A Systematic Review of Studies on the Cognitive Linguistic Approach to L2 Instruction:
A Case of Japanese Learners of English【Articles】

A Systematic Review of Studies on
the Cognitive Linguistic Approach to L2 Instruction:
A Case of Japanese Learners of English
認知言語学的アプローチによる L2 指導研究に関する
システマティックレビュー：
日本人英語学習者の事例
OGAWA Mutsumi
（小川

睦美）

Contents
1
2

Introduction
Literature Review
2.1 Application of Cognitive Linguistics to Language Teaching
2.2 CL and Traditional Approaches to L2 Instruction
2.3 Research Questions
3 Method
3.1 Literature Search
3.2 Criteria for Inclusion
3.3 Coding Procedures
3.4 Data Analysis
4

Results and Discussion
4.1 Publication Characteristics
4.2 Learner Characteristics
4.3 Research Design
4.4 Meta-Analysis
4.4.1 Overall, Immediate, and Delayed Effects of Instruction
4.4.2 Proficiency Level
4.4.3 Instruction Time

5

General Discussion― 19 ―+OGAWA Mutsumi様.indd

19

総合文化研究第 30 巻第 1 号（2024.6）

2024/06/11

12:03:49

A Systematic Review of Studies on the Cognitive Linguistic Approach to L2 Instruction:
A Case of Japanese Learners of English

6 Conclusion
Acknowledgements
References
Appendix A

Abstract
This study reports a systematic review of studies investigating the effectiveness of language teaching approaches based on insights from cognitive linguistics (CL). With a growing
body of CL-inspired intervention research, the current study mainly targeted empirical studies with Japanese learners of English that compared CL with traditional teaching methods.
The meta-analysis included 98 effect sizes from 40 sample studies involving 3,179 learners.
Aggregated results revealed that CL-informed instruction led to greater learning gains with amedium effect size than traditional instruction overall ( g = 0.719, 95% CI [0.565, 0.873]). The
subsequent moderator analyses indicated that the CL approach was marginally better in theimmediate and short-term delayed posttests. Although there was a possibility of a larger
advantage of CL over traditional methods in the long term, the generalisation requires moredata covering various linguistic features. The current study also confirmed that learners at
A1 to B1 proficiency levels equally experienced moderately surplus effects of the CL
approach. It suggests the magnitude of CL instruction on learners with higher proficiency to
be explored in future research. Lastly, pedagogical implications related to instruction time
will be discussed, as well as a future direction for the integration of the CL approach into language teaching.

1

Introduction

Theoretical insights from cognitive linguistics (CL) have been widely applied to language teaching and learning. The research field of applied cognitive linguistics hasdeveloped dramatically over the past two decades. A large number of studies attempt tomake use of key concepts of CL (e.g., conceptual metaphors, image schemas, core meanings) in teaching different linguistic structures (e.g., prepositions, phrasal verbs, countability,
modal verbs) of different target languages (e.g., English, Spanish). In Japan, this trend has
also been seen in vocabulary and grammar learning, with many books published for English
learners and reference books targeted at language instructors (Tanaka et al., 2003; Ueno,
2006). Now, there is a pool of studies that empirically investigated the efficacy of CL-based
instruction in teaching English, especially to Japanese-speaking learners. This paper reportsa systematic review of such studies to overview the areas of instructional application, target
learner groups, and their outcomes in order to clarify the effectiveness of the CL approach
総合文化研究第 30 巻第 1 号（2024.6）+OGAWA Mutsumi様.indd

20― 20 ―

2024/06/11

12:03:49

A Systematic Review of Studies on the Cognitive Linguistic Approach to L2 Instruction:
A Case of Japanese Learners of English

and its sustainability in comparison to conventional ways of teaching.

2
2.1

Literature Review
Application of Cognitive Linguistics to Language Teaching

CL began to be widely advocated in the 1980s, attempting to capture language ability
through an approach different from traditional generative grammar (e.g., Lakoff, 1987; Langacker, 2008a; Talmy, 2000). While generative grammar views linguistic competence as
separate and independent from other cognitive abilities, CL seeks to perceive it as a manifestation of advanced cognitive activities based on fundamental cognitive abilities inherent tohumans. Sharing the assumptions that basic units of language representation are constructions, namely form-meaning mappings, and that language is learned from usage, work within
this approach ranges over various research areas, such as cognitive semantics including conceptual metaphor theor y (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980), usage-based models of language
acquisition (Langacker, 2000; Tomasello, 2003), and so on (see Ellis & Robinson, 2008). In
particular, Langacker, who established Cognitive Grammar, emphasises that “compared toother approaches, cognitive linguistics offers an account of language structure that … isarguably more comprehensive, revealing, and descriptively adequate” (Langacker, 2008b, p.
66). He described the centrality of meaning, the meaningful characterisation of grammar,
and the usage-based nature of Cognitive Grammar, all of which have extended implications
for language learning and teaching.
Such proposals as insights from CL to benefit language instruction have been analysed
and implemented since the emergence of applied cognitive linguistics as a research discipline, marked by influential publications such as Applied Cognitive Linguistics I and II (Pützet al., 2001a, 2001b) and the launch of the book series Applications of Cognitive Linguistics(the first issue by Kristiansen et al., 2006). In the survey of CL-inspired teaching proposals,
however, Boers and Lindstromberg (2006) found that some of them were “vague as to theexact implementation of the CL insights in terms of material design or precise classroom
activities” and “lacking in the provision of empirical evidence of any surplus pedagogicaleffectiveness in comparison with already established teaching methods” (p. 335). They noted
the necessity of fine-tuned implementations of research to evaluate the relative pedagogicaleffectiveness of CL-based language instruction. To fill this disciplinary demand, many studies have used more precise methodology to address language teaching efficiency throughCL (De Knop et al., 2010; Tyler et al., 2018). With an expanding body of research regarding
CL application to vocabulary teaching, Boers (2013) reported a review of intervention studies to assess whether CL-informed instruction was better for vocabulary retention than otherkinds of instruction. This indicates that empirical research is accumulating in volume tomake it possible to evaluate the effectiveness of the CL approach collectively.

― 21 ―+OGAWA Mutsumi様.indd

21

総合文化研究第 30 巻第 1 号（2024.6）

2024/06/11

12:03:50

A Systematic Review of Studies on the Cognitive Linguistic Approach to L2 Instruction:
A Case of Japanese Learners of English

2.2

CL and Traditional Approaches to L2 Instruction

This section overviews practical reports and empirical studies that incorporated CLbased methods into teaching Japanese learners of English (JLEs). According to Fujii (2017),
there are two main streams in how insights from CL are applied to second language (L2)
instruction. One is to teach the cognitive operation required for conceptual metaphors andmetaphor/metonymy, which motivates the extension of meaning. The other relies on image
schemas and/or core meanings to facilitate L2 learning. While the former is frequently
observed in educational practice abroad, for example, for teaching how to link the central
and peripheral meanings of polysemous words and fostering a better understanding of idioms, the latter is more common in Japan. Fujii summarised a literature survey on CL
application to JLEs, noting that most studies targeted basic verbs, prepositions, and phrasal
verbs. More importantly, he indicated that not all of the reported studies found the outcomesfavouring the CL approach compared to traditional teaching methods using translation andEnglish-Japanese dictionaries. This field of research is beginning to constitute a body of
empirical evidence, but it still remains inconclusive how promising CL-based instruction is to
JLEs.
For example, Yasuda (2010) investigated 115 university students on 21 phrasal verbs.
The treatment group was given an explanation based on conceptual (orientational) metaphors embedded in the adverbial particles (up, down, into, out, off), such as MOREVISIBLE/ACCESSIBLE IS UP (e.g., open up, show up) and COMPLETION IS UP (e.g., dryup, use up). The instruction was followed by memorisation with reference to a checklist
which categorised the phrasal verbs by each particle with subheadings of underlying conceptual metaphors and Japanese translations. On the other hand, the comparison group (i.e., thetraditional approach) was taught each phrasal verb by simply translating it into Japanese andinstructed to memorise them using a checklist which listed the phrasal verbs alphabeticallywith Japanese translations. The entire teaching session took 10 minutes for both groups. The
outcome was measured by means of a fill-in-the-blank sentence completion task where a particle was missing in a sentence (e.g., “When she heard the news, she burst ___ tears.”). This
study did not conduct a pretest to avoid a facilitating effect, in that giving a test may lead togiving knowledge. Instead, the outcome measure included exposed items (i.e., items thatparticipants have seen or encountered before the task) and unexposed items (i.e., items thatparticipants have not seen or been exposed to before the task), and the effectiveness wasevaluated by comparing the accuracies of the two types of items in an immediate posttest (15items per type, adding up to 30 test items). As a result, the treatment group outperformed
the comparison group on the unexposed items, while they did not differ on the exposed
items. This suggests that the knowledge of conceptual metaphors may facilitate understanding phrasal verbs that are not stored in the learner’s mental lexicon as a unit.
Incorporating image schemas into instruction, Strong (2013) compared three groups of
総合文化研究第 30 巻第 1 号（2024.6）+OGAWA Mutsumi様.indd22― 22 ―

2024/06/11

12:03:50

A Systematic Review of Studies on the Cognitive Linguistic Approach to L2 Instruction:
A Case of Japanese Learners of English

university students (N = 77) in teaching 16 phrasal verbs: an English-Japanese translationgroup (paired-association group), a semantic analysis group, and a mixed instruction group(semantic analysis and image schema). The (traditional) translation group received a list ofphrasal verbs presented with Japanese translations alphabetically and was asked to memorise them for 10 minutes. In contrast, the explanation given to the semantic analysis group
included brief semantic instruction on the meaning of target particles (up, down, out, off)and how their prototypical meanings contributed to the meaning of the main verb, directing
participants’ attention to the semantic relationship between the verb-particle construction.
The mixed instruction group received the same semantic instruction but supplemented withbasic image schemas of the four particles. These two groups received the semantic instruction for 5 minutes and spent the remaining 5 minutes on independent review. Like Yasuda(2010), this study did not include a pretest, but the outcome measure consisted of exposed
and unexposed items (32 items per type, adding up to 64 test items) in a fill-in-the-blank for1）
mat . Results showed no difference among the three groups regarding the exposed items.
With the unexposed items, however, the participants who received the semantic analysis andthose who received the semantic analysis with image schemas performed better than thosein the translation group. As no difference was found between the two outperforming groups,
the inclusion of image schemas does not seem to have contributed to learning gain in thisstudy. There is presumably room for improvement in terms of how to present and explain
image schemas in instruction, and it is also necessary to investigate its potential impact onlong-term retention.
Nakagawa (2018) devised an inductive learning pedagogy for phrasal verbs using a jigsaw method (i.e., a cooperative learning strategy that asks groups of students to specialise indifferent aspects of a topic and share what they learn with other students). This methodattempted to lead learners to notice by themselves that peripheral meanings of a word arederived from its central meaning through conceptual metaphors and to form the image
schema of a word by themselves eventually. He employed a pre-immediate-delayed post
design on 10 phrasal verbs with a particle “up”, comparing treatment with comparisongroups consisting of 56 high school students collectively. The comparison group was given alist of phrasal verbs that appeared in the pretest of fill-in-the-blank sentence completion,
where participants were asked to choose a verb out of 10 choices which matches the Japanese translation of the sentence. They looked up the phrasal verbs in a dictionary and wrote
down the sentences with Japanese translations, followed by a read-aloud exercise with flashcards. On the other hand, the treatment group was given jigsaw activities comprising several
steps (i.e., an individual activity, two expert group activities, a jigsaw group activity, and ateacher-directed wrap-up session). The participants in the treatment group were mainly
asked to work out the peripheral meanings of the particle by themselves, individually andcollaboratively, and they were only taught the central meaning in the last wrap-up session.

― 23 ―+OGAWA Mutsumi様.indd

23

総合文化研究第 30 巻第 1 号（2024.6）

2024/06/11

12:03:50

A Systematic Review of Studies on the Cognitive Linguistic Approach to L2 Instruction:
A Case of Japanese Learners of English

Both groups were instructed for 25 minutes. An immediate posttest took place on the sameday, and a delayed posttest one week later. As a result, both groups improved after the
instruction, showing a significant learning gain in the immediate test; however, only thetreatment group continued to improve further in the delayed posttest. The findings of thisstudy make an important call for examining the effects of the CL approach in the long term.
Lastly, teaching the same property, phrasal verbs, through conceptual metaphors andimages, Hotei (2022) examined learners with low English proficiency. His participants (N =69) were assessed as Pre-A1 on CEFR-J and comparatively lower than the participants in
Yasuda (2010) and Strong (2013), who were at low-intermediate levels probably equivalent
to B1 on CEFR. The study compared three groups in a pre-immediate-delayed post design: a
CL treatment group, a (traditional) memorisation group, and a mixed instruction group2）
receiving both CL and memorisation methods . It also included exposed and unexposed
items in the fill-in-the-blank sentence completion outcome measure. Although four particles(up, down, off, on) were taught, the results were only reported on the phrasal verbs with“up”. They revealed that learners at low proficiency levels benefited from any instruction tosome extent; however, they all had difficulty inferring the meanings of unexposed phrasal
verbs from the learned knowledge (i.e., CL explanation of particle “up” and/or memorisationof its dictionary definitions). Hotei’s study, together with Yasuda (2010) and Strong (2013),
suggests that the learner’s proficiency level may be associated with the effectiveness of the
CL approach in that the magnitude of the learning effect may vary depending on the learner’s English level.
2.3

Research Questions

Common beliefs so-called cognitive instruction belief and cognitive superiority belief (Wiraget al., 2022) exist among CL advocates, such that CL-based teaching models are typicallyassumed to bring about the desired L2 learning outcomes and outperform traditional methods, especially based on structuralist or generative language theories. As shown in theprevious section reviewing only part of the research with CL-based methods on phrasal
verbs, there are variations in their methodology, such as target learners, research design,and, more importantly, what kind of and how much CL-informed instruction is given to learners in what way, presumably resulting in different outcomes. Therefore, it is crucial to test
such beliefs through scrutiny with empirical evidence.
This paper aims to conduct a systematic review with a meta-analysis on the effectivenessof CL-based L2 instruction. In particular, the search of the literature is limited to empiricalstudies with JLEs in foreign language settings. The rationale behind restricting the target L2
learners to a group of speakers with a specific L1 background is CL principles of language
acquisition and learning. CL emphasises the symbolic function of language that associates
meaning with structure to construct actually occurring linguistic expressions; therefore, the
総合文化研究第 30 巻第 1 号（2024.6）+OGAWA Mutsumi様.indd

24― 24 ―

2024/06/11

12:03:50

A Systematic Review of Studies on the Cognitive Linguistic Approach to L2 Instruction:
A Case of Japanese Learners of English

grammar of a language can be viewed as a structured array of symbolic units. CL also holds
usage-based models, in that linguistic knowledge (i.e., symbolic units) is shaped by the patterns of actual language use that a speaker is exposed to (Langacker, 2000; Tomasello,2003). This suggests that a task for L2 learners is to construct a specific array of symbolic
units from their exposure to the linguistic conventions of the target language. In this respect,foreign language settings, compared to immersive settings, offer “uniformity of exposure to
the target language” (Ionin & Montrul, 2023, p. 33). Moreover, L2 acquisition fundamentallydiffers from L1 acquisition in that learners, particularly adult ones, already have an established inventory of symbolic units in their L1, which competes with the target units in L2.
Hence, L2 learning can be described as “a gradual process by which the target system gains
more and more differentiation and autonomy from the native one” (Achard & Niemeier,
2004, p. 6). This differentiation and autonomy from the L1 are indeed influenced by the relative language distance between the L1 and L2. Consequently, different degrees of instruction
effects may be experienced by speakers with different L1s even through the same instruction. With these theoretical assumptions considered, it is essential to specify thecharacteristics of the target learner group.
Usage-based models also assume a bottom-up process of language learning. For example, the core meaning (schema) of “on” can be constructed through the learner’s exposure3）
to actual usages of the word in context (e.g., on the table, on the wall, on the ceiling) . Thisbottom-up process of extracting a meaning that all the occurring expressions have in common may be accelerated as the exposure accumulates in the learner’s interlanguage. CLinformed instruction, especially the one relying on core meanings and image schemas, might
be seen as teaching “the goal” which in a natural learning setting can be obtained through anadequate amount of experience with the language. Therefore, CL instruction may be readily
accepted by learners who have already reached a certain level of proficiency in L2, helping
them to integrate accumulated (and perhaps fragmented) knowledge. On the other hand,learners at an initial learning stage may take the CL explanation as somewhat abstract andunclear to use because they have not yet encountered a sufficient number of usages that they
can link with the given CL explanation. In other words, some immediate learning outcomesmight be expected of proficient learners, whereas learners at basic levels may not enjoy an
immediate effect but may benefit in the long run. To sum up, this study surveys the studies
that empirically examined the effects of the CL approach on JLEs to address the following
research questions:(1) Is the CL approach to teaching JLEs more effective than the traditional approach?
(2) How long does the effect of CL instruction last?
(3) What proficiency level of students will benefit from CL instruction?

― 25 ―+OGAWA Mutsumi様.indd

25

総合文化研究第 30 巻第 1 号（2024.6）

2024/06/11

12:03:50

A Systematic Review of Studies on the Cognitive Linguistic Approach to L2 Instruction:
A Case of Japanese Learners of English

3
3.1

MethodLiterature Search

The data for this study were collected first through an online search of the following
databases: CiNii Research, J-stage, Education Resources Information Center (ERIC), andLinguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts (LLBA). The studies published between 2000
and 2022 were included. The year 2000 was set as the start because the field of applied cognitive linguistics had its disciplinary roots in the 1990s and many CL-inspired pedagogicalstudies started to increase around this period. The combinations of the following keywords
were utilised for the search: cognitive linguistics, cognitive grammar, English, learning,
instruction, teaching, Japanese learners of English, prototype, core meaning, image schema, andmetaphor. The retrieved studies included journal articles, published conference papers, bookchapters, and dissertations. In addition, the references of the retrieved studies were consulted.
3.2

Criteria for Inclusion

The retrieved study reports were examined to determine whether they satisfied the following criteria for inclusion in the meta-analysis.
1.

2.

The study employed either an experimental or quasi-experimental design, comparing treatment and comparison groups in a pre-post design. It was included when the
study without a pretest assured the equal quality of the participants in both groups
by alternative measures.
The study gave the treatment group the intervention that utilised explanations anddescriptions based on CL (e.g., conceptual metaphor, image schema, prototype,
cognitive grammar), while the comparison group was taught the same linguistic
property with a conventional method based on Japanese translation, dictionary
entries, and/or formal usage. When the study included more than one treatmentgroup which received CL intervention against one comparison group, only one
treatment group was chosen with the consideration of which method could be more
4）commonly utilised . In addition, the study was not included when it compared different means and learning styles of CL instruction without a comparison group with3.
4.

conventional methods.
The study targeted Japanese learners of English in foreign language settings andprovided the participants’ details (e.g., proficiency levels, institutional status).
The study examined a statistically valid sample size for both treatment and comparison groups, namely at least five or more participants in a group. It also provided the

総合文化研究第 30 巻第 1 号（2024.6）+OGAWA Mutsumi様.indd

26― 26 ―

2024/06/11

12:03:50

A Systematic Review of Studies on the Cognitive Linguistic Approach to L2 Instruction:
A Case of Japanese Learners of English

necessary information for the meta-analysis (i.e., sample sizes, means, and standard
deviations). In particular, the study presenting mean difference scores rather than
raw scores of each test was included only when it showed each group’s mean difference scores between the pretest and posttest. A study reporting mean difference
scores between treatment and comparison groups in a posttest was not included.
5.
6.

The study focused on specific L2 features (e.g., prepositions, modal verbs, polysemy).
The study was written in either English or Japanese.

If an experimental study was published in several publications, only one report was selected
for the statistical meta-analysis. Furthermore, when a single publication reported the resultsof multiple experiments investigating different linguistic features and/or learner groups,
each experiment was treated as a separate study. As a result, 40 studies reported in 35 publications involving 3,179 learners were included in the analysis.
3.3

Coding Procedures

Coding criteria were set for four categories of characteristics related to publication,
learners, research design, and statistical information, as shown in Table 1. First, publicationand learner characteristics were coded. As for institutional status, technical colleges areequivalent to high schools and universities, usually offering five-year programmes after
junior high school. Therefore, grades 1–3 were coded as high school and grades 4–5 as university. Regarding learner proficiency, four categories of proficiency assessment classification
were adopted, following the definitions by Thomas (2006). Standardised tests include widely
acknowledged English proficiency tests (e.g., TOEIC, TOEFL, GTEC). In-house assessments
are locally developed instruments, such as programme placement tests. Institutional status isdefined by learners’ membership in an academic institution and used as a proxy for achieved
proficiency. Impressionistic judgment is a spontaneous and unsupported characterisation oflearners’ competence, seen in statements like “The participants in this study were at thelower-intermediate level”. The proficiency levels reported in each study were converted to
CEFR, using Table 2. The conversion table was created based on the conversion rates offi5）
cially provided by the organisation of each test . The proficiency assessed by institutional
status or impressionistic judgment is distributed by its description accordingly.
Next, research design details were coded, such as target linguistic features and intervention time. Inter vention ef fects were measured by various tasks (e.g., sentencecompletion, acceptability judgment, rating scale). Considering the purpose of this study tocompare the effectiveness of two approaches, namely the CL approach and the conventional
approach relying on Japanese translation, the involvement of Japanese translation was coded
explicitly with the type of outcome measures. Then, the timing of posttests was coded― 27 ―+OGAWA Mutsumi様.indd

27

総合文化研究第 30 巻第 1 号（2024.6）

2024/06/11

12:03:50

A Systematic Review of Studies on the Cognitive Linguistic Approach to L2 Instruction:
A Case of Japanese Learners of English

Table 1

CodingAuthorPublication
characteristics

Learnercharacteristics

Research
designStatisticalinformation

Year
Publication language

English, Japanese

Publication typearticles (including published conference papers),
book chapter, doctoral dissertation, etc.

Institutional status

high school, university, etc.

Proficiency level (CEFR)

Pre-A1, A1, A2, B1, B2, C1, C2

Proficiency assessment
measuresstandardised test, in-house assessment,
institutional status, impressionistic judgment

Target feature

prepositions, countability, phrasal verbs, etc.

Time per session

length of one intervention session in minute

Session frequency

number of intervention sessions

Total intervention duration

total duration of intervention in minute

Outcome measures

fill-in-the-blank sentence completion,
Japanese translation, acceptability judgment, etc.

Timing of posttests

immediate, delayed

Sample size

number of participants

MeanStandard deviation

Table 2
CEFR

Eiken

GTEC forStudents a

Proficiency Conversion Table
GTEC
Basic

TOEIC
L&R b

TOEFL
ITP/PBT

Institutional status/
Impressionistic judgment

C2

upper-advanced

C1

Grade 11350 ~

945 (455) ~620 ~lower-advanced

B2

Grade Pre-1

B1

Grade 2980 (810) ~1180 ~

785 (385) ~543 ~upper-intermediate815 ~ 979
(675 ~ 809)930 ~

550 (275) ~433 ~lower-intermediate

A2

Grade Pre-2

565 ~ 814
(485 ~ 674)

680 ~

225(115) ~343 ~upper-basic

A1

Grade 3–5

~ 564 (484)Pre-A1 c

260 ~

120 (60) ~lower-basic~ 259~ 119 (59)noviceascores from four skills (scores from three skills of Listening, Reading, Writing)scores from Listening & Reading (scores from Reading)cbased on CEFR-J (http://www.cefr-j.org)b

総合文化研究第 30 巻第 1 号（2024.6）+OGAWA Mutsumi様.indd

28― 28 ―

2024/06/11

12:03:50

A Systematic Review of Studies on the Cognitive Linguistic Approach to L2 Instruction:
A Case of Japanese Learners of English

according to the interval between intervention and the test. When a test was conducted rightafter the intervention on the same day, it was coded as immediate. A test conducted on a different day was categorised as delayed and coded with how much time it took after a test took
place. This distinction aimed to assess the learnability and sustainability of CL-based instruc6）
tion separately .
Finally, statistical values necessary to calculate effect sizes were retrieved (i.e., sample
size, mean, standard deviation). Effect sizes were computed for each outcome measure andposttest. For example, when a study used two outcome measures (e.g., sentence completion,
picture description) in two posttests (e.g., an immediate posttest, a delayed posttest), four
data sources were extracted from the study. In total, 98 data sources were submitted to the7）statistical meta-analysis . The categories in learner characteristics and research design wereused for subsequent moderator analyses.
3.4

Data Analysis

The statistical software SPSS was used for data analyses. Effect sizes were calculated bycomparing the treatment group with the comparison group according to Hedges’s g, an index
of standardised mean differences. Hedges’s g provides more conservative calculations than
Cohen’s d, which tends to overestimate the absolute value of the effect size parameter in8）small samples (Cooper et al., 2009) . Since Hedges’s g is a variation of Cohen’s d that corrects for bias in small sample sizes, the interpretation is similar to Cohen’s d. This study
follows Plonsky and Oswald’s (2014) suggestion to adopt the L2 field-specific benchmarks ofsmall (d = .40), medium (d = .70), and large (d = 1.00), in order to interpret the practical significance of intervention effects more precisely. The present meta-analysis employed therandom-effect model to address the diverse research designs and learner characteristics of
the included sample studies. The random-effect model posits that the variation between studies consists of factors shared within the studies and other factors that these shared factors
cannot explain (Takeuchi & Mizumoto, 2023). Subsequent moderator analyses examined theheterogeneity found in the observed effects. For a moderator variable with three or morelevels, a statistically significant Q statistic was followed by post hoc comparisons based on
confidence intervals (CIs). In addition, research papers reporting non-significant results are,in general, unlikely to be published, and the inclusion of only published studies may overestimate the true effect of intervention. Such a phenomenon as publication bias was checkedwith a funnel plot and tested with the trill-and-fill methods (Duval & Tweedie, 2000).

4Results and Discussion
A list of the sample studies is shown with coding in Appendix A. The characteristics of

40 sample studies reported in 35 publications are summarised in the following sections.

― 29 ―+OGAWA Mutsumi様.indd

29

総合文化研究第 30 巻第 1 号（2024.6）

2024/06/11

12:03:50

A Systematic Review of Studies on the Cognitive Linguistic Approach to L2 Instruction:
A Case of Japanese Learners of English

4.1

Publication Characteristics

Table 3 shows that most of the publications were journal articles, divided into English (n= 17) and Japanese (n = 13). Although English is generally a more conventional language
among academics, the frequent use of Japanese seems related to the potential readership of
the articles, which presumably is a group of language instructors whose native language isJapanese rather than researchers.
Table 3Results of Publication Characteristics

Publication language

Publication typearticles (30)doctoral dissertation (4)book chapter (1)English (20)Japanese (15)Note. The number of publications is presented in parentheses.

4.2

Learner Characteristics

As shown in Table 4, valid empirical studies were conducted on two types of populations:
28 studies on university students (70%) and 12 on high school students (30%). Some studies
targeted elementary school (Kishimoto, 2015) and junior high school students (Kishimoto,2007, 2014); however, they did not report necessary data for statistical meta-analyses andwere not included in the current study.
Table 4
Institutional status
university (28)high school (12)Results of Learner Characteristics

Proficiency level (CEFR)

Proficiency assessment measures
standardised tests (20)institutional status (2)impressionistic judgment (2)unknown (16)B1 (9)A2 (13)A1 (1)
Pre-A1 (1)unknown (16)Note. The number of studies is presented in parentheses.

Next, half of the 40 sample studies reported scores of standardised tests for learner proficiency assessment, followed by two studies relying on institutional status and two on
impressionistic judgment, all of which helped to assign their participants to comparable
CEFR levels. However, quite a few studies of 16 did not provide any proficiency assessment
measures or proficiency levels, only reporting the learners’ institutional status (nine studies
with university, seven with high school). As a result, there were nine studies with B1 learners and 13 with A2, which comprised about half of the entire studies. While there was one
study each targeting A1 and Pre-A1, no studies examined learners with upper proficiency
総合文化研究第 30 巻第 1 号（2024.6）+OGAWA Mutsumi様.indd

30― 30 ―

2024/06/11

12:03:50

A Systematic Review of Studies on the Cognitive Linguistic Approach to L2 Instruction:
A Case of Japanese Learners of English

such as B2, C1, and C2. It was not surprising because the sample studies were typically conducted in intact classes at high schools and universities, where a majority of students are
assumed to be at A-levels or even lower (Negishi et al., 2013). According to Negishi et al.
(2013), less than 20% of JLEs are at B-levels, and proficient learners at C-levels are almost nil
even after 10 years of English education, indicating the difficulty finding proficient participants who are practically accessible.
4.3

Research Design

Table 5 details the research design and shows a range of linguistic features addressed in
the sample studies.
Table 5
Target feature
prepositions (11)phrasal verbs (7)verbs (7)modal verbs (3)degree of certainty (3)countability (2)politeness (2)polysemy (2)idioms (2)subjunctive (1)Results of Research Design Characteristics

Time per session

Session frequency

Total intervention
duration

5–10 (9)15–20 (6)25–30 (5)40–45 (4)60–70 (3)
90 (5)
120 (1)
unknown (7)1 (28)
2 (3)
3 (3)
4 (2)
6 (3)
10 (1)

5–10 (6)20–30 (7)40–60 (6)70–90 (9)100–120 (3)
180–240 (2)unknown (7)Mean: 38.4
SD: 31.9
Range: 5–120

Mean: 2
SD: 2.0
Range: 1–10

Mean: 62.5
SD: 52.0
Range: 5–240

Outcome measures

Timing of posttests

fill-in-the-blank sentence completion (24)fill-in-the-blank sentence completion with Japanese translation (8)rating scale (9)Japanese translation (4)writing (4)acceptability judgment (2)picture description (2)picture drawing (1)meta-explanation of sentence (1)multiple choice (details unknown) (1)unknown (1)immediate only (13)
immediate and delayed (9)delayed only (16)unknown (2)Note. The number of studies is presented in parentheses.

The most frequent features were prepositions and phrasal verbs, and they shared similar approaches utilising core meanings and image schemas of prepositions (or particles in― 31 ―+OGAWA Mutsumi様.indd

31

総合文化研究第 30 巻第 1 号（2024.6）

2024/06/11

12:03:50

A Systematic Review of Studies on the Cognitive Linguistic Approach to L2 Instruction:
A Case of Japanese Learners of English

phrasal verbs) in instruction. However, the actual items taught in the studies differed among
them. For example, three prepositions (in, on, at) were commonly taught in eight of 11 studies on prepositions (Akamatsu, 2010b; Cho, 2010; Cho & Kawase, 2012; Mitsugi, 2013;
Mitsugi, 2017; Mitsugi & Nagashima, 2015; Nakagawa, 2019; Yasuhara, 2011), whereas only
one item “over” was taught in Takahashi and Kaneko (2011) and eight items (above, across,along, below, in, into, on, over) in two studies in Sato (2020). Looking at what was tested in
outcome measures, furthermore, some studies examined one type of meaning (e.g., temporal use), while some covered a wider range of uses (e.g., special, temporal, metaphoricaluses). These differences could influence the resulting effect of the instruction. Similarly,
seven studies which focused on verb-related properties were categorised as verbs altogether.
However, they varied in the features they addressed: verb telicity (Sato, 2010), verbs withgerund or to-infinitive (Fujii, 2009), causative verbs (Fujiwara et al., 2016; Mueller & Tsushima, 2019), and perceptual verbs (Sato, 2014, 2015). There were a few valid studies forfeatures like countability, politeness, and subjunctive mood. Polysemy was a difficult categor y to define in terms of target feature because a preposition can, for example, be
considered polysemous, having the core meaning with several peripheral ones. Therefore,
when a study was set to address polysemy, then it was categorised as such: Morimoto andLoewen (2007) investigated the polysemy of the verb “break” and the preposition “over”.
Instruction time varied greatly among the studies. The mean instruction time per session was 38.4 minutes, but it ranged from 5 minutes to 2 hours. Most of the studies gave one
session of instruction and evaluated its effectiveness. The total intervention duration was
62.5 minutes on average, and again, the range was quite diverse, from 5 minutes to 4 hours.
This result suggests that instruction time should be considered an important variable in theanalysis of instructional effectiveness.
Some studies employed multiple outcome measures, all of which were separately codedin this study. A fill-in-the-blank sentence completion, with or without Japanese translation provided, was used by many of the studies, presumably due to its high applicability to various
linguistic structures. Some studies adopted highly productive measures, such as picture
description and writing in English, whereas some used comprehension measures like rating
scale, Japanese translation, acceptability judgment, picture drawing, and meta-explanation ofEnglish sentence. The current study did not distinguish the outcomes based on production
and comprehension; however, it is interesting to examine in the future whether or not the CL
approach leads to different outcomes on productive and receptive skills.
Finally, the timing of posttests is a crucial variable in the assessment of instruction. An
immediate posttest allows evaluation of the learnability of instruction, while delayed posttests
can measure the sustainability of the instruction. Of the 40 sample studies, 13 studies only
conducted an immediate posttest, and nine studies conducted both an immediate and one
delayed posttest (ranging from 1 to 6 weeks); therefore, 22 studies contributed to the evalua総合文化研究第 30 巻第 1 号（2024.6）+OGAWA Mutsumi様.indd

32― 32 ―

2024/06/11

12:03:50

A Systematic Review of Studies on the Cognitive Linguistic Approach to L2 Instruction:
A Case of Japanese Learners of English

tion of the immediate effect of instruction. Sixteen studies only employed delayed posttests(ranging from 1–2 days to 4 months): once by seven studies, twice by five studies, and threetimes by four studies. A total of 25 studies contributed to the assessment of the durational
effect of the instruction. Two studies did not report the timing of posttests.
4.4 Meta-Analysis
4.4.1 Overall, Immediate, and Delayed Effects of Instruction
Treatments with CL-based instruction, including all posttests, have resulted in positive9）
effects over traditional methods, showing a medium effect size ( g = 0.719) . No publication
bias was confirmed with a funnel plot and a trim-and-fill analysis. Because this analysis
included all the data sources from different criteria, such as target feature, the timing of posttests, and proficiency level, the effect varied considerably from one source to another, as
expected (Q (97) = 626.40, p < .001, I 2 = 88.1). Therefore, moderator analyses were conducted.
Table 6

Mean Effect Sizes by the Timing of Posttests

Timing of posttests

n

k

g

SE

p

Overall
Immediate
Short-term
1–2 days
1 week2 weeks
3 weeks
4 weeks
5 weeks
6 weeks
8 weeks
9 weeks
4 months
unknown

40
22

98
28

0.719
0.503

0.07890.0990

2
11
8
2
3
2
5
1
2
2
2

5
18
11
2
5
3
12
1
3
6
4

0.335
0.781
0.278
-0.060
0.287
2.433
0.819
0.699
2.026
1.733
0.625

0.24680.22010.12220.24420.15640.60270.12310.2351
0.57860.28070.2557

95% CI
lower

upper

<.001
<.001

0.565
0.309

0.873
0.697

.174
<.001
.023
.807
.066
<.001
<.001
.003
<.001
<.001
.014

-0.1480.350
0.038-0.538-0.019
1.252
0.577
0.238
0.893
1.183
0.124

0.819
1.213
0.517
0.419
0.594
3.614
1.060
1.160
3.160
2.283
1.127

n = total number of studies
k = total number of data sourcesg = Hedges’s measure of effect size
SE = standard error
CI = confidence intervalFirst, Table 6 shows the effect sizes by the timing of posttests. Differences among thedifferent timings were significant (Qbetween (11) = 55.379, p < .001). The immediate effect of
CL instruction was marginally more significant than that of traditional methods ( g = 0.503:
small effect size). A close examination of the sample studies revealed that they varied in tar-

― 33 ―+OGAWA Mutsumi様.indd

33

総合文化研究第 30 巻第 1 号（2024.6）

2024/06/11

12:03:50

A Systematic Review of Studies on the Cognitive Linguistic Approach to L2 Instruction:
A Case of Japanese Learners of English

get features (i.e., prepositions, idioms, verbs, phrasal verbs, modal verbs, subjunctive, andcountability), suggesting that this immediate effect can be expected with a range of linguistic
structures. Similarly, the studies which conducted a delayed posttest 1 day to 2 weeks after
the intervention included several different linguistic properties (i.e., phrasal verbs, verbs,
polysemy, modal verbs, degree of certainty, politeness, and prepositions). The aggregatedeffect sizes from the short-term delayed posttests up to 2 weeks after the intervention pro10）
duced a small effect size altogether ( g = 0.543, SE = 0.1308, CI[0.286, 0.799]) . This
indicates that the slight superiority of the CL approach over the traditional one lasted about 2
weeks after instruction. However, the studies with delayed posttests after 3 weeks or overfocused on different linguistic features respectively, which made the generalisation of the
11）long-term effects inconclusive. For example, 3-week delayed posttests were given on verbs ,4-week on idioms and phrasal verbs, 5-week on politeness, 6-week on the degree of certainty
and prepositions, 8-week on countability, 9-week on politeness, and 4-month on the degree ofcertainty. Although the results seem to show long-term effects in favour of CL intervention
overall, the general long-term effectiveness of the CL approach over traditional methods can12）
not be concluded from this data .
In addition, the most frequent outcome measures, fill-in-the-blank sentence completion
tasks, were examined based on whether the target sentences were presented with Japanesetranslation or not. Since the current study focuses on comparing the CL approach and theconventional methods that rely on Japanese translation and dictionary entries, any information given in Japanese in outcome measures could potentially affect and inadvertently distortthe effect of instruction. There were 17 data sources without Japanese and six with Japanesein the immediate posttests, and five without Japanese and seven with Japanese in the shortterm delayed posttests. The comparisons of their effect sizes showed no difference between
the two types of tasks in the immediate (Qbetween (1) = 1.192, p = .275) and short-term delayed
posttests (Qbetween (1) = .415, p = .519). Therefore, supplying English sentence completion
tasks with Japanese translation does not seem to have affected the participants’ outcomes.
4.4.2

Proficiency Level

The results by the proficiency level are shown in Table 7. The 16 studies with noreported proficiency assessment measures were labelled by the learners’ institutional status
and entered the analysis. Differences among the effect sizes by different proficiency levels
were significant (Qbetween (5) = 19.716, p = .001). This was due to the data of Pre-A1 learners,
which resulted in no difference between the CL and traditional approaches. In contrast, theCL approach seemed to have a slightly better learning effect than the traditional approach on
the learners at the B1 level ( g = 0.519), a larger effect on those at A2 ( g = 1.025), and a small
effect on those at A1 ( g = 0.537), but there was no statistical difference among the threegroups of learners. Comparing high school and university students in the unknown profi総合文化研究第 30 巻第 1 号（2024.6）+OGAWA Mutsumi様.indd

34― 34 ―

2024/06/11

12:03:50

A Systematic Review of Studies on the Cognitive Linguistic Approach to L2 Instruction:
A Case of Japanese Learners of English

ciency group, CL-based instruction was likely to have worked better than traditional
instruction with both types of students but had a medium-sized effect on university students( g = 0.635) and a minimal effect on high school students ( g = 0.324).
Table 7
Proficiency level
B1
A2
A1
Pre-A1
unknownhigh school
university

Mean Effect Sizes by Proficiency Level
95% CI

n

k

g

SE

p

lower

upper

9
13
1
1

21
46
2
2

0.519
1.025
0.537
0.104

0.12700.13580.17350.2052

<.001
<.001
.002
.612

0.270
0.759
0.197
-0.298

0.768
1.291
0.877
0.506

7
9

17
10

0.324
0.635

0.14740.0993

.028
<.001

0.035
0.440

0.613
0.830

For a more conservative examination of the effect sizes, another analysis was conductedby including only one outcome measure (i.e., productive measures, unexposed items) fromthe studies which used multiple outcome measures with the same participants. Notably,
there were 15 data sources with B1 learners and 27 with A2 learners which entered the analysis, resulting in effect sizes slightly bigger with B1 ( g = 0.634, CI[0.333, 0.935]) and smallerwith A2 learners ( g = 0.752, CI[0.443, 1.061]) than the ones calculated from all the data
sources. By excluding such studies that may have multiplied impacts caused by several outcome measures, it was also suggestive that there were no differences in effect sizes among
the different proficiency levels (Qbetween (5) = 9.200, p = .101). The CL approach was equallymore effective than the traditional approach among the learners at any of the proficiency levels reported.
Considering the previous results showing the immediate and short-term delayed effects
of intervention, the effects of proficiency level on the immediate and short-term delayed posttests were separately examined. As a result, the differences among the proficiency levels
were not significant in the immediate (Qbetween (3) = 1.024, p = .795) and short-term delay
13）
posttests (Qbetween (3) = 3.399, p = .334) . This indicates that the immediate and short-termdelayed learning gains were not substantially different among the learners at the different
proficiency levels.
4.4.3

Instruction Time

Lastly, the effect sizes associated with total intervention duration were summarised inTable 8. The different lengths of intervention resulted in different effect sizes (Qbetween (6) =31.783, p < .001). Overall, the CL-based instruction of up to 2 hours was more effective than
the traditional methods of the same length; however, the effect sizes differed by the relative― 35 ―+OGAWA Mutsumi様.indd

35

総合文化研究第 30 巻第 1 号（2024.6）

2024/06/11

12:03:50

A Systematic Review of Studies on the Cognitive Linguistic Approach to L2 Instruction:
A Case of Japanese Learners of English

amount of time. For instance, instruction of 5–30 minutes had small effects, 40–90 minutes
medium effects, and 100–120 minutes a large effect. Although the results of instruction time
longer than 3 hours showed no surplus effect of CL instruction, it was rather speculative as
the data was only from two studies: Nagai (2001) on subjunctive and Spring (2018) on
14）
phrasal verbs . With the confidence intervals not overlapping, a clear difference was foundbetween 20–30 minutes (i.e., small effect size) and 40–60 minutes (i.e., medium effect size).
Although this analysis did not consider the differences between immediate, short-term, andlong-term effects, it is suggested that intervention of up to 30 minutes would bring a small
effect and intervention of over 40 minutes a medium-sized effect of the CL over the traditional approach.
Table 8Mean Effect Sizes by Total Instruction Time

Instruction time

n

k

g

SE

p

5–10 minutes
20–30 minutes
40–60 minutes
70–90 minutes
100–120 minutes
180–240 minutes
unknown

6
7
6
9
3
2
7

10
22
8
25
20
3
10

0.502
0.365
0.818
0.890
1.226
0.380
0.285

0.14300.09430.07980.21520.16140.29510.2356

<.001
<.001
.000
<.001
<.001
.197
.226

5

95% CI
lower

upper

0.221
0.180
0.661
0.468
0.910
-0.198-0.176

0.782
0.550
0.974
1.312
1.543
0.959
0.747

General Discussion

Based on 40 empirical studies and 98 effect sizes, the present study addressed the following research questions:(1) Is the CL approach to teaching JLEs more effective than the traditional approach?
(2) How long does the effect of CL instruction last?
(3) What proficiency level of students will benefit from CL instruction?
Overall, the findings of this study suggest that the CL approach generally results in morelearning gains than the traditional approach with a medium effect size ( g = .719). The immediate learning advantage was small ( g = .503), and the effect of a similar size ( g = .543) was
confirmed to continue up to 2 weeks after the instruction. The immediate learning effect ona range of linguistic features confirms the learnability of CL-based instruction. The present
study did not conclude definitively on the long-term benefit of CL instruction due to the data
sources available for limited areas of target linguistic features. However, speculated from theeffect sizes of delayed posttests after 5 weeks or longer, learning gains may become more
extensive as time goes by. For instance, a medium-sized learning advantage ( g =. 819) was
総合文化研究第 30 巻第 1 号（2024.6）+OGAWA Mutsumi様.indd36― 36 ―

2024/06/11

12:03:50

A Systematic Review of Studies on the Cognitive Linguistic Approach to L2 Instruction:
A Case of Japanese Learners of English

observed 6 weeks after the intervention on the degree of certainty and prepositions, and theeffect, although being confirmed only with the degree of certainty, was found to be even bigger after 4 months ( g = 1.733). This long-term learning gain is theoretically predicted byusage-based models of language learning. Learners who are given CL-based explanations ofsome linguistic expressions encounter and increase their exposure to such expressions intheir experience with the target language, which can potentially facilitate the consolidation of
the linguistic feature in the learner’s interlanguage. Further studies are necessary to corroborate the general long-term advantage of the CL approach.
Regarding the proficiency level, the current study has found that the CL and traditional
methods did not differ in learning gains of novice learners (those lower than A1 on CEFR),
while learners at A1, A2, and B1 experienced learning advantages of the CL approach tosome extent. First, Pre-A1 learners appear to have not experienced a better effect of the CL
approach over the traditional one. However, this result was only supported by one study onphrasal verbs (Hotei, 2022), and it needs to be interpreted carefully by excluding the possibility that the linguistic feature itself was challenging to learn. Taking the other six studies
focusing on phrasal verbs into consideration, the effect sizes of these studies were examined
additionally. There were three studies with high school students (Nakagawa, 2013, 2018;
Nakagawa & Tsuchiya, 2013) and three with B1 learners (Spring, 2018; Strong, 2013; Yasuda, 2010). The data from high school students showed no immediate but short-term
15）
delayed effects . The studies with B1 learners differed in research design, but there was a16）
tendency for them to enjoy some immediate as well as short-term delayed effects . On theother hand, Hotei (2022) tested the Pre-A1 learners 1 week and 4 weeks after the intervention and found no learning superiority of the CL approach. Although the proficiency levels of
the high school students in the reported studies above were unknown, the assumption thatthey were at A-levels, which 46% of high school students in Japan fall into (Negishi et al.,2013), will probably lead to a better interpretation of the results here: no learning advantage
of CL instruction with Pre-A1, no immediate but short-term delayed learning advantage with
A-levels, and immediate as well as short-term surplus effects of CL instruction over traditional methods with B1 learners. Therefore, the reason for no surplus effect found with PreA1 learners seems unrelated to the difficulty of the linguistic feature per se but rather
relevant to the learners’ proficiency level, which presumably suggests that novice learners
benefit from any instruction to some degree.
Secondly, unlike the prediction that some immediate effects are more likely seen withlearners with higher proficiency, the present meta-analysis did not confirm different degrees
of instructional effects among learners at three proficiency levels of A1, A2, and B1. Therefore, this study highlights that the CL approach can generally bring about slightly better
17）learning gains than conventional methods for learners at A1, A2, and B1 . However, thestudies on phrasal verbs reviewed above indicated that B1 learners experienced some imme-― 37 ―+OGAWA Mutsumi様.indd

37

総合文化研究第 30 巻第 1 号（2024.6）

2024/06/11

12:03:50

A Systematic Review of Studies on the Cognitive Linguistic Approach to L2 Instruction:
A Case of Japanese Learners of English

diate learning gain, while no such effect was found with high school students, who were
supposedly at A-levels. To validate this tendency, future research should examine learners at
different proficiency levels, including B2 or above, on a variety of linguistic properties.
Next, the amount of instruction time and the degree of effectiveness achieved by the CL
approach will be discussed further. The current findings have revealed that a 20–30 minuteinstruction yields a marginally better learning effect, while a 40–60 minute instruction leads
to a moderate superiority of CL instruction. In an attempt to seek practical advice on how CLbased instruction can be incorporated into ordinary language classroom teaching, where one
lesson is in general limited to 50 minutes for high schools and 90 minutes for universities,
the current paper also examined the sample studies with 5–10 minutes of instruction indetails (Fujii, 2009; Nakagawa, 2013, 2019; Nakagawa & Tsuchiya, 2013; Yasuda, 2010). The
result showed that although no immediate advantage was probably expected, CL-informed
methods of such a brief time were found to bring better learning gains on some linguistic
18）
features in a couple of weeks after teaching . Acknowledging that all teachers desire ateaching method that elicits the maximum effect in a short amount of time, the present article modestly adds that CL-based explanations of the target language may be worth teachingeven in a small amount of time. They may be more effective than conventional instruction in
a way that helps raise learners’ awareness of the language, which can consequently lead tosome learning gains.
Finally, the current search of the literature on CL instruction in teaching JLEs found a
relatively large number of studies which were not qualified for the meta-analysis of the present study. They all employed some insights from CL but were not included for the following
reasons:(a) they proposed some CL-informed teaching methods but did not empirically test
their effectiveness (Hanazaki, 2012; Imai, 2013; Ishii, 2019; Kodama, 2012; Miyoshi, 2021; Nagatomo, 2014; Nakano, 2021; Nishihara & Nishihara, 2007; Taniguchi,K., 2011, 2012; Taniguchi, S., 2009, 2011a),(b) they investigated an experimental group which received CL instruction without acomparison group (Kameyama, 2001; Kashiwagi, 2010; Ochi, 2017; Oka, 2014;
Shintani, 2018; Yamagata & Yoshida, 2015) or with a control group receiving no
instruction (Akamatsu, 2010a),(c) they employed a pre-post design with experimental and comparison groups but did
not provide sufficient data for the current meta-analysis (Akamatsu, 2018; Azuma &Littlemore, 2010; Birdsell, 2021; Fujimori & Yoshimura, 2013; Furusho, 2021;
Goto, 2007; Imai, 2016; Kawaryu, 2011; Kishimoto, 2007, 2014, 2015; Kojima,
Takehana, et al., 2007; Kojima, Komeda, et al., 2007; Kokubu, 2011; Kumada, 2015;
Shintani et al., 2016; Taniguchi, 2007, 2008a, 2008b, 2011b),(d) they empirically tested the CL approach, but the outcomes were mainly analysed
総合文化研究第 30 巻第 1 号（2024.6）+OGAWA Mutsumi様.indd

38― 38 ―

2024/06/11

12:03:50

A Systematic Review of Studies on the Cognitive Linguistic Approach to L2 Instruction:
A Case of Japanese Learners of English

qualitatively (Fukada, 2012; Mitsugi, 2018; Tahara, 2015),(e) they compared different materials (e.g., animated or static images) and learning/teaching styles (e.g., individual or collaborative, top-down or bottom-up) within the
CL approach (Fujii, 2013, 2016b, 2016c; Kojima, 2007; Nakagawa & Kondo, 2022;
Sato, 2016; Sato et al., 2022; Shintani, 2020; Tsuzuku, 2021a, 2021b).
In particular, those in (b) and (c) were excluded from the current analysis due to the author’s
lack of knowledge and techniques in adequate statistical procedures. Some of their effectsizes could have been calculated from the values of inferential statistics or by utilising meandifferences of pre-post scores, which would add another body of effect sizes as empirical evidence. This is one of the limitations of the current study and should be addressed in future
research. Moreover, a future direction of the CL approach is to develop its instructional applications within the disciplinary field of language teaching. As shown in (e), an increasing
number of studies try to improve CL-based language teaching in various ways. Yet, a majorityof the proposed teaching applications select the familiar Present-Practice-Produce (PPP)
sequence of instruction, and Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) methods are rarely
combined with CL instruction. As the CL approach becomes more established, it should also
be embedded into the CLT frameworks, including task-based and content-based language
teaching.

6

Conclusion

This study surveyed intervention research involving Japanese learners of English
instructed through the CL approach and investigated its educational effectiveness. The
results showed that it yielded moderately superior effects compared to traditional methods
relying on translation and dictionary descriptions. The immediate and short-term delayed
effects were marginally greater than those of traditional methods overall. The long-term
advantage of CL instruction could not be concluded in this study; however, its potential was
implied by some studies on limited areas of linguistic properties, which observed substantial
learning effects even five weeks after instruction. The present article did not confirm differences in instructional effects based on proficiency levels, and it suggests the need for further
investigation targeting proficient learners, such as those at the B2 level or above. Regarding
instructional time, it was found that sessions of 40 minutes or longer resulted in superior
effects to a certain extent compared to traditional methods. However, there was an implication that even with 5–10 minutes of instruction, CL-informed methods may lead to higher
effectiveness than traditional methods in the long term. As the field of instructed SLA
expands, it becomes more crucial to synthesise research studies to evaluate the effectiveness of different teaching interventions and grasp the roles of instruction in L2 development
as a whole.

― 39 ―+OGAWA Mutsumi様.indd

39

総合文化研究第 30 巻第 1 号（2024.6）

2024/06/11

12:03:50

A Systematic Review of Studies on the Cognitive Linguistic Approach to L2 Instruction:
A Case of Japanese Learners of English

Acknowledgements
This work was supported by a Joint Research Grant from Nihon University College of Commerce and
JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number JP22K13167.

Notes1）The task was given after the intervention, but the timing (i.e., immediate or delayed) was not reported.
2）An instruction session took about 15 minutes and was repeated twice a week over three weeks, resulting in 90 minutes of instruction in total. See Hotei (2022) for details of each treatment.
3）See Bybee (1985, 1995) for type frequency and token frequency.
4）For instance, some recent studies compared two types of materials (i.e., 2D/static or 3D/animatedimages) in teaching prepositions (Sato, 2020), present perfect tense (Nakagawa & Kondo, 2022), andpoliteness represented by request forms (Takimoto, 2021). They reported no significant difference
between the two modes of materials. In this case, the group with static images was included in the study
because of their higher applicability in actual educational settings than animated materials requiring
specific equipment like monitors.
5）Eiken (https://www.eiken.or.jp/eiken/en/grades/)GTEC (https://www.benesse.co.jp/gtec/fs/cuet/news/pdf/gtec20220823_01.pdf)
TOEIC (https://www.iibc-global.org/toeic/official_data/toeic_cefr.html)
TOEFL (https://www.toefl-ibt.jp/toefl-itp/testtaker/about.html)6）Keck et al. (2006) suggested two time points for the timing of posttests, based on the sustainability ofthe effects of task-based instruction (immediate: 0–7 days, short-term delayed: 8–29 days, and longterm delayed 30 days or later). They acknowledged that only six study effect sizes contributed to theobserved long-term effects and that more studies with long-term delayed posttests needed to be evaluated. Similarly to their research, the current paper intends to show an indicator for the sustainability of
CL intervention.
7）The current paper acknowledges that when multiple tests from the same participants in a study areincluded in a meta-analysis, the study’s results can strongly influence the overall average effect size.
However, it follows the suggestion by Norris and Ortega (2006) to “include all the effect sizes fromeach study, but avoid further inferential analyses of the accumulated effect sizes, focusing on cautious
description rather than causal inference” (p. 30).
8）Hedges’s g is a correction of d for the influence of sample size. Hedges’s g is commonly used in inferential statistics, so some literature refers to Hedges’s g as d (Watari et al., 2021).
9）Results of multiple outcome measures from the same participants were aggregated in this effect size
(k = 98). When only one outcome measure (i.e., productive measures, unexposed items) entered theanalysis, in order to avoid a study from having a strong impact on the overall effect size, the effect size
was g = 0.614 (k = 66).
総合文化研究第 30 巻第 1 号（2024.6）+OGAWA Mutsumi様.indd

40― 40 ―

2024/06/11

12:03:50

A Systematic Review of Studies on the Cognitive Linguistic Approach to L2 Instruction:
A Case of Japanese Learners of English
10）The effect size was calculated from 34 data sources in 18 published studies. Three studies conducted
two posttests during this term: 2-day and 2-week delayed posttests by Morimoto and Loewen (2007),
and 1-week and 2-week delayed posttests by Sato (2014, 2015).
11）The aggregated effect size of 3-week delayed posttests was -0.060, as shown in Table 6. This was dueto the studies by Mueller and Tsushima (2019) on causative verbs, whose experiments failed to show aclear advantage of the CL over the traditional approach. Both approaches led to similar learning gains intheir studies.
12）Quite large effect sizes were observed with delayed posttests after 5 weeks, 9 weeks, and 4 months.
These effects were from some specific studies: Takimoto (2020b, 2021) on politeness represented inrequest forms, and Takimoto (2020a) on the degree of certainty. Takimoto (2022b, 2021) employed
three delayed posttests (1 week, 5 weeks, and 9 weeks), using two outcome measures (2022b) and one(2021) respectively. Takimoto (2020a) also had three delayed posttests (1 week, 6 weeks, and 4
months), using three outcome measures. Despite the fact that they used multiple outcome measures on
the same participants, re-analyses of their data with only one outcome measure (i.e., productive measure) also suggested large effect sizes. The interpretation of the data might be that CL-based
explanations of politeness and the degree of certainty are, in particular, more effective than traditional
methods in the long term.
13）The immediate posttests had four levels (B1, A2, high school, university), and the short-term delayed
posttests also had four levels (B1, A2, Pre-A1, high school).
14）The exclusion of multiple outcome measures in a single study resulted in slightly changing the effectsizes of 100–120 minutes and 180–240 minutes. For instance, the effect size of 100–120 minute instruction changed from large ( g = 1.226) to medium ( g = 0.884, CI[0.572, 1.197]) and that of 180–240
minutes from null to medium ( g = 0.648, p = .005, CI[0.197, 1.099]). Therefore, the data may be moreconservatively interpreted as that instruction of 2 hours or longer would result in the superiority of CL
to traditional instruction, probably with a medium effect size.
15）The immediate effect size was calculated from Nakagawa (2018): g = -0.35, SE = 0.27, p = .19, CI[-0.87,
0.17]. The short-term delayed effect was aggregated from Nakagawa (2013, 2018) and Nakagawa andTsuchiya (2013): g = 0.60, SE = 0.09, p < .001, CI[0.42, 0.77].
16）Yasuda (2010) showed an immediate learning gain with unexposed items ( g = 0.68, SE = 0.19, p < .001,
CI[0.30, 1.05]), and Spring (2018) showed a short-term delayed effect ( g = 0.86, SE = 0.24, p < .001,
CI[0.39, 1.33]). Although Strong (2013) did not specify the timing of posttests, he showed a learningadvantage of CL instruction with unexposed items ( g = 1.36, SE = 0.30, p < .001, CI[0.77, 1.94]).
17）Fujii (2016a) empirically explored the effects of proficiency level within the CL framework. Although
his participants were all assumed to be at the A1 level, they were divided into upper and lower proficiency levels and given the same CL intervention based on image schemas of prepositions. As a result,the instruction worked more effectively for the upper-proficiency learners than the lower ones. The
focus of his study was neither to compare CL with traditional methods nor to claim the superiority of CL
over conventional methods. However, the implication is that even at the same CEFR level, learners’― 41 ―+OGAWA Mutsumi様.indd

41

総合文化研究第 30 巻第 1 号（2024.6）

2024/06/11

12:03:50

A Systematic Review of Studies on the Cognitive Linguistic Approach to L2 Instruction:
A Case of Japanese Learners of English
intake of the given knowledge was affected by their proficiency.
18）The studies only focused on prepositions, phrasal verbs, and verbs with gerund or to-infinitive. There
was no difference between CL and traditional methods on the immediate posttests ( g = 0.271, SE =0.2691, k = 4, p = .313, CI[-0.256, 0.799]), but in the short-term delayed posttests, the CL approach
showed a greater learning effect to some degree ( g = 0.603, SE = 0.0814, k = 4, p < .001, CI[0.444,
0.763]).

References
Studies included in the meta-analysis of this study are marked with an asterisk.
Achard, M. & Niemeier, S. (2004). Introduction: Cognitive linguistics, language acquisition, and pedagogy.
In M. Achard & S. Niemeier (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics, second language acquisition, and foreign language teaching (pp. 1–11). De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110199857.1
Akamatsu, N. (2010a). Difficulty in restructuring foreign-language vocabulary knowledge: Polysemousverbs. JACET Kansai Journal, 12, 68–79. https://dl.ndl.go.jp/pid/10501099/1/1* Akamatsu, N. (2010b). Restructuring foreign language lexical knowledge: Do cognitive linguistic insights
contribute to foreign language learning? Doshisya Daigaku Eibungaku Kenkyu, 86–87, 53–82. https://doi.org/10.14988/pa.2017.0000012290
Akamatsu, N. (2018). Do cognitive linguistic insights help Japanese learners improve their use of English
articles? Studies in English Language Teaching, 41, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.18989/selt.41.0_1
Azuma, M., & Littlemore, J. (2010). Promoting figurative creativity in EFL/ESL classrooms. JACET Kansai
Journal, 12, 8–19. https://dl.ndl.go.jp/pid/10501094/1/1
Birdsell, B. J. (2021). Enhancing phrasal verb learning: A quasi-experimental study of different approaches.
In P. Clements, R. Derrah, & P. Ferguson (Eds.), Communities of teachers & learners (pp. 244–251).
JALT. https://doi.org/10.37546/JALTPCP2020-30
Boers, F. (2013). Cognitive linguistic approaches to teaching vocabulary: Assessment and integration. Language Teaching, 46(2), 208–224. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444811000450
Boers, F., & Lindstromberg, S. (2006). Cognitive linguistic applications in second or foreign language
instruction: Rationale, proposals, and evaluation. In G. Kristiansen, M. Achard, R. Dirven, & F. J. Ruiz deMendoza Ibáñez (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics: Current applications and future perspectives (pp. 305–355).
De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197761.4.305
Bybee, J. (1985). Morphology: A study of the relation between meaning and form. John Benjamins. https://doi.
org/10.1075/tsl.9
Bybee, J. (1995). Regular morphology and the lexicon. Language and Cognitive Processes, 10(5), 425–455.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01690969508407111* Cho, K. (2010). Fostering the acquisition of English prepositions by Japanese learners with networks andprototypes. In S. De Knop, F. Boers, & A. De Rycker (Eds.), Fostering language teaching efficiency
through cognitive linguistics (pp. 257–276). De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/97831102458
総合文化研究第 30 巻第 1 号（2024.6）+OGAWA Mutsumi様.indd

42― 42 ―

2024/06/11

12:03:50

A Systematic Review of Studies on the Cognitive Linguistic Approach to L2 Instruction:
A Case of Japanese Learners of English
37.257* Cho, K., & Kawase, Y. (2011). Effects of a cognitive linguistic approach to teaching countable and uncountable English nouns to Japanese learners of English. ARELE: Annual Review of English Language
Education in Japan, 22, 201–215. https://doi.org/10.20581/arele.22.0_201* Cho, K., & Kawase, Y. (2012). Developing a pedagogical cognitive grammar: Focusing on the English
prepositions in, on, and at. ARELE: Annual Review of English Language Education in Japan, 23, 153–
168. https://doi.org/10.20581/arele.23.0_153
Cooper, H., Hedges, L.V., & Valentine, J.C. (2009). The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis (2nded.). Russel Sage Foundation.
De Knop, S., Boers, F., & De Rycker, A. (Eds.). (2010). Fostering language teaching efficiency through cognitive linguistics. De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110245837
Duval, S., & Tweedie, R. (2000). Trim and fill: A simple funnel-plot-based method of testing and adjusting for
publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics, 56(2), 455–463. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0006-341x.200
0.00455.x
Ellis, N. C., & Robinson, P. (2008). An introduction to cognitive linguistics, second language acquisition, andlanguage instruction. In P. Robinson & N. C. Ellis (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second
language acquisition (pp. 3–24). Routledge.
* Fujii, K. (2009). Koa wo ishikisaseta jugyou jissen kara erareru kanousei to kadai: Doushi ni tuduku katachi toshiteno huteishi to doumeishi kara [The potentiality and problems suggested from the core-usedclass practices: Focusing on infinitives and gerunds following verbs]. Shuryu, 71, 61–85. https://doi.
org/10.14988/pa.2017.0000015235* Fujii, K. (2011a). Jyodoushi no koa zushiki wo riyoushita eigo kyouiku jissen houkoku [English education
using the core schemas of auxiliary verbs]. Journal of the Japan Association for Colleges of Technology,
16(3), 147–152.
* Fujii, K. (2011b). Koa zushiki to reibun no teiji ga imi no rikai to teichaku ni ataeru eikyou ni tuite: Jyodoushi no shidou kara [The effect of presenting core schemas and example sentences on understanding
and retention of meanings: A case study in teaching auxiliary verbs]. Shikoku English Language Education Journal, 31, 25–34. https://doi.org/10.32276/seles.31.0_25
Fujii, K. (2013). Koa zushiki teiji junjo ni kansuru jissen houkoku [An empirical research on presentation
order of the core schema]. Research Reports of Numazu Technical College, 47, 403–408.
Fujii, K. (2016a). Effects of learnersʼ English proficiency level in learning English prepositions through theschema-based instruction. English Language Teaching, 9(10), 121–132. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.
v9n10p121
Fujii, K. (2016b). Exploration into the effects of the schema-based instruction: A bottom-up approach. Journal of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics, 20(1), 75–94.
Fujii, K. (2016c). Ninchi gengogaku no shiza wo eigo kyouiku ni ouyou suru gakushuu keitai toshiteno
guru-pu gakushu to sono jissen [Group work as a learning style in applying the cognitive linguistics perspectives to English teaching]. Journal of the Chubu English Language Education Society, 45, 133–140.

― 43 ―+OGAWA Mutsumi様.indd

43

総合文化研究第 30 巻第 1 号（2024.6）

2024/06/11

12:03:50

A Systematic Review of Studies on the Cognitive Linguistic Approach to L2 Instruction:
A Case of Japanese Learners of English
https://doi.org/10.20713/celes.45.0_133
Fujii, K. (2017). Ime-ji zushiki wo eigo kyoiku de yuko ni katsuyo suru tame no rironteki jisshoteki kenkyu [Atheoretical and empirical study on the effective image schema based instruction]. [Doctoral dissertation, Keio University]. KeiO Associated Repository of Academic resources. https://koara.lib.keio.ac.jp/
xoonips/modules/xoonips/detail.php?koara_id=KO90001001-20174731-0003
Fujimori, A., & Yoshimura, N. (2013). Anime-shon wo mochiita zenchishi shidou: Houkou zenchishi wo rei
toshite [Animated instructions for directional prepositions]. Journal of the Chubu English Language Education Society, 42, 77–82. https://doi.org/10.20713/celes.42.0_77* Fujiwara, T., Kikuchi, S., Hanazaki, M., & Hanazaki, K. (2016). Ninchi gengogaku no chiken wo ikashita
eigo shieki doushi have no kyoujuhou to sono kyouikuteki kouka [Teaching methods for the English
causative verb “have” based on insights from cognitive linguistics and their educational effects]. Kyoshoku Kenkyu, 9, 35–42.
Fukada, C. (2012). Eigo kyouiku ni okeru ninchi zushiki no riyou to sono kouka [Utilization of cognitive
schema in English language education and its effects]. In K. Fujita, M. Matsumoto, K. Kodama, & K.
Taniguchi (Eds.), Saishin gengo riron wo eigo kyouiku ni katsuyou suru [Utilizing cutting-edge language
theories in English education] (pp. 199–209). Kaitakusha.
Furusho, T. (2021). CL gakushuhou wo mochiita tagigo gakushu no kouka [The effects of a cognitive linguistics approach on learning English polysemous words as a foreign language]. Japan Journal of
Educational Technology, 45(Suppl.), 113–116. https://doi.org/10.15077/jjet.S45060
Goto, Y. (2007). Koa ime-ji no shikakuka ga goishuutoku ni ataeru kouka [The effects of visualization of thecore image on vocabulary acquisition]. Otsuma review, 40, 237–248.
Hanazaki, K. (2012). Ninchi gengogaku no chiken wo ikashita eigo kyouiku no jissen ni mukete [Applying
cognitive linguistics to English education]. Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, Shinshu University, 6, 87–94. http://hdl.handle.net/10091/15629* Hotei, S. (2022). Gainen metafa wo mochiita eigo kudoushi gakushu no kouka: Nihonjin koukousei EFL
gakushusha wo taishou ni [The effects of learning English phrasal verbs with conceptual metaphors: A
study of Japanese high school EFL learners]. Studies in Language Sciences, 20(2), 21–41. https://doi.
org/10.34609/sls.20.2_21
Imai, T. (2013). A practice in the classroom: How to let Japanese learners of English notice differences inconstrual between Japanese and English. Journal of the Chubu English Language Education Society, 42,
203–210. https://doi.org/10.20713/celes.42.0_203
Imai, T. (2016). The effects of explicit instruction of “Image English Grammar for Communication” on tertiary English classes. ARELE: Annual Review of English Language Education in Japan, 27, 137–152.
https://doi.org/10.20581/arele.27.0_137
Ionin, T., & Montrul, S. (2023). Second language acquisition: Introducing intervention research. Cambridge
University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009031585
Ishii, Y. (2019). Ninchi gengogaku no chiken ni motoduku eigo gakushusha eno zenchishi kudoushi no teiji:
Eiwa jiten to koukou eigo kentei kyoukasho ni okeru jissen [Presentation of prepositions and phrasal
総合文化研究第 30 巻第 1 号（2024.6）+OGAWA Mutsumi様.indd

44― 44 ―

2024/06/11

12:03:50

A Systematic Review of Studies on the Cognitive Linguistic Approach to L2 Instruction:
A Case of Japanese Learners of English
verbs to English learners based on insights from cognitive linguistics: Practices in English-Japanesedictionaries and high school English textbooks]. In KJ. Nabeshima, T. Kusumi, A. Utsumi (Eds.), Metaphor research, Vol.2 (pp. 235–257). Hituzi Syobo.
Kameyama, K. (2001). The analysis of EFL reading comprehension by the results of the experiments basedon cognitive linguistics: Categorization and metaphor. The Bulletin of the Kanto-koshin-etsu English Language Education Society, 15, 89–109. https://doi.org/10.20806/katejo.15.0_89
Kashiwagi, K. (2010). Shougakkou gaikokugo katsudou ni okeru kodomono doushi fure-zu eno form-meaning connections: Meta ninchiryoku wo sodateru doushi anime-shon kyouzai no kaihatsu wo tooshite[Childrenʼs form － meaning connections on verb phrases in elementary school English activities:
Through development of animation teaching materials to improve childrenʼs meta-cognitive linguistic
abilities]. Computer & Education, 29, 18–23. https://doi.org/10.14949/konpyutariyoukyouiku.29.18
Kawaryu, R. (2011). Nihongo bogowasha no eigo gakushu ni okeru puroto taipu riron wo mochiita zenchishi gakushu no kouka [The effectiveness of preposition learning using prototype theory in English
learning by Japanese native speakers]. Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual Meeting of the Association
for Natural Language Processing, 583–586. https://www.anlp.jp/proceedings/annual_meeting/2011/
pdf_dir/P3-1.pdf
Keck, C., Iberri-Shea, G., Tracy-Ventura, N., & Wa-Mbaleka, S. (2006). Investigating the empirical link
between task-based interaction and acquisition. In J. M. Norris & L. Ortega (Eds.), Synthesizing researchon language learning and teaching (pp. 91–131). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.13.08kec
Kishimoto, E. (2007). Chuugakkou deno eigo no meishi no kazu to kanshi no shidou: Ninchi bunpou wo katsuyou shita kokoromi [A suggestion for teaching countability and articles of English nouns at juniorhigh school in Japan: How to teach from the viewpoint of cognitive grammar]. Proceedings of Seventh
Annual Meeting of the Japanese Cognitive Linguistics Association, 7, 536–551.
Kishimoto, E. (2014). Eigo no kanshi to kazu no shikumi ga wakaru shidou: Nyumonki ni dounyu suru ninchi
bunpou no shiten [Teaching English articles and number: An introduction to cognitive grammar perspectives for beginners]. Osaka Municipal Universities Press.
Kishimoto, E. (2015). Shougakkou eigo no tameno kazu to kanshi wo kanren duketa meishi no shidou tokyouzai kaihatsu [Systematic teaching focused on countability and articles of English nouns and thematerials for elementary school]. JES Journal, 15(1), 125–140. https://doi.org/10.20597/jesjournal.15.
01_125
Kodama, K. (2012). Koubun kenkyu to eigo kyouiku eno katsuyou [Applying the results of linguistic construction research to English education]. Papers from the National Conference of the Japanese Cognitive
Linguistics Association, 12, 508–516.
Kojima, M. (2007). Tagigo no gogi syutoku ni okeru koa mi-ningu no yuukousei [The effectiveness of thestrategy of using core meaning on guessing and retaining second language polysemous words].
Research Bulletin of the Chubu English Language Education Society, 36, 293–300.
Kojima, T., Takehana, K., & Kusumi, T. (2008). Shikaku ime-ji wo riyou shita eigo zenchishi over no kuukanteki imigakushu ni okeru sesshoku youso ni kansuru jikkennteki kentou [Testing the factor of contact― 45 ―+OGAWA Mutsumi様.indd

45

総合文化研究第 30 巻第 1 号（2024.6）

2024/06/11

12:03:51

A Systematic Review of Studies on the Cognitive Linguistic Approach to L2 Instruction:
A Case of Japanese Learners of English
in learning the spatial meaning of over with visual image]. Japan Journal of Educational Technology,
31(Suppl.), 205–208. https://doi.org/10.15077/jjet.KJ00004964384
Kojima, T., Komeda, H., Takehana, K., Morimoto, M., & Kusumi, T. (2007). Kasou kuukan wo mochiita eigo
zenchishi kyouzai no koukateki riyou [Effective application of virtual space to learning English prepositions]. Japan Journal of Educational Technology, 31(2), 219–228. https://doi.org/10.15077/jjet.KJ00004
964277
Kokubu, Y. (2011). Nihonjin eigo gakushusha no kihon doushi to teikei hyougen no gakushu: Ninchi gengogaku oyobi ko-pasu bunseki ni motoduku apuro-chi no juyougoi chishiki eno eikyou [Formulaic
language learning: The effect on receptive lexical knowledge of a cognitive linguistic and corpus-based
approach]. Journal of the Graduate School of Humanities and Sciences, 14, 77–85. http://hdl.handle.
net/10083/51641
Kristiansen, G., Achard, M., Dirven, R. & Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J. (Eds.). (2006). Cognitive linguistics:
Current applications and future perspectives. De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/978311019
7761
Kumada, M. (2015). Eigo bungaku dokkai shidou no chien tesuto ni miru kuukan hyougen shintaika no teichaku [The consistency of the embodiment of spatial expressions on delayed tests in reading
instruction using English literature]. Bulletin of the Graduate School of Education, Hiroshima University.
Part. II, Arts and Science Education, 64, 131–138. https://doi.org/10.15027/38962
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. University of
Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago Press.
Langacker, R. W. (2000). A dynamic usage-based model. In M. Barlow & S. Kemmer (Eds.), Usage-basedmodels of language (pp. 1–63). CSLI Publications.
Langacker, R. W. (2008a). Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford University Press.
Langacker, R. W. (2008b). Cognitive grammar as a basis for language instruction. In P. Robinson & N. C.
Ellis (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition (pp.66–88). Routledge.
* Mitsugi, M. (2013). The effectiveness of core meaning based instruction on preposition choice. Research
Bulletin of English Teaching, 10, 1–25.
* Mitsugi, M. (2017). Schema-based instruction on the acquisition of English polysemous words: Effects of
instruction and learnersʼ perceptions on the instruction. Journal of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied
Linguistics, 21(1), 21–43.
Mitsugi, M. (2018). Effect of schema-based instruction on learning polysemous English prepositions: Analyzing through learnersʼ perceptions. Journal of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics, 22(1),
43–63. https://doi.org/10.25256/PAAL.22.1.3* Mitsugi, M., & Nagashima, M. (2015). Koa mi-ningu wo mochiita tagigo no shidou to sono yuukosei [Theeffectiveness of core meaning to teaching polysemous words]. HELES Journal, 14, 3–22. https://doi.
org/10.24675/helesje.14.0_3
Miyoshi, T. (2021). Ninchi gengogaku no youhou kiban moderu wo enyou shita souhatutekina shougakkou
総合文化研究第 30 巻第 1 号（2024.6）+OGAWA Mutsumi様.indd46― 46 ―

2024/06/11

12:03:51

A Systematic Review of Studies on the Cognitive Linguistic Approach to L2 Instruction:
A Case of Japanese Learners of English
eigo kyouiku no kokoromi [An emergent approach to elementary school English education using theusage-based model of cognitive linguistics]. Journal of the Society of Letters and Human Sciences, 23,
41–48.
* Morimoto, S., & Loewen, S. (2007). A comparison of the effects of image-schema-based instruction andtranslation-based instruction on the acquisition of L2 polysemous words. Language Teaching Research,
11(3), 347–372. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168807081181* Mueller, C. M., & Tsushima, Y. (2019). Effectiveness of force dynamic explanations of English causative
verbs and the role of imagery. Cognitive Linguistics, 30(3), 439–466. https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-20170093* Nagai, M. (2001). The effects of a cognitive-semantic instruction of the subjunctive mood. ARELE: Annual
Review of English Language Education in Japan, 12, 21–29. https://doi.org/10.20581/arele.12.0_21
Nagatomo, S. (2014). Sokubakuteki must no goyouronteki ninchi gengogakuteki tokuchouduke to gengo
gakushu tono setten [A pragmatic and cognitive-linguistic account of deontic must and language learning]. Journal of Inquiry and Research, 99, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.18956/00006059* Nakagawa, Y. (2013). Ime-ji suki-ma ni motoduku kudoushi shidou no jissenrei [A practice of teaching
English phrasal verbs based on image schema]. Papers from the 13th National Conference of the Japanese
Cognitive Linguistics Association, 13, 556–562.
* Nakagawa, Y. (2018). Kinouteki kudoushi gakushu no sekkei: Ninchi gengogakuteki chiken ni motoduita
akutibu ra-ningu gata jugyou eno kokoromi [A design for inductive phrasal verb learning: Applying
active-learning-based instruction with cognitive linguistics]. Studies in Subject Development, 6, 59–75.
* Nakagawa, Y. (2019). Jikan youhou no zenchishi shidou ni okeru ninchi gengogakuteki apuro-chi [A cognitive linguistics approach to teaching prepositions of time: Bridging the gap between theory andpractice]. Journal of the Chubu English Language Education Society, 48, 235–244. https://doi.org/10.207
13/celes.48.0_235
Nakagawa, Y., & Kondo, Y. (2022). Genzai kanryou no meijiteki shidou ni okeru douga no kouka: Ninchi
gengogaku no chiken wo ikashite [The effects of animation on the explicit instruction for present perfect: A cognitive linguistics-based approach]. Journal of the Chubu English Language Education Society,55, 187–194. https://doi.org/10.20713/celes.51.0_187* Nakagawa, Y., & Tsuchiya, T. (2013). Ninchi gengogakuteki apuro-chi ni yoru kudoushi shidou no kouka
to ryuiten [The effects of a cognitive linguistics based approach to teaching phrasal verbs and thethings to keep in mind]. The Council of College English Teachers (COCET): Research reports, 32, 57–66.
* Nakahara, A. (2005). The effect of instruction of the underlying meaning of polysemous words (Order No.
3178817) [Doctoral dissertation, Temple University]. ProQuest One Academic. https://www.proquest.
com/dissertations-theses/effect-instruction-underlying-meaning-polysemous/docview/305445798/
se-2
Nakano, K. (2021). Ninchi gengogaku ni okeru gengo shutoku genri wo ouyou shita shougakkou eigo kyouzai no kaihatu, shiyou, kenshou kenkyu (jiyuyou hen): Kyouiku puratto fo-mu kousou [Thedevelopment, implementation, and demonstration research on an elementary English teaching material― 47 ―+OGAWA Mutsumi様.indd

47

総合文化研究第 30 巻第 1 号（2024.6）

2024/06/11

12:03:51

A Systematic Review of Studies on the Cognitive Linguistic Approach to L2 Instruction:
A Case of Japanese Learners of English
applying the language acquisition principles from cognitive linguistics (the application version): The
grand design of an education platform]. Journal of Inquiry and Research, 114, 91–109. https://doi.
org/10.18956/00007995
Negishi, M., Takada, T., & Tono, Y. (2013). A progress report on the development of the CEFR-J. In E. D.
Galaczi & C. J. Weir (Eds.), Exploring language frameworks: Proceedings of the ALTE Kraków Conference,
July 2011 (pp. 135–163). Cambridge University Press.
Nishihara, M., & Nishihara, T. (2007). Eigo hyougen nouryoku no koujou wo mezashita goi shidou ni tuite:
Agree with/to wo chushin to shite [Vocabulary teaching for communication: Concerning mainly agree
with/to]. Kwassui Bulletin Faculty of Wellness Studies, 50, 103–114. https://kwassui.repo.nii.ac.jp/recor
ds/2000037
Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2006). The value and practice of research synthesis for language learning andteaching. In J. M. Norris & L. Ortega (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching(pp. 3–50). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.13.04nor
Ochi, K. (2017). Systemic theoretical instruction for EFL learners: Improving the accuracy of modal verb
use. Sophia Linguistica: Working Papers in Linguistics, 66, 115–136. http://digital-archives.sophia.ac.jp/
repository/view/repository/20180326035* Ochi, K. (2018). Second language teaching and learning: A sociocultural theory perspective: a case of systemic
theoretical instruction using cognitive linguistics account of English modal verbs for Japanese university
students [Doctoral dissertation, Sophia University]. Sophia University Digital Archives. https://digital-ar
chives.sophia.ac.jp/repository/view/repository/20189600194
Oka, Y. (2014). Chokuji doushi come to go no shidouhou: Ninchi gengogaku no shiten kara [How to teachEnglish deictic verbs come and go: from the viewpoint of cognitive linguistics]. Journal of Human Environmental Studies Electronic Edition, 7, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.24648/uheoka.7.0_1
Plonsky, L., & Oswald, F.L. (2014). How big is “big”? Interpreting effect sizes in L2 research. Language
Learning, 64(4), 878–912. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12079
Pütz, M., Niemeier, S., & Dirven, R. (Eds.). (2001a). Applied cognitive linguistics I: Theory and language
acquisition. De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110866247
Pütz, M., Niemeier, S., & Dirven, R. (Eds.). (2001b). Applied cognitive linguistics II: Language pedagogy. De
Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110866254* Sato, J. (2010). Kasan hukasan meishi to kantetuteki hikanketuteki doushi no kyoujuhou no ichikousatu:
Ninchi gengogaku no eigo kyouiku eno ouyou [A study of teaching count/mass nouns and perfective/
imperfective verbs: a cognitive linguistic approach to English education]. The Journal of Humanities andSciences, 23, 119–138.
* Sato, M. (2014). Goi nettowa-ku to eigo chikaku doshi no shutoku shido kenkyu [Acquisition and Instructionin the Area of English Perception Verbs within a Lexical Networking Framework] [Doctoral dissertation, Keio University]. KeiO Associated Repository of Academic resources. https://koara.lib.keio.ac.jp/
xoonips/modules/xoonips/detail.php?koara_id=KO90001001-20144215-0003* Sato, M. (2015). Effectiveness of acquiring of basic verbs by using core schema-based instruction. Interna総合文化研究第 30 巻第 1 号（2024.6）+OGAWA Mutsumi様.indd

48― 48 ―

2024/06/11

12:03:51

A Systematic Review of Studies on the Cognitive Linguistic Approach to L2 Instruction:
A Case of Japanese Learners of English
tional Journal of Languages, Literature and Linguistics, 1(1), 34–38. http://dx.doi.org/10.7763/IJLLL.
2015.V1.8
Sato, T. (2016). Applicability of technology-enhanced visual glosses for explicit L2 vocabulary learning: The
enhancement of metaphoric competence through the learning of English polysemous words. Ampersand, 3, 43–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amper.2016.03.003* Sato, T. (2020). Daini gengo goi gakushu ni okeru ime-ji suki-ma riron no ouyou: Gakushusha youin wokouryoshita bijuaru anote-shon no kouka kenkyu [Application of image schema theory to L2 vocabulary
learning: How does the use of visual annotations enhance the learning of English polysemous words?][Doctoral dissertation, Keio University]. KeiO Associated Repository of Academic resources. https://koara.lib.keio.ac.jp/xoonips/modules/xoonips/detail.php?koara_id=KO90001002-20205142-0003
Sato, T., Lai, Y., & Burden, T. (2022). The role of individual factors in L2 vocabulary learning with cognitivelinguistics-based static and dynamic visual aids. ReCALL, 34(2), 201–217. https://doi.org/10.1017/S09
58344021000288
Shintani, M. (2018). Zushiki moderu kyouzai to onrain sokujiteisei wo kumiawaseta rimediaru eibunpou
kyouiku no kokoromi [Does the combination of image-schema based grammar method and online
immediate corrective feedback enhance L2 learnersʼ grammar acquisition?]. AJELC Journal, 6, 1–12.
Shintani, M. (2020). Zushiki moderu to ittaiichi no sokuji teiseihoshu wo kumiawaseta eibunpou gakushu nokouka kenshou [Enhancing L2 learnersʼ grammar acquisition with the combination of image-schema
based grammar method and one-to-one immediate corrective feedback]. AJELC Journal, 7, 13–24.
Shintani, M., Mori, K., & Ohmori, T. (2016). Image schema-based instruction in English grammar. In P. Clements, A. Krause, & H. Brown (Eds.), Focus on the learner (pp. 285–296). JALT. http://jalt-publications.
org/sites/default/files/pdf-article/jalt2015-pcp_038.pdf* Spring, R. (2018). Teaching phrasal verbs more efficiently: Using corpus studies and cognitive linguistics
to create a particle list. Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 9(5), 121–135. https://doi.org/10.
7575/aiac.alls.v.9n.5p.121* Strong, B. (2013). A cognitive semantic approach to L2 learning of phrasal verbs. The Language Teacher,37(5), 28–31. http://dx.doi.org/10.37546/JALTTLT37.5-9Tahara, H. (2015). Ninchi gengogaku wo katsuyou shita jidou kurikaeshi gakushu kinou tsuki e ra-ningu
kyouzai wo riyou suru daigaku kiban eigo kyouiku no gakushu kouka ni tuite: Eiken 3 kyu reberu nonaiyou no baai [Learning effects of university English fundamental education using e-learning materials
with automatic iteration utilizing cognitive linguistics: A case study of step 3rd grade level]. Sapporo
University Journal, 39, 17–39. https://sapporo-u.repo.nii.ac.jp/records/7153* Takahashi, C., & Kaneko, T. (2011). Puroto taipu riron wo mochiita eigo zenchishi no jissenteki jugyou[Practical teaching of the English preposition “over” based on the prototype theory]. Papers from the
National Conference of the Japanese Cognitive Linguistics Association, 11, 256–265.
Takeuchi, O., & Mizumoto, A. (2023). Gaikokugo kyouiku kenkyu handobukku (zouhoban) [The handbook of
research in foreign language learning and teaching (enlarged ed.)]. Shohakusha.
* Takimoto, M. (2016). Evaluating the relative effects of cognitive approach with 3D content and non-cogni-― 49 ―+OGAWA Mutsumi様.indd

49

総合文化研究第 30 巻第 1 号（2024.6）

2024/06/11

12:03:51

A Systematic Review of Studies on the Cognitive Linguistic Approach to L2 Instruction:
A Case of Japanese Learners of English
tive approach on the development of EFL learnersʼ knowledge about the different degrees of sureness.
Cognitive Linguistic Studies, 3(2), 347–368. https://doi.org/10.1075/cogls.3.2.08tak* Takimoto, M. (2020a). Exploring the effects of proximal-distal metaphor on the development of EFL learnersʼ knowledge of the degree of certainty. Language Teaching Research, 24(3), 317–337. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1362168818782259* Takimoto, M. (2020b). Investigating the effects of cognitive linguistic approach in developing EFL learnersʼ pragmatic proficiency. System, 89, 102213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2020.102213* Takimoto, M. (2021). A comparative study of animation versus static effects in the spatial concept-based
metaphor awareness-raising approach on EFL learnersʼ cognitive processing of request strategies. Language and Cognition, 13(2), 191–226. https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2020.34
Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a cognitive semantics: Concept structuring systems (Vol. 1). The MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/6847.001.0001
Tanaka, S., Sato, Y., & Kawahara, K. (2003). Chanku eibunpou [Chunk English Grammar]. CosmoPier.
Taniguchi, K. (2011). Ouyou ninchi gengogaku to goi shutoku: Bunpou riron wo eigo kyouiku ni katsuyou
suru (2) [Applied cognitive linguistics and the acquisition of vocabulary: Application of grammaticaltheories to English education (2)], Memoirs of Osaka Kyoiku University, Ser.I Humanities, 59(2), 63–74.
https://opac-ir.lib.osaka-kyoiku.ac.jp/webopac/TD00025446
Taniguchi, K. (2012). Gakushu ni yuukouna ime-ji suki-ma to tagi nettowa-ku no kousou ni mukete [Towards
constructing effective image schemas and polysemy networks for learning]. In K. Fujita, M. Matsumoto, K. Kodama, & K. Taniguchi (Eds.), Saishin gengo riron wo eigo kyouiku ni katsuyou suru [Utilizing
cutting-edge language theories in English education] (pp. 176–187). Kaitakusha.
Taniguchi, S. (2007). Take + hukushi ni yoru kudoushi no imi wo nihonjin gakusei ni ninchi saseru eigo kyoujuhou: Koa karano hatten wo tadoru [A study of teaching method to make Japanese students
understand the meanings of the phrasal verbs ʻtake + adverbsʼ: Tracing the development from the core
meaning]. Tokoha Gakuen University Research Review (Faculty of Foreign Studies), 23, 11–45.
Taniguchi, S. (2008a). Kudoushi get in/out no imi no ninchi wo bogowasha no ninchi ni chikadukeru eigo
kyoujuhou [Teaching method to promote Japanese learnersʼ cognition of phrasal verbs, get in/out, to alevel closer to that of native speakers of English]. Review of Foreign Languages, 9, 47–77.
Taniguchi, S. (2008b). Kudoushi get up/down no imi no ninchi wo bogowasha no ninchi ni chikadukeru
eigo kyoujuhou [Teaching method to promote Japanese learnersʼ cognition of phrasal verbs, get up/
down, to a level closer to that of native speakers of English]. Tokoha Gakuen University Research Review(Faculty of Foreign Studies), 24, 49–79
Taniguchi, S. (2009). Reconsideration on teaching technique to promote Japanese learnersʼ understandingof phrasal verbs to a level closer to that of native speakers of English: From the viewpoints of discourse
analysis. Tokoha Gakuen University Research Review (Faculty of Foreign Studies), 25, 119–129.
Taniguchi, S. (2011a). A study of a technique to teach Japanese college students the effect of using metaphors: To make the listener perform the perlocutionary act. Tokoha Gakuen University Research Review(Faculty of Foreign Studies), 27, 127–141.
総合文化研究第 30 巻第 1 号（2024.6）+OGAWA Mutsumi様.indd

50― 50 ―

2024/06/11

12:03:51

A Systematic Review of Studies on the Cognitive Linguistic Approach to L2 Instruction:
A Case of Japanese Learners of English
Taniguchi, S. (2011b). Nihonjin gakushusha ni genzai kanryou no gainen wo rikai saseru shidouhou:
Koubun no koa wo motoni [A study of teaching technique to make Japanese learners understand theconcept of present perfect aspect: Based on the core meaning of the construction]. Review of Foreign
Languages, 12, 1–22.
Thomas, M. (2006). Research synthesis and historiography: The case of assessment of second language
proficiency. In J. M. Norris & L. Ortega (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching(pp. 279–298). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.13.13thoTomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv26070v8
Tsuzuku, A. (2021a). A cognitive linguistics approach to English article acquisition through collaborative
learning: A longitudinal study. Doshisha Literature, 64, 43–74. https://doi.org/10.14988/00028991
Tsuzuku, A. (2021b). Ninchi gengogakuteki chiken wo mochiita eigo kanshi shisutemu no gakushu: Meishi
kasansei to kanshi sentaku ni tuiteno kousatsu [The acquisition of the English article system throughcognitive linguistic insights: A study of noun countability judgement and article choice]. Shuryu, 82,
19–37. https://doi.org/10.14988/00028997
Tyler, A., Huang, L., & Jan, H. (Eds.). (2018). What is applied cognitive linguistics?: Answers from current
SLA research. De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110572186
Ueno, Y. (2006). Eigo kyoushi no tameno koukateki goi shidouhou: Ninchi gengogakuteki apuro-chi [A cognitive teaching approach to English vocabulary for teachers]. Eihosha.
* Vasiljevic, Z. (2011). Using conceptual metaphors and L1 definitions in teaching idioms to non-native
speakers. Journal of Asia TEFL, 8(3), 135–160.
Watari, Y., Kusanagi, K., Terasawa, T., Urano, K., Kudo, Y., & Sakai, H. (2021). Eigo kyouikuno ebidensu:
Korekarano eigo kyouiku kenkyu notameni [Evidence-based English education]. Kenkyusha.
Yamagata, S., & Yoshida, H. (2015). Image-based basic verb learning through learner-centred and teachercentred approaches: A case study on Japanese EFL junior high school students. Theory and Practice inLanguage Studies, 5(4), 679–687. https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.0504.02* Yasuda, S. (2010). Learning phrasal verbs through conceptual metaphors: A case of Japanese EFL learners. TESOL Quarterly, 44(2), 250–273. https://doi.org/10.5054/tq.2010.219945* Yasuhara, C. (2011). Zennchishi gakushuu ni okeru ninchi imironn teki shidou ni kansuru ichikousatsu:
Zenchishi at, in, on ni shouten wo atete [A study of teaching prepositions through cognitive semantics
approach: With a focus on, at in and on]. CASELE Research Bulletin, 41, 21–29. https://doi.org/10.1898
3/casele.41.0_21
Wirag, A., Li, Y., & Zhang, B. (2022). Applying cognitive linguistics to foreign language teaching and learning: Addressing current research challenges. Cognitive Linguistic Studies, 9(2), 185–201. doi:https://doi.org/10.1075/cogls.21010.wir

要旨

本研究では，認知言語学（CL）に基づく言語指導アプローチの効果を検証した研究の― 51 ―+OGAWA Mutsumi様.indd

51

総合文化研究第 30 巻第 1 号（2024.6）

2024/06/11

12:03:51

A Systematic Review of Studies on the Cognitive Linguistic Approach to L2 Instruction:
A Case of Japanese Learners of English

システマティックレビューを行う。CL に基づいた介入研究が増加している中で，この研究では特に，日本人英語学習者を対象に CL 法と従来の教授法を比較した実証研究に焦点を当てた。メタ分析には，3,179 人の学習者を対象とした 40 件のサンプル研究から得られた 98 つの効果サイズが含まれた。結果として，総合的に見ると，CL 法は中程度の効
果サイズで従来法を上回る学習利益をもたらすことが明らかになった（g = 0.719，95% CI[0.565，0.873]）。仲介変数による分析では，CL アプローチは即時事後及び短期遅延事後テストで従来法よりわずかに優れているという結果だった。長期的な効果については，本研究のデータから一般化できる傾向を得ることはできなかったが，特定の言語項目において従来法より大きな効果がある可能性が示唆された。そのため，より多くの言語項目において長期的な指導効果に関するデータを蓄積することが今後の課題として挙げられた。また本研究では，A1 から B1 レベルの学習者は CL アプローチの恩恵を同等に受けていることが確認できた。そして今後の研究にて，より習熟度の高い学習者に対する CL 指導法の効果の度合いを探る必要性が提言された。最後に，指導時間に関する教育的示唆に加えて，
CL アプローチを言語教育に取り入れるための将来的な方向性についても議論する。

総合文化研究第 30 巻第 1 号（2024.6）+OGAWA Mutsumi様.indd

52― 52 ―

2024/06/11

12:03:51

+OGAWA Mutsumi様.indd

53― 53 ―

U

study 2

U

U

Sato (2020) study 1

Yasuhara (2011)

H

Nakagawa (2019)

UU

Mitsugi, Nagashima(2015)

Takahashi &Kaneko (2011)U

Mitsugi (2017)

U

Cho & Kawase(2012)UU

Cho (2010)

Mitsugi (2013)

U

Ia

-

-

-

A2

-

-

-

-k

A2

B1

B1

-

-

-

S

-

-

-

-

S

Im

S

-

above, across, along,
below, in, into, on, overat, in, on

-

90

20

above, across, along,
below, in, into, on, over

over

1

5

in, on, at (temporal)

90
-

1

-

20

5

30

30

-

60

40

25

1

1

1

1

1

30
30

in, on, at

in, on, at

1

1

60

in, on, at (topological,
temporal, functional,
metaphorical)

1

1

F

MC

immediate

immediate

immediate

RS
PDrw

JP

JP

JP

JP

JP

immediate
1 week
immediate

JP

ENG

ENG

immediate

immediate

immediate

ENG

ENG

immediate
6 weeks
6 weeks

ENG

Lg i

Art.

Art.

Diss.

Diss.

Art.

Art.

Art.

Art.

Art.

Book

Art.

Type jPublication
characteristics

immediate

Posttest h

F w/ JPF

FF

F w/ JPFFF

Fq e Total f Outcome g-

40in, on, at (topological,
functional)

in, on, at, by

25

Td

Research designin, on, at

Lv b As c Details of target feature

Learnercharacteristics

Details of the Sample Studies

Akamatsu (2010b)

Study

Prepositions

Appendix A

no pretest, 2D
image group
includedno pretest

CBEI group
includeda posttest with ahint-sheet asintervention

Note
A Systematic Review of Studies on the Cognitive Linguistic Approach to L2 Instruction:
A Case of Japanese Learners of English

総合文化研究第 30 巻第 1 号（2024.6）

2024/06/11

12:03:51

+OGAWA Mutsumi様.indd

54

総合文化研究第 30 巻第 1 号（2024.6）

UU

Yasuda (2010)

H

Nakagawa &Tsuchiya (2013)

Strong (2013)

H

Nakagawa (2018)

UH

Nakagawa (2013)

Spring (2018)

H

Ia

B1

B1

B1

-

S

S

S

-

-

90

10

10

up, down, in, out, on, off,back, away, after,
under(below),over(above), across,along, apart, together,around(about), throughup, down, out, off(4 verbs each)up, down, into, out, off(21 phrasal verbs in total)out (10 verbs)

up (10 verbs)out (10 verbs)

1

1

2

1

1

25

-

-

10

1

10

-

6

up (+down, on, off)

15

S

PreA1

10

10

180

10

25

10

90

F

F

F

JP tr.

F w/ JPJP tr

F

Fq e Total f Outcome g

Td

Research design

Lv b As c Details of target feature

Learnercharacteristics

Hotei (2022)

Study

Phrasal verbs

immediate

-

1 day

ENG

ENG

ENG

JP

JP

immediate
1 week2 weeksJPJP

1 week
4 weeks
2 weeks

Lg i

Posttest h

Art.

Art.

Art.

Art.

Art.

Art.

Art.

Type jPublication
characteristics

no pretest,
exposed/unexposed items
testedsemantic
analysis+image
schema group
included, nopretest, exposed/
unexposed items
testedCL group
included

Note
A Systematic Review of Studies on the Cognitive Linguistic Approach to L2 Instruction:
A Case of Japanese Learners of English― 54 ―

2024/06/11

12:03:51

+OGAWA Mutsumi様.indd

55― 55 ―U

U

U

Sato (2010) study 2

Sato (2014)

Sato (2015)

H

H

U

Fujii (2011a)

Fujii (2011b)

Ochi (2018)

Modal verbs

U

U

Mueller & Tsushima(2019)
study 1study 2

H

Fujiwara et al.
(2016)

Ia

A2

A2

A2

B1

B1

-

B1

A2

-

S

S

S

In

In

-

Im

S

-

-

-

will, must, can, may,shouldwill, must, may, should,
could, would

1

90

2

1

1

1

90

-

1

1

1

1

1

-

-

-

90

90

45

90

70

-

7

F

F w/ JPF w/ JPF w/ JPF w/ JP

F

F

F

-

F

Fq e Total f Outcome g45will must, can, may,should, shalllook, seelisten, heartelicity

90

70

force, get, have, help, let,make, prevent
force, get, have, let, make-have (causative)

7S

enjoy, promise, decide,finish, quit, manage,
imagine, mind, admit,
refuse, forget, remember

A2

Td

Research design

Lv b As c Details of target feature

Learnercharacteristics

H

Study

Fujii (2009)

Verbs

1 weekENG

JP

immediate
2 weeksJP

1 week2 weeksJPJP

1 week2 weeks

immediate
2 weeksJP

immediate

ENG

ENG

immediate
3 weeks
3 weeks

JP

JP

Lg i

immediate

immediate
2 weeks

Posttest h

Diss.

Art.

Art.

Diss.

Diss.

Art.

Art.

Art.

Art.

Art.

Type jPublication
characteristics

self-review took
place before
posttest

Note

A Systematic Review of Studies on the Cognitive Linguistic Approach to L2 Instruction:
A Case of Japanese Learners of English

総合文化研究第 30 巻第 1 号（2024.6）

2024/06/11

12:03:51

+OGAWA Mutsumi様.indd

56

総合文化研究第 30 巻第 1 号（2024.6）

U

U

Takimoto (2020a)
study 1study 2

U

Sato (2010) study 1

UU

Takimoto (2020b)

Takimoto (2021)

PolitenessU

Cho & Kawase(2011)Countability

U

Ia

A2

A2

-

-

A2

A2

B1

S

S

-

-

S

S

S

request forms

request forms

4

4

20

1

1

6

6

3

80

80

90

60

120

120

90

ENG

1 week
6 weeks
4 months

ENG

ENG

1 week5 weeks
9 weeks
Writing
RSJP

1 week5 weeks
9 weeks

immediate

ENG

ENG

1 week
6 weeks
4 months

8 weeks

ENG

Lg i

1 week
6 weeks

Posttest h

Art.

Art.

Art.

Art.

Art.

Art.

Art.

Type jPublication
characteristics

Writing
RS

F

F

Writing
RS
RS

Writing
RS
RS

Writing
RS
RS

Fq e Total f Outcome g

20

90

countable/uncountable
nouns

20

“certain, probable,possible” items(9 adjectives, 9 adverbs)

60

20“certain, probable,possible” items(9 adjectives, 9 adverbs)

countable/uncountable
nouns

30

Td

Research design“certain, probable,possible” items(9 adjectives, 9 adverbs)

Lv b As c Details of target feature

Learnercharacteristics

Takimoto (2016)

Study

Degree of certainty

static group
includedteacher-directed
learning

self-directed
learning

Note
A Systematic Review of Studies on the Cognitive Linguistic Approach to L2 Instruction:
A Case of Japanese Learners of English― 56 ―

2024/06/11

12:03:51

+OGAWA Mutsumi様.indd

57― 57 ―

U

U

A2

A2

-

A1

-

S

S

-

S

-

10

10

18 idioms from 3 source
domains
18 idioms from 3 source
domains120

1040 words

subjunctive, indicative

40

Td

break, over

Lv b As c Details of target feature

3

3

2

10

1

30

30

240

100

40

F
F

F
F

F w/ JPMeta

JP tr.

AJ
PDes

Fq e Total f Outcome g

Research design

immediate
4 weeks

immediate
4 weeks

immediate

ENG

ENG

ENG

ENG

ENG

2 days2 weeks-

Lg i

Posttest h

Art.

Art.

Art.

Diss.

Art.

Type jPublication
characteristics

instruction
examples inEnglish with JP tr.

instruction
examples inEnglishno pretest

4 words taught
per session,
exposed/unexposed items
testedNote

I, institutional status; U, university; H, high school; b Lv, proficiency level; c As, Proficiency assessment measures; S, standardised tests; In, institutional
status; Im, impressionistic judgment; d T, time per session (min); e Fq, session frequency; f Total, total intervention duration (min); g Outcome, outcome
measures; F, fill-in-the-blank sentence completion; F w/JP, fill-in-the-blank sentence completion with Japanese translation; RS, rating scale; PDrw, picturedrawing; MC, multiple choice; JP tr, Japanese translation; AJ, acceptability judgment; PDes, picture description; Meta, meta-explanation; h Posttest, timing of posttests; i Lg, publication language; ENG, English; JP, Japanese; j Type, publication type; Art. article; Book, book chapter; Diss, doctoral
dissertation; k -, unknown.

astudy 2

Vasiljevic (2011)
study 1

Idiom

Nagai (2001)

H

H

Nakahara (2005)

Subjunctive

H

Ia

Learnercharacteristics

Morimoto, Loewen(2007)Study

Polysemy

A Systematic Review of Studies on the Cognitive Linguistic Approach to L2 Instruction:
A Case of Japanese Learners of English

総合文化研究第 30 巻第 1 号（2024.6）

2024/06/11

12:03:51