Usage of the Methods of Cognitive Linguistics/Grammar in Teaching Czech for Foreigners (with Focus on Verbal Aspect)

linguistic concept). We should not omit Categories that are used to organize human knowledge in a structural system of concepts. The given category is then defined by a respective Prototype (created with regard to connotation) that serves as a starting point for organizing other linguistic data with a relation to the prototype. The content and structure of these categories differ from speaker to speaker, resp. language to language, however it is important to state that no information remains isolated and all inputs are categorized and interconnected. Cognitive Grammar (see Danaher 2007) was developed in 1970s by an American linguist Ronald Langacker as a reaction to the theory of generative grammar by Noam Chomsky that prefers a formal-logic point of view. Langacker claims that this approach excludes the notion of Usage and Figurative Use of Language that are essential for understanding the linguistic structure. Apart from that, he also refuses the generative principle of a language being an autonomous formal system. Grammar is, in his opinion, a non-formal, Symbolic system that consists of concepts and he puts more emphasis on analysing the role of language 4 The following works are considered pivotal in the field of cognitive linguistics: Metaphors we live by by George Lakoff & Mark Johnson (1980) and Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things by George Lakoff (1987). 5 See Janda 2004. Athens Journal of Philology December 2020 295 in the cognitive process than on discovering “deep” grammatical structures or language universals. Langacker assumes that there is no principal difference between syntax and lexical inventory because grammar consists of a set of symbolic units (morphemes, words and grammatical constructions). These units result from everyday Language Use and practice as a product of two cognitive processes – Abstraction and Schematization, which is a type of abstraction that produces a language unit that is much less detailed (specific) than its realization, i.e. actual expressions, namely a schema (for representation see Figure 1). Figure 1. Schemes from Ronald Langacker (2008, 69 & 153) We could summarize that in cognitive grammar, the critical cognitive process is the process of metaphorization based on human experience and language use. Grammar is claimed to be symbolic, as Noriko Matsumoto puts it in her study: Cognitive grammar assumes cognitive semantics and builds a model of grammar which is consistent with the assumptions and findings of research in cognitive semantics. In addition to this, the two guiding principles of cognitive grammar are (i) the symbolic thesis, and (ii) the usage-based thesis. (Matsumoto 2017, 118) Cognitive Semantics works with the concept of schemes that are regarded as a basis of human cognition. These are mental structures that are extracted from repetitive interaction with the environment. In this sense, humans are able to deduce one structure that is common for more than one physical experience of motion, be it for objects in space or humans themselves. These homogenous and clearly different pieces of experience share one concept, which is called an abstract “scheme”. (Valenzuela et al. 2015, 26) Thanks to these schemes we are enabled to think and we find them in speech. It is thus natural and highly useful to apply this principle not only in teaching language for native speakers but also in foreign language teaching. Cognitive Linguistics and Language Acquisition If we decide to use the methods of cognitive linguistics in teaching, we should consider all of the above-mentioned principles and the cognitive function of Vol. 7, No. 4 Dosoudilová & Bednaříková: Usage of the Methods of... 296 language itself. As Pacovská (2012) puts it, language is a part of our understanding of the world and cognitive processes help us take a grasp of many processes in language. In teaching it is also crucial to point out the possible semantic base of linguistic and grammatical mechanisms that allows us to “clarify a high number of linguistic phenomena (from polysemy to the usage of certain grammatical constructions) in a natural and relevant manner.” (Ibarretxe-Antuñano & Valenzuela 2015, 163) Furthermore, we should emphasize human experience, connotation potential of the given word meaning and also the interconnection of language and the extralinguistic reality. A vital principle of human cognition that is reflected in language use are schemes (as in Figure 2) and metaphors, whose usage in language teaching is of great use (see above). These structures are singled out from the set of characteristics for different pieces of experience of the human locomotor system. Actions such as getting from one point to another, throwing a ball, feeding a baby or slapping someone in the face incorporate an object in a given position from where it moves along a given trajectory and eventually reaches another position. This structure has a source-path-goal scheme. Having derived this structure from rather diverse experience with physical and actual movement, we can apply it to more abstract examples. (Ibarretxe-Antuñano & Valenzuela 2015, 164–165) Figure 2. Schematic Representation of Verbal Prefixes of Movement Source: Dosoudilová 2017. In general, this approach tries to avoid memorising grammatical definitions and patterns in language without understanding it and instead works with patterns, structures and constructions anchored in language usage. It emphasizes principles of language as we know them and are natural for us based on human experience and general cognitive processes, such as usage of schemes, metaphors or categorization. These processes explain how the outside world manifests itself in our language through processes of structuralization and conceptualization. The cognitive approach seems to be very useful for language teaching, although for now it is not a part of Czech didactic tradition (among the few representatives of this approach are Jasňa Pacovská, Svatava Škodová, Laura Janda or Ilona Starý Kořánová). Applying the methods of cognitive grammar to Slavic languages is an Athens Journal of Philology December 2020 297 approach that apart from Laura Janda (semantics of prexifes and cases, aspect and animateness) is promoted also by Tore Nesset (morphology), Alan Cienki (case and preposition semantics), Ewa Dabrowska (case and prefix semantics and also language acquisition), Steven Dickey (aspect), David Danaher (habitural verbs in Czech) and others. Metaphorical Meaning of Aspect and its Characteristics According to Laura Janda (2004) 6 , the best way to explain the difference between perfectives and imperfectives and thus to make this category more transparent for students is a metaphor because it presents formal characteristics of the given verbs based on their own experience. With regard to her research in cognitive linguistics, Janda considers metaphors accompanied by pictures, schemes or practical examples of use very helpful. She proposes two types of metaphor used for aspect verbs: a metaphor of a fluid substances (e.g. sand, water) in case of imperfectives and a metaphor of a concrete solid objects (e.g. rock, billiard ball) for perfectives. The abovementioned concepts might be used as a prototypical (source) meaning and a source domain for semantic features of imperfectives and perfectives. As for aspect, students generally consider it an abstract category and we find the use of metaphors very useful. However, even after applying metaphors to presentation, this category might still not be fully transparent for some students. We shall focus on further characteristics and several individual features of this concept. We support Janda ́s claim that it will not help students much if they are presented with basic characteristics of perfectives and imperfecives using abstract terms and concepts such as boundedness, totality, sequencing vs. simultaneity etc. Moreover, using technical terms violates the principles of cognitive linguistics that endeavours to be comprehensible and accessible for non-linguists as well. Therefore Janda proposes that we might use characteristic properties of fluids and solids instead, which can also be presented to the students during the class (possibly with a practical demonstration) to make the problematics easier to understand. With all these in mind, we proposed the following concepts for Czech: 1) Inherent Features: a. Edges – A discrete solid object (a stone) has clear, firm edges, however a fluid substance lacks these. This property corresponds to the boundedness 6 We are referring to Janda ́s 2004 work A metaphor in search of a source domain: the categories of Slavic aspect, where this concept is introduced in connection to aspect in modern Russian. Using this metaphor in the context of aspect in Czech, we do not translate directly and try to avoid adopting all of the findings without due consideration. Moreover, we try to adjust Janda ́s method and provide simple examples to use it in teaching Czech, analysing Czech aspect verbs and also when presenting this category in foreign language teaching. Vol. 7, No. 4 Dosoudilová & Bednaříková: Usage of the Methods of... 298 of perfectives (napsat „pf. to write‟) and not-boundedness of imperfectives (psát „impf. to write/to be writing‟). We claim that to define the edges of actions we can use time frames (od–do „from–until‟, zítra „tomorrow‟, odpoledne „in the afternoon‟ or phase verbs) that might be visualized as containers. When putting the sand in the container, it is bound to it (psát od rána až do večera „impf. to write / to be writing from the morning until the evening‟ is bound as opposed to psát „impf. to write/to be writing‟). b. Shape – A discrete solid object has an inherent shape and may vary in width, e.g. it can be “cut” into very thin slices. The variable width of discrete solid corresponds to different types of perfectives that usually have variable durations, which can be observed in case o