Anderson Hidarto


Cognitive Grammar (CG) is a relatively new approach to linguistics that is becoming more mainstream in recent years due to its comprehensive description and meaningful elaboration of grammar. CG proponents have been proposing this approach to L2 grammar instruction instead of a more traditional approach that relies heavily on rules. Our main interest is to investigate whether such approach is indeed beneficial to learners, particularly in the learning of English past tenses. Our goal in the current study is therefore to examine the relative effect of CG instruction on Indonesian EFL learners’ mastery of two past tenses, simple past and past perfect. These tenses were selected as our instructional targets since most common traditional explanation does not help learners differentiate and use them contextually (Jones & Lock, 2011). Twenty-seven EFL learners studying at a senior high school in Jakarta participated in this quasi-experimental study. They were assigned to one experimental group receiving a two-week pedagogical treatment with pre-test and immediate post-test design. Statistical analyses indicate that the group significantly performed better after the treatment, notably in discourse-related test sections. The results confirm the efficacy of CG which can lend support to its applications in L2 instruction.


cognitive grammar, EFL learners, teaching grammar, tense and aspect

Full Text:



Azar, B. S. & Hagen, S. A. (2009). Understanding and using English grammar (4th ed.). New York: Pearson Longman.

Bielak, J. & Pawlak, M. (2013). Applying cognitive grammar in the foreign language classroom: Teaching English tense and aspect. Heidelberg: Springer.

Ellis, R. (1995). Interpretation tasks for grammar teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 29(1), 87-105.

Holme, R. (2009). Cognitive linguistics and language teaching. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Howell, D. C. (2014). Fundamental statistics for the behavioral sciences (8th ed.). USA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.

Huong, N. T. (2005). Vietnamese learners mastering English article (Doctoral dissertation, University of Groningen). Available online at http://dissertations.ub.rug.nl/FILES/faculties/ppsw/2005/h.n.thu/thesis.pdf

Jones, R. H. & Lock, G. (2011). Functional grammar in the ESL classroom: Noticing, exploring and practising. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Kermer, F. (2016). A cognitive grammar approach to teaching tense and aspect in L2 context. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

Krashen, S. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford, England: Pergamon.

Langacker, R. W. (2008). The relevance of cognitive grammar for language pedagogy. In S. D. Knop & T. D. Rycker (Eds.), Cognitive approaches to pedagogical grammar: A volume in honour of René Dirven, pp. 7–36. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Larsen-Freeman, D. (2015). Research into practice: Grammar learning and teaching. Language Teaching, 48(2), 263-280.

Lascarides, A. & Asher, N. (1993). Temporal interpretation, discourse relations and commonsense entailment. Linguistics and Philosophy, 16(5), 437-493.

Li, S., Ellis, R. & Zhu, Y. (2016). Task-based versus task-supported language instruction: An experimental study. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 205-229.

Long, M. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In K. de Bot, D. Coste, R. Ginsberg, & C. Kramsch (Eds.), Foreign Language Research in Cross-Cultural Perspective (pp. 39-52). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Murphy, R. (2004). English grammar in use (3rd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Nassaji, H. & Fotos, S. (2011). Teaching grammar in second language classrooms: Integrating form-focused instruction in communicative context. London: Routledge.

Norris, J. & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50, 417-528.

Radden, G. & Dirven, R. (2007). Cognitive English grammar (Vol. 2). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.

Taylor, J. R. (2008). Some pedagogical implications of cognitive linguistics. In S. D. Knop & T. D. Rycker (Eds.), Cognitive Approaches to Pedagogical Grammar: A Volume In honour of René Dirven, (pp. 37–65). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Tyler, A. (2008). Cognitive linguistics and second language instruction. In P. Robinson & N. C. Ellis (Eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition (pp. 456–488). London: Routledge.

Tyler, A. (2012). Cognitive linguistics and second language learning: Theoretical basis and experimental evidence. New York: Routledge.

Tyler, A., Mueller, C. M., & Ho, V. (2010). Applying cognitive linguistics to instructed L2 learning: The English modals. AILA Review, 23, 30–49.

Tyler, A., Ho, V. & Mueller, C. (2011). Applying cognitive linguistics to learning the semantics of English to, for and at: An experimental investigation. Vigo International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 8, 181–205.

Ur, P. (1996). A course in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Vogt, W. P. (2005). Dictionary of statistics and methodology: A nontechnical guide for the social sciences (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.


  • There are currently no refbacks.

Indexed and abstracted in:






This work is licensed under CC BY-SA.

Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License

LLT Journal DOI: https://doi.org/10.24071/llt

p-ISSN: 1410-7201 (since 12 March 1998); e-ISSN: 2579-9533 (since 16 May 2017)

LLT Journal Vol 21, Supplement, publication date: 28 June 2018

View My Stats

Free counters!

  LLT Journal: A Journal on Language and Language Teaching is published by the English Language Education Study Programme of Teacher Training and Eduation Faculty of Sanata Dharma University, Yogyakarta, Indonesia.