less difficulty in learning English metaphors if they were asked to think about conceptual metaphors and their linguistic expressions in their first language (Polish) and to compare them to equivalents in the target language English. 1152 martin pu ¨ tz 5. Cognitive Linguistics Inspired Language Instruction: Phrasal Verbs Having referred to central tenets of the cognitive framework and their implications for Second Language Acquisition, I will now discuss in more detail the application of these cognitive tenets to the teaching and learning of concrete linguistic expres- sions, and of phrasal verbs and phraseology in particular. According to Biber et al.’s (1999) corpus-based grammar of spoken and written English, there are four major kinds of multiword combinations (403–8): (i) phrasal verbs, (ii) prepositional verbs, (iii) phrasal-prepositional verbs and (iv) other multiword verb constructions. Both phrasal verbs and prepositional verbs represent single semantic units which cannot be derived from the individual meanings of the two parts. What makes phrasal and prepositional verbs even more difficult for the language learner is the fact that especially activity verbs often have secondary meanings in some other domain. The phrasal verbs make up, make out, sort out,andtake in can all refer to either physical or mental activities, as in I find myself obliged to make up ground versus Iusedtomakeup stories for him (Biber et al. 1999: 408). In general, phrasal verbs are predominantly used in fiction and conversation and therefore constitute an important linguistic means of expression for the language learner, especially in the context of a com- municative approach to language teaching/learning. Given the importance of the domain of space for Cognitive Linguistics (Langacker’s Cognitive Grammar was first called Space Grammar; see also Zlatev, this volume, chapter 13), it should not come as a surprise that much work has been on the conceptualization of space, especially on its expression by prepositions and particles in combination with verbs. The textbook Word Power: Phrasal Verbs and Compounds—A Cognitive Ap- proach, designed by the late Rudzka-Ostyn (2003), is a didactic application of Cognitive Linguistics, largely based on the concepts of trajector and landmark and involving the extension of prototypical literal senses into metaphorized, more abstract senses represented in radial networks. The aim is ‘‘to discover which se- mantic features are conveyed by the particle or by the phrasal verb as a whole’’ (ix), that is, to make the learner acquainted with the nonspatial or figurative meanings inherent in the particle and/or prepositional system. Moreover, it adheres to one of the principles of a pedagogical grammar—that it should be based on an, at least implicitly, contrastive approach (Dirven 2001: 18)—in that it provides the students with cognitive insights and tools to analyze the ways in which their native language expresses similar relations with the world. Unlike traditional, nonsemantic ways of grouping particles around one spe- cific verb, this textbook groups verbs around particles/prepositions. In this way, the figurative meanings of the particles/prepositions can become transparent, and this transparency is said to lead to more meaningful learning. While traditional cognitive linguistics and applied linguistics 1153 approaches to teaching phrasal verbs largely concentrate on the formal (syntactic) aspects of their use or on those aspects in which the semantic content of specific verbs is emphasized (Kurtyka 2001: 30), Word Power examines the various senses of the particles/prepositions, their internal coherence, and their gradual buildup from the concrete prototype to the peripheral abstract meanings. This process can be illustrated, for instance, by the semantic network of the particle out. The basic spatial meaning of out involves the container concept and an object which moves out of the container. In general, the container may be whatever surrounds a given entity that moves out of it. In this regard, ‘one’s home’, ‘groups’/‘sets’, and ‘body’/‘mind’/‘mouth’ can be seen as literal/spatial containers while ‘states’/‘situations’ may represent extended/ metaphorical containers (Rudzka-Ostyn 2003: 41). Generally, visualization in terms of abstract drawings plays an important role in a cognitive approach to language and even more so in a didactic presentation. Figure 43.2, taken from Word Power (Rudzka-Ostyn 2003: 41), refers to the spatial, prototypical meaning of the most frequent particles/prepositions. Such visual representations of meaning alongside verbal explanations and example sentences seem to facilitate language learning considerably, as could be demonstrated by Kurtyka (2001) in a small-class experiment. While understanding the different senses of a particle is considered to be the first important step in the learning process, full command of the verbs is only guaranteed through repetition and dynamic use. Therefore, so-called exetests (a combination of an exercise and a test) give students an opportunity to go through a succession of small steps of learning as often as necessary before testing their knowledge of the phrasal verbs in question. Figure 43.1. Graphic synthesis of the related meanings of out 1154 martin pu ¨ tz Although Dirven (2001: 17) recognizes Rudzka-Ostyn’s work as a ‘‘unique mile- stone on the road to a full-fledged Pedagogical Grammar of English,’’ he still sees the necessity to consult in detail the descriptive work done in the area of phrasal verbs and phraseology. 6. Outlook on Future Research: Programs This chapter has attempted to show how the various strands of Cognitive Lin- guistics can provide a framework of starting points that may be used to system- atically investigate the pedagogical implications of the interplay between language, experience, and cognition. The application of cognitive linguistic theory to Foreign Language Teaching and Learning is still in its infancy, and more substantial work on Applied Cognitive Linguistics from different perspectives seems necessary and desirable. In this regard, it has been advocated that the metaphorical structure of language should be presented to foreign language learners as an integral part of language that is nonarbitrary in nature and that allows systematic treatment. Not much research is available on the concrete application of applied cognitive linguistic material in the foreign language classroom. The use of authentic and appropriate speech is certainly one of the prerequisites in order to make the cog- nitive enterprise in the classroom a success. A first step in the right direction is reflected in the set of exercises or teaching aids propagated by Lennon (1998), which are intended as guidelines for the teacher to stimulate cognitive activity in the learner’s mind (see also Deignan, Gabrys ´ , and Solska 1997). In addition to language Figure 43.2. Metaphorical or extended meanings of the particles cognitive linguistics and applied linguistics 1155 material representing actual usage, we must consider the necessity of taking into account large corpora of authentic speech. These may provide an extremely useful resource for investigating, for instance, idioms and metaphors (see especially Aston 2001) and their situated use in communication. A field which has hardly been researched involves the multicultural classroom, in which the status and use of the underlying contrastive metaphor systems in two or more languages could be sys- tematically explored (Lennon 1998: 21). In this regard, more work should be done on the role of interference, which can give an account of the learner’s cognitive strategies and provide an understanding of the social range of linguistic expressions in the target language (Achard 1997). Although research has focused on various grammatical and lexical aspects of linguistic structure, there is still a need to provide further substantial studies from an applied cognitive linguistic perspective in order to show the all-embracing embodied nature of human language, in other words, a holistic understanding of the way lan- guage works. In order to demonstrate that, for example, grammar has an experiential and interactional grounding and to allow young learners ‘‘‘to grasp’, ‘feel’ or ‘see’ the syntax of English’’ (Lapaire 2002: 624), it will be necessary to understand grammar as fundamentally embodied and imaginative, through metaphor and image schemas. From this, it also follows that more emphasis should be given to visualization within the applied cognitive framework, that is, the ability to form mental representations of verbal and nonverbal input (Kurtyka 2001). Pictures, drawings, and diagrams, and especially so-called KineGrams (Lapaire 2002: 624) as conceptualizing gestures, may illustrate the schematic nature of grammatical meaning. We may conclude that the theory of Cognitive Linguistics, as applied to the domain of language teaching/learning, provides fascinating insights into the re- lationship between language, cognition, and foreign language teaching/learning; at the same time, these interrelationships deserve further investigation. NOTES I wish to thank Rene ´ Dirven for his valuable suggestions and criticisms of an earlier draft of this chapter and Hubert Cuyckens for his careful editing of this chapter. 1. Independently of Cognitive Linguistics, another trend opposing Chomsky’s views developed, the so-called cognitive-code learning theory, which allows for a conscious focus on grammar and a recognition of the role of abstract mental processing in lan- guage learning. This view implies that learners should be made aware of the correspon- dences between varying structures and that grammar can be taught and learned deductively (Johnson and Johnson 1998: 149). Although there has been considerable interest in the implication of the cognitive-code theory for language teaching, no particular method incorporating this view of learning has emerged (Richards and Rodgers 1986: 60). 2. Image schemas are structures which are grounded in physical, bodily experience and which organize our perception and understanding of physical space. It is worth mentioning that these schemas are not to be regarded as fixed pictures, but rather should 1156 martin pu ¨ tz be seen as less stable structures which are applied in a flexible way. For example, Boers (1996: 12) in this regard refers to the container schema which is applied to both three- dimensional entities (a box) and two-dimensional ones (e.g., a bounded area). (For further information on image schemas, see Oakley, this volume, chapter 9). REFERENCES Achard, Michel. 1997. Cognitive grammar and SLA investigation. Journal of Intensive English Studies 11: 157–76. Achard, Michel. n.d. Grammatical instruction in the natural approach: A cognitive grammar view. Manuscript. Aston, Guy, ed. 2001. Learning with corpora. Houston, TX: Athelstan. Barcelona, Antonio. 2001. On the systematic contrastive analysis of conceptual metaphors: Case studies and proposed methodology. In Martin Pu ¨ tz, Susanne Niemeier, and Rene ´ Dirven, eds., Applied cognitive linguistics, vol. 2, Language pedagogy 117–46. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad, and Edward Finegan. 1999. Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow, UK: Pearson Educated. Boers, Frank. 1996. Spatial prepositions and metaphor: A cognitive semantic journey along the UP-DOWN and the FRONT-BACK dimensions.Tu ¨ bingen, Germany: Gunter Narr Verlag. Boers, Frank. 2000a. Enhancing metaphoric awareness in specialised reading. English for Specific Purposes 19: 137–47. Boers, Frank. 2000b. Metaphor awareness and vocabulary retention. Applied Linguistics 21: 553–71. Boers, Frank, and Murielle Demecheleer. 1998. A cognitive semantic approach to teaching prepositions. ELT Journal 52: 197–203. Brugman, Claudia. 1981. Story of Over. MA thesis, University of California at Berkeley. (Published as The story of Over: Polysemy, semantics, and the structure of the lexicon. New York: Garland, 1988) Chomsky, Noam. 1959. Review of Verbal Behavior, by B.F. Skinner. Language 35: 26–58. (Repr. in Jerry A. Fodor and Jerrold J. Katz, eds., The structure of language: Readings in the philosophy of language 547–78. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1964) Cornell, Alan. 1999. Idioms: An approach to identifying major pitfalls for learners. Inter- national Review of Applied Linguistics 37: 1–22. Deignan, Alice, Danuta Gabrys ´ , and Agnieszka Solska. 1997. Teaching English metaphors using cross-linguistic awareness-raising activities. ELT Journal 51: 352–60. Dirven, Rene ´ . 1989a. Cognitive linguistics and pedagogic grammar. In Gottfried Graustein and Gerhard Leitner, eds., Reference grammars and modern linguistic theory 56–75. Tu ¨ bingen, Germany: Max Niemeyer Verlag. Dirven, Rene ´ . 1989b. A cognitive perspective on complementation. In Dany Jaspers, Yvan Putseys, Wim Klooster, and Pieter Seuren, eds., Sentential complementation and the lexicon: Studies in honor of Wim de Geest. 113–39. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Foris. Dirven, Rene ´ . 2001. English phrasal verbs: Theory and didactic application. In Martin Pu ¨ tz, Susanne Niemeier, and Rene ´ Dirven, eds., Applied cognitive linguistics, vol. 2, Language pedagogy 3–27. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. cognitive linguistics and applied linguistics 1157 Dirven, Rene ´ , and John R. Taylor. 1994. English modality: A cognitive-didactic approach. In Keith Carlon, Kristin Davidse, and Brygida Rudzka-Ostyn, eds., Perspectives on English: Studies in honour of Professor Emma Vorlat 542–56. Leuven, Belgium: Peeters. Haiman, John. 1985. Iconicity in syntax. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Halliday, Michael A. K. 1985. Introduction to functional grammar. London: Arnold. Harris, Zellig S. 1964. String analysis of sentence structure. The Hague: Mouton. Hymes, Dell. 1974. Foundations of sociolinguistics: An ethnographic approach. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Johnson, Keith, and Helen Johnson, eds. 1998. Encyclopedic dictionary of applied linguistics: A handbook for language teaching. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Ko ¨ vecses, Zolta ´ n. 2001. A cognitive linguistic view of learning idioms in an FLT context. In Martin Pu ¨ tz, Susanne Niemeier, and Rene ´ Dirven, eds., Applied cognitive linguistics, vol. 2, Language pedagogy 87–115. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Ko ¨ vecses, Zolta ´ n, and Pe ´ ter Szabo ´ . 1996. Idioms: A view from cognitive semantics. Applied Linguistics 17: 326–55. Kurtyka, Andrzej. 2001. Teaching English phrasal verbs: A cognitive approach. In Martin Pu ¨ tz, Susanne Niemeier, and Rene ´ Dirven, eds., Applied cognitive linguistics, vol. 2, Language pedagogy 29–54. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, fire and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. 1, Theoretical pre- requisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Langacker, Ronald W. 1994. Culture, cognition and grammar. In Martin Pu ¨ tz, ed., Lan- guage contact and language conflict 25–53. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Langacker, Ronald W. 1997. The contextual basis of cognitive semantics. In Jan Nuyts and Eric Pederson, eds., Language and conceptualization 229–52. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Langacker, Ronald W. 2000. Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Langacker, Ronald W. 2001a. Cognitive linguistics, language pedagogy, and the English present tense. In Martin Pu ¨ tz, Susanne Niemeier, and Rene ´ Dirven, eds., Applied cognitive linguistics, vol. 1, Theory and language acquisition 3–39. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Langacker, Ronald W. 2001b. Discourse in cognitive grammar. Cognitive Linguistics 12: 143–88. Lapaire, Jean-Remi. 2002. Imaginative grammar. In Barbara Lewandowska and Kamila Turewicz, eds., Cognitive linguistics today 623–42. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang Verlag. Lazar, Gillian. 1996. Using figurative language to expand students’ vocabulary. ELT Journal 50: 43–51. Lee, David. 2001. Cognitive linguistics: An introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lennon, Paul. 1998. Approaches to the teaching of idiomatic language. International Review of Applied Linguistics 32: 11–30. Lindstromberg, Seth. 1996. Prepositions: Meaning and method. ELT Journal 50: 225–36. Lindstromberg, Seth. 1998. English prepositions explained. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Low, Graham D. 1988. On teaching metaphor. Applied Linguistics 9: 125–47. MacLennan, Carol H. G. 1994. Metaphors and prototypes in the learning and teaching of grammar and vocabulary. International Review of Applied Linguistics 32: 97–110. 1158 martin pu ¨ tz Queller, Kurt. 2001. A usage-based approach to modeling and teaching the phrasal lexicon. In Martin Pu ¨ tz, Susanne Niemeier, and Rene ´ Dirven, eds., Applied cognitive linguistics, vol. 2, Language pedagogy 55–83. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Radden, Gu ¨ nter. 1992. The cognitive approach to natural language. In Martin Pu ¨ tz, ed., Thirty years of linguistic evolution: Studies in honour of Ren ee Dirven on the occasion of his sixtieth birthday 513–41. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Radden, Gu ¨ nter. 1994. Konzeptuelle Metaphern in der kognitiven Semantik. In Wolfgang Bo ¨ rner and Klaus Vogel, eds., Kognitive Linguistik und Fremdsprachenerwerb: Das mentale Lexikon 69–87.Tu ¨ bingen, Germany: Gunter Narr Verlag. Richards, Jack C., and Theodore S. Rodgers. 1986. Approaches and methods in language teaching: A description and analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rudzka-Ostyn, Brygida. 2003. Word power: Phrasal verbs and compounds: A cognitive ap- proach. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Rutherford, William, and Michael Sharwood Smith. 1985. Consciousness raising and universal grammar. Applied Linguistics 6: 274–282. Sharifian, Farzad. 2001. Schema-based processing in Australian speakers of Aboriginal English. Language and Intercultural Communication 1: 120–34. Soffritti, Marcello, and Rene ´ Dirven. 1998. Language comparison: Sociology of language, language typology and contrastive linguistics. In Rene ´ Dirven and Marjolijn Verspoor, eds., Cognitive exploration of language and linguistics 247–77. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Taylor, John R. 1993. Some pedagogical implications of cognitive linguistics. In Richard A. Geiger and Brygida Rudzka-Ostyn, eds., Conceptualizations and mental processing in language 201–23. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Tyler, Andrea, and Vyvyan Evans. 2001. The relation between experience, conceptual structure and meaning: Non-temporal uses of tense and language teaching. In Martin Pu ¨ tz, Susanne Niemeier, and Rene ´ Dirven, eds., Applied cognitive linguistics, vol. 1, Theory and language acquisition 63–105. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Ungerer, Friedrich. 2001. Basicness and conceptual hierarchies in foreign language learn- ing: A corpus-based study. In Martin Pu ¨ tz, Susanne Niemeier, and Rene ´ Dirven, eds., Applied cognitive linguistics, vol. 2, Language pedagogy 201–22. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Ungerer, Friedrich, and Hans-Jo ¨ rg Schmid. 1996. An introduction to cognitive linguistics. London: Longman. Verspoor, Marjolijn. 1997. True blue: A cognitive approach to vocabulary acquisition. In Birgit Smieja and Meike Tasch, eds., Human contact through language and linguistics 203–17. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang Verlag. cognitive linguistics and applied linguistics 1159 . Demecheleer hypothesize that the lack of the causal sense of the French derri eere causes more comprehension problems than may be evident in regard to the other figurative senses of behind. They suggest. obviously, the factor of first language interference plays a vital role in the conceptualization of linguistic expressions or metaphors. For French learners of English, one of the spatial senses of the. is centered around the analysis of a sche- matic account of tense phenomena in English. The central thesis of their paper is that the so-called exceptional, nontemporal uses of tense are related