HAMAMOTO, Hideki – Applying embodied cognition approaches to L2 learning.
Para lá da tarefa: implicar os estudantes na aprendizagem de línguas estrangeiras no ensino superior.
Porto: FLUP, 2019, pp. 167-183
DOI: https://doi.org/10.21747/9789898969217/paraa9

Applying embodied cognition approaches to L2 learning

Hideki Hamamoto
Kindai University, Osaka, Japanhidekihamamoto@intl.kindai.ac.jp

Abstract
The longstanding view of the predominant linguistic paradigms is that linguistic
representation is symbolic and independent of human bodily experiences. Opposed tothis disembodied cognition view, recent empirical evidence from cognitive sciencesuggests that human language cognition is grounded in embodied experiences. This
embodied cognition view rests on the idea that the mind and the body are not separate
entities and we are likely to understand partially some abstract linguistic concepts byrelating them cognitively to our own bodily experience. This view suggests that L2
knowledge is also partially based on embodiment. Speakers of an L2 without embodied
experiences may be called ‘L2 zombies’ since they lack this authentic sensation. This
paper reports on the efficacy of introducing the embodiment view into L2 learning suchas in the teaching of the space-related adjectives ‘high’ and ‘tall,’ and the present perfectprogressive construction. The findings indicate that due consideration of embodied
experience is desirable to foster learners’ true understanding of their L2.

Keywords: cognition, embodied experience, present perfect progressive tense

1 – Introduction
Recently, many researchers have advocated that linguistic concepts are based on
bodily experiences, or embodiment (e.g., Gibbs, 2005; Langacker, 1987; Radden &Dirven, 2007; Taylor, 2002; Tyler, 2012; Pecher & Zwaan, 2005). They have proposedthat language competence is a product of our general cognition. In other words, language
is grounded in our cognitive experiences with the world. The term ‘cognition’ comes frompsychology and refers to (i) human perceptual abilities of the external world, (ii)conceptualization, (iii) memory, and (iv) thinking and judgment. Cognition embraces all
the mental activities under the control of the conscious mind and commonly includes
subconscious mental activities with regards to linguistic competence. The word

167

HAMAMOTO, Hideki – Applying embodied cognition approaches to L2 learning.
Para lá da tarefa: implicar os estudantes na aprendizagem de línguas estrangeiras no ensino superior.
Porto: FLUP, 2019, pp. 167-183
DOI: https://doi.org/10.21747/9789898969217/paraa9‘embodiment’ refers to the involvement of our body in cognitive activity. Consider theexcerpt from Gibbs (2005):
Many aspects of cognition are grounded in embodiment, especially in termsof phenomenological experience of our bodies in action. Embodiment may notprovide single foundation for all thought and language, but it is an essential partof the perceptual and cognitive processes by which we make sense of ourexperiences in the world. (Gibbs, 2005, p.3)

This present research assumes the embodied cognitive view of language as atheoretical model. There is compelling evidence that symbols can be grounded in our
experiences (Pecher & Zwaan, 2005). However, as the excerpt indicates, embodimentmay not be the single foundation for all thought and language.
The organization of this paper is as follows. The remainder of this section discusses
some foundational assumptions of cognitive embodiment thesis and its key concepts. In
relation to these concepts, to elaborate on the necessity of activation of perceptual
representations in language processing, a hypothesis is proposed. This ‘the second
language zombie hypothesis,’ which borrows the term from philosophy of mind
(Chalmers, 1996), summarizes common problems of second language learners. Section
two discusses two attempts which consider embodied experiences for teaching abstract
linguistic issues: (i) synonymous and supplementary senses of the adjectives ‘high’ and‘tall,’ (ii) the correct usage of the English present perfect progressive tense. Section three
is dedicated to a general discussion on implications gained through these experiments
and on how we can utilize our linguistic perspective successfully into L2 instruction.
Section four concludes with discussing some remaining but important issues.

1.1 – What are embodied cognitive experiences?
Our basic assumption is that language, at least partly, is a product which results fromour cognitions of bodily experience. As Gibbs (2005) says people’s subjective, felt
experiences of their bodies provide part of the fundamental grounding for language. He
also says that our body serves as a significant resource for people’s understanding ofmany abstract concepts. For example, the phrase ‘look down on somebody’ meaning‘despise’ is based on our experience of our bodily action. When somebody despises
another, he is most likely to take a stance of looking down on the person. In this manner,many expressions are motivated by our bodily action. In fact, there is a lot of evidence
which supports this view. Consider the following:168

HAMAMOTO, Hideki – Applying embodied cognition approaches to L2 learning.
Para lá da tarefa: implicar os estudantes na aprendizagem de línguas estrangeiras no ensino superior.
Porto: FLUP, 2019, pp. 167-183
DOI: https://doi.org/10.21747/9789898969217/paraa9(i) Human infants progressively build more complex mental understanding as
they make kinesthetic sense of their physical experiences. Over the course ofchildhood, language develops in conjunction with perceptual symbols. (Smith &Gasser, 2005)(ii) When people are exposed to action verbs such as ‘kick’ or ‘pick,’ their motor
regions are also activated. (Hauk, Johnsrude, & Pulvermüller, 2004)(iii) Some researchers propose that language processing facilitates movement
and movement facilitates language comprehension. In other words, these twotasks cooperate bi-directionally. (Gibbs, 2005)(iv) There is an experimental research which supports that perceptual symbols
are routinely activated in language comprehension. (Zwaan, Stanfield, & Yaxley,
2002)

These are examples of research to support the linkage between cognitive
embodiment and language processing, to name but a few. This cursory review may attest
to the fact that language is grounded on embodied experiences. Is this true for second
language? We will see.

1.2 – Second language zombie hypothesis
Students often learn in ways which are disconnected to their experience, none moreso than second language learning. The cognitive view of language that language isgrounded in embodied experiences brings us a surprising hypothesis. That is the ‘second
language zombie hypothesis.’ The term ‘zombie’ comes from the philosophy of mind. A
philosophical zombie in the philosophy of mind is a hypothetical being that from theoutside is indistinguishable from a normal human being but lacks conscious experience,
qualia, or sentience (Chalmers, 1996). We sometimes observe a case where speakers
of a foreign language who apparently use the language fluently actually lack conscious
experience or real sentience of words. They speak a second language using the linguisticknowledge acquired indirectly from a grammar book or dictionary. They do notexperience the authentic sensation which comes with a word. This situation can be calleda second language zombie situation. Learners of a second language usually learn
grammar rules (ex. those of subjunctive, or present perfect progressive tense) without
developing a true understanding of them that native speakers of the language haveacquired through embodied experiences. Learners practice applying the rules that theylearn to problems in class, but they do not experience a feel for them. A full understanding169

HAMAMOTO, Hideki – Applying embodied cognition approaches to L2 learning.
Para lá da tarefa: implicar os estudantes na aprendizagem de línguas estrangeiras no ensino superior.
Porto: FLUP, 2019, pp. 167-183
DOI: https://doi.org/10.21747/9789898969217/paraa9of a grammar rule derives from a perceptual simulation of it in their mind. Therefore,
when we think of an authentic understanding of a second language, we emphasize theimportance of embodied experiences. In the next section we will consider how we candevelop a perceptual simulation of a concept through embodied experiences.

2 – Two experiments
We have two research questions. The first question is on whether an embodimentapproach is applicable to teaching and learning English vocabulary or grammar.
Grammar here means linguistic rules which cover syntactic, semantic, and phonologicalaspects of a language. The second question is how we can render cognitive embodied
experience learnable and accessible to learners. To respond to these questions, two
experiments were conducted.

2.1 – Synonymous and complementary adjectives: high and tall
Taylor (1992) says that ‘tall’ and ‘high’ are synonymous and complementary. The
same word can be modified by both ‘high’ and ‘tall’ (ex. ‘The tower is high/tall’). However,there are certain groups of words which are exclusively modified by either ‘tall’ or ‘high’(cf. the wall is high/*tall; the boy is tall/*high). There must be a set of conditions or rulesthat regulate which objects may come with ‘high’ or ‘tall’ or can be modified by both.
However, since the rules are not visible to learners, the distinction between ‘high’ and‘tall’ constitutes a big barrier getting in the way of learning. Furthermore, many languages
have only one word corresponding to English high and tall, as exemplified by Portuguese‘alto,’ Polish ‘wysoki,’ and Japanese ‘takai.’ When Japanese refer to a tall building, theysay ‘takai tatemono (= tall building).’ Also, when they refer to a high mountain they say‘takai yama (= high mountain).’ The Japanese language does not have a distinction
between ‘tall’ and ‘high.’ Therefore, Japanese learners of English often get confused inchoosing ‘high’ or ‘tall’ to describe something which stands out in its vertical length. The
knowledge they have acquired from a dictionary does not tell them exactly how theyshould choose ‘high’ or ‘tall.’ Japanese learners of English, who use ‘tall’ or ‘high’according to the knowledge based on a dictionary, do not understand the real sentience.
In this respect, they are zombie speakers of English as far as ‘high’ or ‘tall’ are concerned.
The above discussion reminds us of the important concept ‘quale’ (pl. qualia). When we
see something red, we receive a sensation of redness, when we drink bitter coffee, we
receive a sensation of bitterness. Qualia or sensations are ones that are accessible to
us introspectively and that together make up the phenomenal character of the170HAMAMOTO, Hideki – Applying embodied cognition approaches to L2 learning.
Para lá da tarefa: implicar os estudantes na aprendizagem de línguas estrangeiras no ensino superior.
Porto: FLUP, 2019, pp. 167-183
DOI: https://doi.org/10.21747/9789898969217/paraa9

experience. Space-related adjectives like ‘high’ and ‘tall’ are related to qualia since themeanings of these adjectives are the sensations we perceive when we see something
vertically prominent. The sensations or qualia are the meanings of these adjectives.
Qualia are ineffable, or something we can’t describe with words. Therefore, true,authentic meanings of these adjectives are only learnable through our own experience.
2.1.1 – Procedure of experiment 1
Experiment 1 consists of six steps, which starts with a questionnaire and ends with a
T- test:(i) a questionnaire to collect data for clarifying the rules by which English speakers
select either high or tall(ii) a cluster analysis based on the similarity of items to classify them into clusters(iii) a factor analysis to abstract factors(iv) a computational model to explain the process of selection(v) an embodied cognitive method for teaching the meanings of the adjectives(vi) a T- test to measure its effectivenessThe steps from (i) to (iv) are all preliminaries before the experiment. Our final goal is,of course, to attest the effect of the cognitive embodiment approach which may lead ourlearners to the authentic understanding of these adjectives.
2.1.2 – The questionnaire
A questionnaire was conducted to ask 34 native speakers of English about theirpreference of ‘tall’ and ‘high’ when they modify 41 objects using a rating scale.1 The scaleconsists of seven ratings: 1 (very good), 2 (good), 3 (less good), 4 (doubtful), 5 (bad), 6(very bad), 7 (extremely bad). The table in the appendix is the result of the questionnaire.
For each combination of the adjectives and the items, the smaller the average score is,the more preferred the combination is. For example, the first item in the table ‘girl’ getsa score of 1.12 for ‘tall’ and 6.09 for ‘high,’ which means that ‘tall’ is exclusively used but‘high’ is not used for modification of ‘girl.’ As for ’bridge,’ ‘wall,’ ‘hill,’ and ‘precipice,’ thepreference of ‘high’ is much stronger than that of ‘tall.’ For modifying ‘tower,’ both ‘tall’and ‘high’ can be used. On the other hand, there are some objects which cannot be
modified by either ‘tall’ or ‘high.’ These items are ‘room” and ‘hair.’

1 The questionnaire was conducted in 2007. The participants are 15 Americans, 6 Australians, 6Canadians, 5 British people, and 2 New Zealanders.

171

HAMAMOTO, Hideki – Applying embodied cognition approaches to L2 learning.
Para lá da tarefa: implicar os estudantes na aprendizagem de línguas estrangeiras no ensino superior.
Porto: FLUP, 2019, pp. 167-183
DOI: https://doi.org/10.21747/9789898969217/paraa9

2.1.3 – The cluster analysis
A hierarchical cluster analysis using Ward’s method cluster analysis was conducted
to classify 41 items into groups in terms of compatibility with these adjectives. Membersof each group have some features in common. As the result, the items are grouped into
six clusters:
cluster 1 (modified exclusively by ‘tall,’ e.g., girl, glass, giraffe, fir tree, cocktailglass, skyscraper), cluster 2 (modified mainly ‘tall’ but sometimes ‘high,’ e.g.,building, spire, pyramid),cluster 3 (modified by both ‘tall’ and ‘high,’ e.g., grass, tower),cluster 4 (modified mainly by ‘high’ but sometimes ‘tall,’ e.g., mountain, bridge),cluster 5 (modified exclusively by ‘high,’ e.g., wall, ceiling, dome)
cluster 6 (modified by none of these, e.g., room, hair)
2.1.4 – The factor analysis
A principal factor analysis using the Promax rotation was conducted to calculate afactor loading matrix and fishbone diagrams. The results of the analysis are illustrated in
the following table (note that not all items are presented for the sake of simplicity).
item

first factor load

item

second factor load

hill
wall
tunnelbridgecaveceiling
pillarmountainpyramid
tower
fir treegiraffe
girl

.79
.68
.66
.61
.59
.57
.55
.48
.47
.21
.14
.07
-0.19

fir treepillargirl
pyramidgiraffebridgetunnel
wall
tower
cave
hill
mountainceiling

.65
.55
.51
.22
.18
.16
.11
.10
.06
.05
.01
-0.04
-0.18

Table 1. Factor loading matrix after Promax rotation

Considering a possible interpretation for the first factor, we notice that the shapes ofhigher-ranking objects in the first factor load column are cases of bad Gestalt, while theshapes of lower- ranking objects are cases of good Gestalt. Gestalt here means a unified
or meaningful whole. Therefore, we can name the first factor as ‘Gestalt feature.’ As forthe second factor, we notice that those objects ranked higher in the second factor column

172

HAMAMOTO, Hideki – Applying embodied cognition approaches to L2 learning.
Para lá da tarefa: implicar os estudantes na aprendizagem de línguas estrangeiras no ensino superior.
Porto: FLUP, 2019, pp. 167-183
DOI: https://doi.org/10.21747/9789898969217/paraa9

tend to be shaped like a rectangle with the longer sides being vertical. Those lowerranking objects satisfy this characteristic to a lesser extent. Therefore, we name thesecond factor as ‘vertical prominence.’ We can also notice that objects which are lowerranked in the first factor column and higher-ranked in the second factor column (e.g.,wall, cave, hill, ceiling, mountain etc.) seem to have a common feature. When we look at
those objects, we tend to focus on the top rather than look at the whole body. Thiscofactor, not exactly separated from the first and second factors, can be identified as theother factor and named as ‘focus-on-top feature’. Therefore, three factors are identified:Gestalt feature (F1), vertical prominence (F2), and focus-on-top feature (F3). With thesethree conditions available, what we should do next is to clarify the relation between
high/tall and these three factors in terms of a correlation matrix.
2.1.5 – The correlation matrix
Considering these three factors and preference ratings of adjectives, we can claimthat the more compatible with F1, F2 and the less compatible with F3 an object is, themore likely it is to be modified by ‘tall’. Reversely symmetrical is the case for ‘high.’
However, this is a rough illustration of the problem. What we need is the correlation
matrix between these three conditions and two adjectives, which is analogous to what
lurks in English native speakers’ mind. The correlation matrix takes perceived information
as input and returns the choice of high or tall as output. We have already obtained
preference of ‘high’ or ‘tall’ of each item (appendix A). Therefore, we need to formulate
perceived information of each object so that we may be able to calculate the correlation
coefficients. In search of the correlation between three factors and each object, theauthor asked two informants (British and Canadian) to judge the degree of relevance
between each of 41 objects and these three factors. Some examples of their judgmentare: wall= [F1: L, F2: L, F3: H]; fir tree, girl, glass = [F1: H, F2: H, F3: L]; tower= [F1: H,
F2: H, F3: M]; pyramid = [F1:M, F2: H, F3: M]; mountain= [F1: M, F2: M, F3: H]. In thismatrix, H stands for highly relevance, L means low relevance. M comes between H and
L. If you see a girl, the perceived information of this object is represented as [F1: H, F2:
H, F3: L], which works as INPUT for the selection process of high/tall. Now that we haveobtained both input and output information involved in the selection process of high andtall, we can calculate the missing part, i.e., the correlation coefficients. The result of thecalculation is very simple, shown as Table 2 below.2

2 For more details of this calculation, consult Ch. 3 of Klier & Folger (1993).

173

HAMAMOTO, Hideki – Applying embodied cognition approaches to L2 learning.
Para lá da tarefa: implicar os estudantes na aprendizagem de línguas estrangeiras no ensino superior.
Porto: FLUP, 2019, pp. 167-183
DOI: https://doi.org/10.21747/9789898969217/paraa9

F1

F2

F3

tall

H

H

L

high

L

L

H

Table 2 Correlation matrix of three factors and high/tallThis matrix shows that ‘tall’ is highly relevant to F1 and F2 but low to F3, and that‘high’ is low relevant to F1 and F2 but highly relevant to F3. This matrix is supposedly
close to the content of embodied experience which English speakers may conceive when
they observe something tall or high. Employing the technique of composition of relations,
we can present a model of mental calculation of selection of ‘high’ or ‘tall.’ Assuming that
objects like girl, tree, and glass are defined [H, H, L] in terms of three factors, thecomposition of relations is calculated as [H, H, L] x [ correlation matrix table 2] = [H, L].
The result shows that these objects are exclusively modified by ‘tall.’ In the same way,
objects like mountain, wall, and hill are defined as [L, L, H]. The calculation returns [L,H],
which means that these objects are exclusively modified by ‘high.’
2.1.6 – Gestures
After a series of preliminary steps, we are now ready for the experiment. Two
adjectives ‘high’ and ‘tall’ are related to sensations or qualia when people experiencesomething tall or high. Qualia are what people conceive through their own experience;
therefore, they are not representational. The composition of relations, using thecorrelational matrix, is a theoretical model for the mental operation conducted in humanbrain for selection of adjectives. The important point is that the mathematical method
here is a mere approximation of sense data processing. If the meanings of adjectives
are qualia, they can be learned only through direct experience. Teaching technical details
about the correlation matrix and the calculation is far from true cognitive experience. How
can we convey meanings of these adjectives to learners? A possible way is to teachthem through gestures which can give embodied cognitive experience. We must recall
the correlation matrix which tells us that ‘tall’ is strongly relevant to good Gestalt, andvertical prominence, but low relevant to the focus- on- top feature, while ‘high’ is strongly
relevant to the focus-on-top feature, but low relevant to first two conditions. Therefore,
the gestures should be designed to take over those properties. Consider the following
two sets of gestures.

174

HAMAMOTO, Hideki – Applying embodied cognition approaches to L2 learning.
Para lá da tarefa: implicar os estudantes na aprendizagem de línguas estrangeiras no ensino superior.
Porto: FLUP, 2019, pp. 167-183
DOI: https://doi.org/10.21747/9789898969217/paraa9(i) looking at the figure (chanting the phrase: we can see the wholebody)(ii) squatting down(iii) standing up (chanting the phrase: Long from the bottom to the top)(iv) squatting down (chanting the phrase: Long from the top to thebottom)(v) standing up (chanting the phrase: We can see the whole body.
Yes, it’s tall)
Figure 1 Gesture of ‘tall’ and its chants(i) pointing at the top of the figure (chanting the phrase: The top isfar from the ground; we can’t see the whole body)(ii) pointing at the top of the figure (chanting the phrase: The top isfar from the ground; we can’t see the whole body. Yes, it’s high)Figure 2 Gesture of ‘high’ and its chants

2.1.7 – Experiment
The experiment to testify the effectiveness of embodied cognition approach was donein the following manner:(i) 68 subjects (undergraduate students enrolled in introductory applied linguistic
courses at Kindai university) were divided into the experimental group G1 (n= 34)
and the control group G2 (n= 34) based on their TOEIC scores.3(ii) Only G1 was given embodied cognitive experience-based teaching of
meanings of high and tall. G1 performed two sets of gestures chanting thephrases five times. G2 was offered a conventional explanation (this traditional
treatment includes (i) definitions of both ‘high’ and ‘tall,’ (ii) some example
sentences, (iii) some basic usage notes).
(iii) Both groups took the same test in which all the participants were asked tochoose one choice among (a) tall only, (b) high only, (c) both acceptable, for eachof 20 items. The full point is 20. An excerpt from the test is shown in (1) below.
(iv) The difference between the two groups was measured statistically by using
T- test and analyzed.

3 TOEIC is a popular English proficiency test in Japan; the score ranges from 10 to 990 points.

175

HAMAMOTO, Hideki – Applying embodied cognition approaches to L2 learning.
Para lá da tarefa: implicar os estudantes na aprendizagem de línguas estrangeiras no ensino superior.
Porto: FLUP, 2019, pp. 167-183
DOI: https://doi.org/10.21747/9789898969217/paraa9(1) An excerpt from the test (translated into English from the original Japanese)
Can each item be modified by ‘tall’ or ‘high’ or both? Choose one answer to each.
a. wall (tall, high, both)b. tower (tall, high, both)c. tunnel (tall, high, both)d. glass (tall, high, both)e. mountain (tall, high, both)f. hill (tall, high, both)g. pyramid (tall, high, both)2.1.8 – Results
Participants’ global English proficiency was measured by using their TOIEC scores.
Participants in G1 (n= 34, M= 505.6, SD= 56.3) were slightly better in their scores thanthose in G2 (n= 34, M= 504.4, SD= 51.8); however, there was no significant difference
between the two groups(t (66) =.09, p=.93, p>.05). G1 and G2 were on equal footing in terms of general
English proficiency. This experiment inquired whether learners experiencing cognitive
embodiment approach would exhibit any significant differences from those experiencing
non-embodied instruction. On average, the participants in G1 recorded significantly
greater points (M= 12.206, SD= 1.591) than those in G2 (M= 10.735, SD= 2.723). The
result shows clearly that there was a significant difference statistically between the
average scores of G1 and G2 (t (64)= 2.72, p=.008, **p<.01). This embodied-based
instruction presented a considerably big sized effect (Cohen’s d=.669). Embodied
cognitive experience method, though simple and easy, worked very well for teaching
meanings of these adjectives. In other words, the results suggest that learners
succeeded in acquiring even partially a perceptual simulation of these adjectives in theirmind, which led them out of the L2 zombie situation or at least close to the exit.

2. 2 – Experiment 2: semantics of English present perfect progressive
Experiment 2 deals with semantics of the present perfect progressive tense, which
Japanese learners of English consider difficult. When we hear a sentence like “my father
has been washing his car since this morning,” we naturally infer that the washing action
is still going on. However, a sentence like “I’ve been running” responding to a question“why are looking so tired?” doesn’t entail that running is still going on. The running
process must have been ceased. This observation suggests that we must assume two176

HAMAMOTO, Hideki – Applying embodied cognition approaches to L2 learning.
Para lá da tarefa: implicar os estudantes na aprendizagem de línguas estrangeiras no ensino superior.
Porto: FLUP, 2019, pp. 167-183
DOI: https://doi.org/10.21747/9789898969217/paraa9

meanings for present perfect progressive. However, some grammar books published inJapan take continuation of a process as a necessary condition and even claim that thelack of it renders the sentence ungrammatical. Therefore, learners feel puzzled when
they encounter some examples which obviously violate the rule which they assume to
be true. This experiment was designed to respond to this elusive semantic issue and tomeasure the effectiveness of applying cognitive embodied experience to learning
semantics of the present perfect progressive tense. According to Langacker (2001) andRadden & Dirven (2007), the meaning of present perfect progressive tense iscompositional, i.e., a combination of that of progressive and that of present perfect. Their
explanation is summarized as in (2) below.

(2) Compositional analysis of present perfect progressive(i) Progressive aspect focuses on durational phase of an activity and puts theend-point out of focus.
(ii) Present perfect aspect focuses on the present time and puts the event into
indefinite past time.
(iii) Present perfect aspect requires an interpreter to search for current relevanceof the past event to the present time. Current relevance may be either thecontinuation of the activity to the present moment or a resultative state which is
caused by the activity.
(Langacker, 2001; Radden & Dirven, 2007)

The above elucidation captures semantics of present perfect progressive precisely
and compactly but is not easily understandable when one considers an aspectual featureof a sentence containing present perfect progressive. Reading (2) above is notconsidered as cognitive embodied experience. We need to translate the above criteria
into more accessible framework. A possible solution is to have learners perform skits inwhich sentences with the present perfect progressive are used.
2.2.1 – Procedure
Here is the procedure for this experiment.
(i) 59 subjects (undergraduate students enrolled in Applied Linguistics courses at
Kindai university) were divided into the experimental group G1 (n= 30) and thecontrol group G2 (n= 29) based on their TOIEC scores.

177

HAMAMOTO, Hideki – Applying embodied cognition approaches to L2 learning.
Para lá da tarefa: implicar os estudantes na aprendizagem de línguas estrangeiras no ensino superior.
Porto: FLUP, 2019, pp. 167-183
DOI: https://doi.org/10.21747/9789898969217/paraa9(ii) Participants in G1 read a brief explanation of two usages of the present perfectprogressive. They made a pair and performed two skits in which two
distinguishable types of the present perfect progressive tense were used.
(iii) G2 was offered a conventional explanation, which encompassed (a)difference between present perfect and present perfect progressive, (b) the basic
semantic feature of the present perfect progressive, i.e., description of an action
which started in the past and continues up to the present moment, (c) twointerpretations: ongoing action and recently completed action.
(iv) Both groups took the same test which measured their understanding of themeanings of present perfect progressive tense.
(iv) The difference between the two groups was measured statistically by using
T- test and analyzed.

Participants in G1 read the following brief explanation of two usages of the present
perfect progressive tense (the original in Japanese).

(3) Two usages of the present perfect progressive(a) An action which started before and continues up to now(b) Recently completed action

After reading the explanation, the participants in G1 made a pair and practiced saying
and acting the following two skits. They changed the roles and kept practicing until they
were able to act both roles naturally without looking at the scenario.

(4) Skit 1 (on-going usage)
A: I will count how long you can stand on one leg. Are you ready? Go!
B: (start standing on one leg)
A: Ok, ten seconds.
B: (still standing on one leg) I’ve been standing on one leg for ten seconds.

Skit 2 (completed action usage)
A: You’re breathing hard and all sweaty.
B: (panting, stooping, and wiping the sweat from his/her forehead)
I’ve been exercising.
(looking at A’s hands)

178

HAMAMOTO, Hideki – Applying embodied cognition approaches to L2 learning.
Para lá da tarefa: implicar os estudantes na aprendizagem de línguas estrangeiras no ensino superior.
Porto: FLUP, 2019, pp. 167-183
DOI: https://doi.org/10.21747/9789898969217/paraa9Your hands are dirty.
A: I’ve been gardening all this afternoon.
2.2.2 – Experiment
All the subjects (G1 and G2) took the same test, which consisted of two parts.
Question 1 asked them to classify each sentence with present perfect progressive into
three cases. Question 2 asked for their grammatical judgement. Consider the test below.
(5) Test – present perfect progressive (12 points)
Question 1 Read the following and classify each of them into three cases: (i) theunderlined process is still going on at this present moment; or (ii) the process has beenceased leaving current relevance to the present time; (iii) both cases above are possible.
(10 points)(a) You’ve been fighting again. I can tell that from your black eye.
(b) Look. He has been fighting for an hour on the ring.
(c) Look. The ground is white. It’s been snowing.
(d) It’s been snowing for three hours.
(e) Have you been crying? Your eyes are red.
(f) A: What have you been up to? B: I’ve been reading this book since thismorning.
(g) You have been practicing the violin. I can tell this from your violin bruise.
(h) She has been repairing her camera since early this morning.
(i) He has been trying to get Sally on the phone. But his attempts are all in vain.
(j) Somebody has been sitting in my chair. And it is broken!

Question 2 Explain the difference in acceptability of (a) and (b). (2 points)(a) ? My father has been washing his car and now he is in the living room drinking
coffee.
(b) My father has been washing his car and his clothes are still wet.

2.2.3 – Results
Participants’ global English proficiency was measured by using their TOIEC scores.
Participants in G1 (M=504, SD=79.4) were slightly lower in their scores than those in G2(M= 506, SD= 84.7); however, there was no significant difference between the two179

HAMAMOTO, Hideki – Applying embodied cognition approaches to L2 learning.
Para lá da tarefa: implicar os estudantes na aprendizagem de línguas estrangeiras no ensino superior.
Porto: FLUP, 2019, pp. 167-183
DOI: https://doi.org/10.21747/9789898969217/paraa9groups (t (57) = - 0.055, p=.956, p>.05). G1 and G2 were on equal footing in terms of thelanguage level.
Consider the descriptive statistics and the results of T- test. The participants in G1(n= 30) recorded greater points (M= 9.414, SD= 1.24) than those in G2 (n= 29, M= 8.714,
SD= 1.27). The result shows that there was a significant difference statistically between
the average scores of G1 and G2 (t (54) = 2.102, p=.0401, *p<.05). It did present a
medium sized effect (Cohen’s d=.567). Therefore, this ‘skit method’ for teaching
semantics of the present perfect progressive exhibits an immediate effect. The results
suggest that this method was beneficial for guiding our learners towards the exit fromthe L2 zombie situation.

3 – Discussion
These experiments have exhibited favorable results for the cognitive embodimentapproach.
As for experiment 1, performing the gestures illustrating the meanings of two
adjectives helped participants choose the correct one to modify various objects. Since
meanings of these adjectives are considered as qualia, learners cannot access them
only by reading an explanation. Performing gestures afforded learners opportunities toexperience a real feel for these adjectives.
As for experiment 2, acting the skits illustrating the compositional feature of English
present perfect progressive allowed learners to notice subtle semantic differences
involved in the construction. In both experiments, participants in G1 were encouraged tomove their bodies. Some participants commented favorably on the effect of the skit
method in experiment 2. They commented, “the skit method is very convincing,” “themeaning of the tense has sunk into my mind.” The statistical results and these comments
support the hypothesis of motor-to-semantics effects, which assumes motor processes
and comprehension processes are co-related (Gibbs, 2005). The participants in both G1and G2 had quite extensive experience in studying English. In their English class, theylearned some rules of the present perfect progressive, which were biased towards theongoing process interpretation. Therefore, they needed to have a good opportunity whichurged them to revise their understanding of this construction. This skit method was strong
enough to have them change their understanding of the construction. The successful
results of these two experiments support Gibbs’ view that our body serves as a significant
resource for people’s understanding of many abstract concepts and the basic
assumption that language is a product which results from our cognitions of bodily

180

HAMAMOTO, Hideki – Applying embodied cognition approaches to L2 learning.
Para lá da tarefa: implicar os estudantes na aprendizagem de línguas estrangeiras no ensino superior.
Porto: FLUP, 2019, pp. 167-183
DOI: https://doi.org/10.21747/9789898969217/paraa9

experience. Embodied learning activities including the gestures and skits in the present
study can offer intuitively simple way for learners to grasp subtle and elusive items suchas space-related adjectives as well as a complex construction such as the present
perfect progressive. However, we must admit that there was a drawback in theseexperiments. That is, a delayed test was not carried out in both experiments to measure
the continuing effects of the cognitive embodiment instruction. Therefore, these cognitive
embodiment approaches were effective at least immediately after the instruction was
made. Admittedly, long-lasting effects should be experimentally confirmed, but thepresent results suggest that we are on the right track towards obtaining an effective
remedy to save learners from the L2 zombie situation.

4 – Conclusion
We have two research questions. The first question is whether a cognitive
embodiment approach is applicable to teaching and learning English. The second
question is how we can render cognitive embodiment concepts accessible to learners.
The answer to the first question is that cognitive embodiment is beneficial as far as our
experiments are concerned. In relation to the second research question, attention shouldbe paid to the fact that gestures representing meanings of ‘high’ and ‘tall,’ and skits
representing semantics of the present perfect progressive tense are based upon thelaborious semantic research. Instructors who plan to employ cognitive embodiment for
their teaching must first consult cognitive science literature to explore studies of theirinterest. Secondly, they need to devise an effective method by which they can rendertheir knowledge acceptable to learners through cognitive embodied experiences. In thisrespect, gestures and skits are not only methods available for L2 instruction(Suethanapornkul, 2014). With many more studies, the question of how and where
embodiment approach plays an important role in L2 instruction may be answered moreclearly.

References
Chalmers, D. (1996). The Conscious Mind: In Search of a Fundamental Theory. New
York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Klir, G.J. & Folger, T.A. (1988). Fuzzy Sets, Uncertainty, and Information. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ, Prentice Hall.

181

HAMAMOTO, Hideki – Applying embodied cognition approaches to L2 learning.
Para lá da tarefa: implicar os estudantes na aprendizagem de línguas estrangeiras no ensino superior.
Porto: FLUP, 2019, pp. 167-183
DOI: https://doi.org/10.21747/9789898969217/paraa9

Gibbs, R. W. (2005). Embodiment and cognitive science. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Hauk, O., Johnsrude, I., & Pulvermüller, F. (2004). Somatotopic representation ofaction words in human motor and premotor cortex. Neuron, 41(2), 301-307.
Langacker, R. (1987). Foundation of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. I: Theoretical
Prerequisites. Stanford CA: Stanford University Press.
Langacker, R. (2001). The English present tense. English Language and Linguistics,
5, 251-272.
Pecher, D., & Zaawan, R. A. (2005). Grounding Cognition – the Role of Perception
and Action in Memory, Language, and Thinking. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Radden, G. & Dirven, D. (2007). Cognitive English Grammar. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Smith, L. & Gasser, M. (2005). The development of embodied cognition: Six lessens
from babies. Artificial Life, 11, 13-29.
Suethanapornkul, S. (2014). Embodied Experiences in Second Language Learningof English Modal Verbs. Proceedings of the 2012 Second Language Research Forum,
181-192.
Taylor, J.R. (1992). A problem with synonyms (and a way to a solution). South African
Journal of Linguistics, 10 (2), 99-104.
Taylor, J.R. (2002). Cognitive Grammar. New York and Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Tyler, A. (2012). Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Learning. London:
Routledge.
Tyler, A. & Evans, V. (2001). Reconsidering prepositional polysemy networks: Thecase of over. Language, 77(4), 726-765.
Zwaan, R. A., Starfield, R. A. & Yaxley, R. H. (2002). Language comprehenders
mentally represent the shapes of objects. Psychological Science, 13, 168-171.

182

HAMAMOTO, Hideki – Applying embodied cognition approaches to L2 learning.
Para lá da tarefa: implicar os estudantes na aprendizagem de línguas estrangeiras no ensino superior.
Porto: FLUP, 2019, pp. 167-183
DOI: https://doi.org/10.21747/9789898969217/paraa9

Appendix Tall/High preference scores of forty-one items
num
ber
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41

item
girl
glass
giraffe
fir treebuilding
cocktail-glass
factory chimney
skyscraperpillarspire
willowtelegraph poleostrichbookcase
tower
apartment housegrasschest of drawers
pyramidbox
churchwindowwardrobe
horse
house
mountaindog
shadowbridge
door
dome
table
wall
room
hill
precipicetunnelceiling
cave
cloud
hair

tall ave.
1.12
1.35
1.35
1.35
1.41
1.50
1.76
1.79
1.85
1.91
1.91
2.00
2.03
2.06
2.24
2.24
2.44
2.71
2.74
2.85
2.88
3.12
3.15
3.15
3.21
3.44
3.47
3.59
3.62
3.88
4.21
4.26
4.82
4.97
5.12
5.18
5.26
5.38
5.44
6.09
6.18

SD
0.322
0.681
0.762
0.478
0.732
0.606
1.002
1.255
1.240
1.314
1.222
1.283
1.424
1.136
1.307
1.262
1.785
1.824
1.614
1.784
1.891
1.659
1.896
1.942
2.011
1.752
2.076
2.315
1.766
1.843
1.906
1.787
1.671
1.581
1.745
1.671
1.335
1.237
1.376
1.292
1.224

high ave.

SDdifference

6.09
5.50
5.50
4.21
2.94
5.03
3.38
2.79
3.29
2.68
4.12
2.94
5.26
2.94
2.00
4.24
2.50
3.44
3.06
4.29
4.00
2.29
3.21
4.21
4.59
1.50
5.94
5.09
1.91
3.35
1.97
2.65
2.03
4.35
2.94
1.85
3.24
1.12
3.15
1.94
5.26

1.222
1.460
1.440
1.728
1.714
1.424
1.925
1.623
1.340
1.408
1.659
1.454
1.290
1.392
1.111
1.783
1.480
1.718
1.697
1.525
1.863
1.563
1.491
1.952
1.665
0.697
1.162
1.869
1.039
2.013
1.361
1.432
1.543
1.983
1.748
1.263
1.926
0.322
1.768
1.662
1.771

-5.0
-4.1
-4.1
-2.9
-1.5
-3.5
-1.6
-1.0
-1.4
-0.8
-2.2
-0.9
-3.2
-0.9
0.2
-2.0
-0.1
-0.7
-0.3
-1.4
-1.1
0.8
-0.1
-1.1
-1.4
1.9
-2.5
-1.5
1.7
0.5
2.2
1.6
2.8
0.6
2.2
3.3
2.0
4.3
2.3
4.1
0.9

-23.277-15.227-15.058-9.413-4.854-13.489-4.410-2.884-4.670-2.348-6.335-2.871-9.959-2.9050.811-5.417-0.150-1.736-0.817-3.632-2.4912.138-0.144-2.275-3.132
6.091-6.145-2.983
4.925
1.148
5.646
4.178
7.267
1.441
5.213
9.386
5.123
19.7376.058
11.6572.506

183