English Language Teaching and Linguistics Studies ISSN 2640-9836 (Print) ISSN 2640-9844 (Online) Vol. 6, No. 4, 2024 www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/eltls 158 Original Paper An Overview of Cognitive Strategies in SLA of English in 21st Century Xiaomeng Lin1 1 School of Foreign Studies, Nankai University, Tianjin, China, 300071 Email: 13110928657@163.com Received: May 27, 2024 Accepted: July 11, 2024 Online Published: July 31, 2024 doi:10.22158/eltls.v6n4p158 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.22158/eltls.v6n4p158 Abstract Cognitive linguistics scrutinizes the close relationship between the human brain, mind and SLA. Since the beginning of the 21st century, many new paradigms and approaches have emerged in this domain of SLA. Based on English as L2, this paper delves into the review in cognitive dimension from three main aspects: cognitive linguistics represented by constructional grammar, empirical cognitive science represented by neural-brain science and corpus research, as well as category and metaphor-related theories in cognitive semantics. These cognitive perspectives and strategies are interconnected and complementary, constituting a general and comprehensive sketch of new paradigms in cognitive SLA. This paper summarizes and analyzes how cognitive linguistics and cognitive science in the 21st century can provide coherent and appropriate theoretical guidance and methodological reference for the study of SLA, and meanwhile criticize and reflect on the shortcomings of the current research field and offers suggestions for future research directions. Keywords Cognitive Strategies, Second Language Acquisition, Psychological/mental Mechanisms, Cognitive Linguistics, Neural-Cognitive Science 1. Introduction Cognitive linguistics stemmed from the reflection and innovation from precedent formal, structural linguistics, whose structural and mechanic standpoint of linguistic form and meaning demonstrates a desideratum in consideration of ever-changing humanistic and socio-cultural development. In the 1970s, the Summer Linguistics Seminar held at the University of California, Berkeley, USA published four papers on the role of human cognitive ability in language learning, which commenced the development of cognitive linguistics (Shu, 2009). From the mid-1980s to the 1990s, theories of conceptual metaphor www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/eltls English Language Teaching and Linguistics Studies Vol. 6, No. 4, 2024 Published by SCHOLINK INC. 159 and metonymy, psycho-spatial and conceptual integration, cognitive semantics, cognitive syntax, and similarity rational cognition flourished, which in turn greatly inspired new academic paths for the study of L2 acquisition in the 21st century. Nowadays, the cognitive turn has proved tremendous explanatory power in disclosing inner mechanism of mind throughout SLA. Robinson (2001) has systematically explored the cognitive theory in L2 acquisition and the cognitive factors permeating L2 teaching, and proposed the cognitive orientation of L2 acquisition research to explain the rules of intelligence structure of L2 learners. The continuative analysis of in SLA in the last two decades has witnessed great momentum.This article aims to provide a diachronic, systematic review and comments on the three major trends in cognitive research paradigm of SLA: cognitive linguistics represented by constructional grammar, empirical cognitive science represented by neural-psychological science and corpus research, as well as category and metaphor-related theories in cognitive semantics elaborates the practical significance of the cognitive orientations as well as some existing shortcomings, in order to put forward suggestions for future direction of the cognitively-guided research of SLA. 2. Review of Cognitive Perspectives & Cognitive Linguistics in SLA in 21st Century 2.1 Construction-Based Cognitive Perspectives In SLA 2.1.1 Basic Information of Linguistic View of Construction Grammar Epistemologically speaking, the concept “construction” is deemed as an indispensable term derived from Frame Semantics by Fillmore around the 1980s, signifying a cognitive organization, a "coherent schematization of a specific and unified structural organization of knowledge or experience" (Fillmore, 1985, p. 223). This argument holds that the meaning of a sentence is not a simple combination of the meanings of its constituent parts (Fillmore et al., 1988), i.e., the idea of a construction grammar. Langacker (1987) proposed a “usage-based model” to refer to such constructive structure. Based on the concept of construction, Goldberg (1995) systematically elaborated the theory of construction grammar and gave an in-depth explication of the four categories in English, holding that constructs, as pairs of form and meaning, store semantic, syntactic and pragmatic knowledge, are the most natural base unit for the structural depiction of language. To comprehensively conclude, language is a system of constructions, so language acquisition (whether monolingual or bilingual) is the acquisition of constructions in essence. The 21st century has witnessed the research methodology of cognitive linguistics in SLA has shown a gradual transition from the traditional focus on introspection as the qualitative “cognitive commitment” to the more empirical, scientific psychological experiments as more quantitative (Jin, 2011; Murphy et al., 2012; Taler et al., 2013), which formed a series of operationalized research paradigm. Technically generalized, those new sphere trends clarify the particulars involved in the mental process in a more accurate way. www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/eltls English Language Teaching and Linguistics Studies Vol. 6, No. 4, 2024 Published by SCHOLINK INC. 160 2.1.2 Further Cognitive Mechanism of Construction in SLA Based on the previous foundational exploration of construction, the SLA process is the category-based acquisition of L2 constructions in essence (Xu, 2023). It holds the principle that first emphasizes constructed grammar as the basis for patterns of grammatical organization (Fillmore et al., 1988; Goldberg, 1995; 2006; Croft, 2001). Its appearance aroused the rethinking of the similarities between the L1 and L2 system, and consequently, the profound support for the cognitive and mental possibilities of L1’s role in transfer in SLA. The function of a “construction” inspired Xu to analyze the relationship that a certain construct play in L2, with the view that the closer the connection between the form of a construct and its meaning (or function), the easier the construct is to acquire (Xu, 2022). In this sense, the L2 learners' linguistic knowledge can be regarded as an ever-expanding repertoire of constructions, where each level of constructions has its own independent form, semantics, or function, varying in complexity and abstraction. Furthermore, different semantics or functions affect the intensity of the interaction between constructs in grouping or realizing, indirectly exerting influence on the acquisition of L2 usage mode, sequence, and scope. In this aspect, her viewpoints echo the view of L2 construction assemblage and compatibility by Goldberg. Different constructs can only be grouped if they are semantically or functionally compatible or at least temporarily compatible in a given context (Goldberg, 2006). This is closely related to the frequency of their co-occurrence in the L2 context; the higher the frequency of co-occurrence in the target language input, the stronger the grouping of this particular construction; consequently, the easier it is for the learners to acquire L2 constructions. Indebted to the universal construction as a plausible model in terms of SLA, Ambridge (Ambridge et al.), through a host of operational experiments, found that in L2 acquisition, constructions are closely related to the subjective awareness, background knowledge, socio-cultural and other encyclopedic knowledge of the language users, and that this kind of functional organization re-construction plays an important role in SLA. The orientation of construct-based cognitive mechanism has been a promising direction in SLA in the last two decades, with its research principally focusing on the following three aspects: Firstly, the role of the L1 construction in SLA assumes importance without being ignored. As the early perspicuous domestic scholars of the construction in SLA as English, Xu and Zhang (2010) once reviewed the research of construction in SLA from its relationship with L2 lexicon, frequency with SLA and the transfer of mother tongue. Cadierno and Robinson (2009) pointed out that, since L2 is developed on the basis of native language conceptual patterns, native language constructions will inevitably have a certain transfer on L2 acquisition. Besides, They (2009) also analyzed the acquisition of expressive mobile L2 constructions from a linguistic psycho-typological perspective to examine the acquisition of lexicalization patterns close to the target language under different L1 backgrounds (Cadierno & Robinson, 2009). Hu (2007) studied the double-object and have-causative structure acquisition in English as L2 respectively, pointing out that L1’s construction could intervene with the www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/eltls English Language Teaching and Linguistics Studies Vol. 6, No. 4, 2024 Published by SCHOLINK INC. 161 L2’s to some extent. Therefore, we are able to conclude that even though the construal processing mechanism will be optimized along with the learner's L2 proficiency, the L2 constructions will compete directly with the L1 constructions; hence, the negative transfer of the native language will be unavoidable, and the interlanguage developed is prone to be caught in fossilization or some form errors due to construction hybridization in this process. Secondly, the construction acquisition can reveal the acquisition priority and optimal sequence in SLA. In terms of the trajectory of construction formation, It has been evidenced that the SLA actually follows the developmental path of "idioms- low domain patterns -constructions"in learners’ cognitive capability (Bradovi-Harlig 2002). This major involves three steps: inception of idioms and unanalyzed lexical chunks that serve as creative constructions, formation of complex patterns in interaction acquisition context, as well as reconstruction and assemblages of old ones. As for its productivity and viability, the dependence on character frequency is confirmed by many domestic and abroad scholars (Li & Wang, 2006). Goldberg (2006) introduces indicators such as token frequency (实例频率), type frequency (类 型频率), and coverage (覆盖度) to illustrate the frequency and variability of instances are important for children's generalization of constructions, which closely relates to the general category and intensified schemata engendered. But there is also controvertible that this frequency effect of construction(构式的频率效应) proposed still has not been downright proved lucid on account that the work done mostly is an error analysis of a given construction in the traditional sense (Xu & Gao, 2023). The third focus as the argument structure also influences the intricate information processing in L2 learners. The domestic academia in English as L2 mainly discussed about the acquisition of different classes of words, semantics and sentences in English from the angle of argument. In 2004, Dong and Liang (2004) conducted experiments of the higher-level group of Chinese learners in English, showing a more advanced acquisition of L2 meaning through comprehension of verb argument construction compared with the lower group that learns through the verb itself, and their findings are later further refined and criticized by Sun in 2008. Similarly, Tang (2020), Bi and Li (2017) have verified that how can over-generalization of the English verb and directional argument structure be overcome while a relatively consummate acquisition can be attained from the correspondence between the semantic structure of the verb/directional structure and its argument construction, thus highlighting the importance of meaning-oriented pedagogy. These findings resonate with and move further based on those of Dong and Liang. Focusing on English mental vocabulary, Dai and Liu (2008) put forward that the argument structure and the complexity of sublinguistic features play a very important role in this kind of acquisition. It can be induced from this part that the English argument in construction is the pivotal underlying logic of a mature, smooth, thorough, and syncretic grasp of English words and sentences meaning in SLA. To briefly summarize and review, argument construction perspectives, with a negation of Universal Grammar, depart from item-specific knowledge in a bottom-top sequence (Goldberg, 2006), offering insights to the cognitive rationale of L1 transfer, the concretization for some higher, complicated www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/eltls English Language Teaching and Linguistics Studies Vol. 6, No. 4, 2024 Published by SCHOLINK INC. 162 argument abstraction of lingual code in in-depth SLA, as well as the influencing mechanism where construction parameters as frequency, cases and coverage condition the acquisition and comprehension of English meaning and syntactic structure. Just as Chinese scholar Sun put it, this perspective from construction breaks through the limitations of simple structural analysis, making the form-meaning-function relationship in English greatly improved, illustrating a descriptive and explanatory cognitive process in SLA. (Sun, 2008) Although constructive grammar denies the Language Innateness Hypothesis, it is worth deliberating whether it’s a self-consistent and comprehensive method in SLA due to some limited studies scope at present. For example, there still be room for improvement in shortcomings as a lopsided focus on some particular construction structures in a certain studied group, and the predominant research methodology merely confined in Contrast Analysis, behavourial experiment and corpus-data way. (Xu & Zhang, 2010) As for a prospective study in this direction, more specific input and category drill should be performed in an proactive way to activate comprehension of construction essentially, and other more efficient, numerical measurement indicators can be introduced to regulate. 2.2 An Emphasis on Category and Metaphor in Cognitive Semantics In recent years, researchers (Robinson & Ellis, 2008; Boer & Lindstromberg, 2009; Littlemore, 2010; Hustijn et al., 2014) have given original interpretations of many phenomena in SLA based on the core concepts of schema, category, and mental space. Lakoff (1987) argues that our thinking process is nothing more than category, while Talmy (1988) proposed the cognitive semantics that “language is a cognitive system” that highlights a variety of schematic systems such as configurational structures, attention, force dynamics, cognitive states, viewpoints, and event structure frameworks. All those above-mentioned are targeted to reveal the relationship of thinking essence and language and witnessed leaps and bounds in interpretation profundity and extensive application in SLA in this field by latecomers in the new century. The experientialism of meaning in cognitive semantics assumes that the biological nature of human beings, their experiences, and the natural conditions of the environment in which they live has an impact on their thinking, and the pre-conceptual structures, which include the basic class structure and the image-schema structure, are mastered can enable humans to comprehend abstract conceptual structures. Its basic perspectives comprise metaphor and class categories. By spadework in this field, Littlemore holds that the relationship between linguistic form and meaning is not arbitrary, but intrinsically linked through metaphor. “metaphor pervades the whole process of language and communication” (Littlemore, 2002). Firstly, in regard to the research from metaphor in SLA, Littlemore (2002; 2009) initially applied cognitive linguistics concepts to the study of L2 metaphor acquisition, proposing that metaphor processing is closely linked to learners' visual, auditory, and kinesthetic brain regions as well as their material culture world, and that the ability to utilize metaphors is the result of a game of learners’ basic knowledge of language and life experiences. To complement, he utilizes the four-space network in www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/eltls English Language Teaching and Linguistics Studies Vol. 6, No. 4, 2024 Published by SCHOLINK INC. 163 conceptual integration theories to present how the systematic reflection and inferential process are involved in pertinent social and cultural metaphors in SLA, inaugurating a new orientation in SLA. Jin (2011) conducted a series of lexical metaphorization extension studies on spatial concepts in both English and Chinese via comparative corpora, suggesting that SLA is inherently metaphorical and this competence helps learners process and recognize L2 words repertoire more effectively. Epsimari and Mouti (2022) also demonstrated the positive effect of conceptual metaphors on L2 vocabulary learning. As a useful method, the concept integration theory is also employed to clarify the mental mechanisms and metaphorical pathways of semantic novelty and unpredictability by L2 learners. This term is initiated by Fauconnier and Tuner (2002). Wen (2010) empirically analyzed the the cognitive production of interlanguage in SLA from 4 types of conceptual integration, and concluded that interlanguage is the result of the learners' integration and processing in the emergent structure through the active combination, refinement and expansion of the psycho-cognitive process under both L1 and L2 system. Du (2009) Qi (2020) and Yan (2013) also explained the viability of conceptual integration in SLA vocabulary learning and semantic construal respectively. In 2011, Zhu and Xi (2011) once published a comprehensive overview of conceptual integration development and application in the first decade of this century, but didn’t cover the progress in the latest decade till now. Secondly, as another priority from this perspective,the prototype category in SLA, mainly focus on vocabulary acquisition from categorization (Xu, 2023) in current academia. Category is an advanced human cognitive activity (Dirven & Verspoor, 1998, p. 108); humans are able to build various abstractions and conceptual networks through categorizing sensory experiences. Studies such as Ma (2010) and Maguire et al. (2010) have shown that the order in which the different lexical items are arranged in semantic category affects the speed and effectiveness L2 word acquisition with a prominence in expertness in typical-category learner compared with the atypical one; while, Peng (2010) explored the words category in SLA from the phonological, morphological, meaning, class and pragmatic dimension. Their findings provided supportive evidence for category applicability in English lexicon acquisition. Ji et al. (2023) examined the cognitive economy of basic level categories through eye-movement of 31 Chinese learners of English while reading sentences with different levels of vocabulary, which expound the cognitive burden in a beyond-linguistic perspective. Generally speaking, the metaphor and category view, along with its derivative epistemological and methodological ways, deconstructing the complicated thinking modes into clear, interpretable elements that can be reified and applicable, which infuse inspiring paradigms for the enhancement of SLA in terms of a psychological and abstract path. 2.3 Under the Framework of Experimental Study Another research domain attributed to the development of sophisticated technology and biology is the study supported by experiments or data. This method bespeaks a more advanced and accurate measure of relevant ulterior elements to further corroborate the revelation of specific processing aspects in SLA. javascript:void(0); www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/eltls English Language Teaching and Linguistics Studies Vol. 6, No. 4, 2024 Published by SCHOLINK INC. 164 Currently the academic instrumental approaches, majorly it’s the empirical corpus-based research, neural-cognitive empirical ways, and some psychological-cognitive experiments represented by connectionist network that have occupied indispensable status. Among them. the neural-cognitive aspect contains avenues as event-related potentials (ERPs), eye movements, functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), and, etc. Neural-cognitive SLA has been flourishing in recent years. In domestic academia, the upsurge of neural-cognitive study was initiated as early as the onset of the 21st century. Xu (2001), from the angle of neurolinguistics, explored the significance of brain specialization and integration in muti-dimensionally perceptual L2 acquisition. Later, Zhang et al. (2016; 2017; 2019; 2021; 2023) conducted a spectrum of exhaustive, important research on the advantages, modalities, influencing factors, individual particularity, and cogent evidence of the neural-cognitive ways in SLA. He explored several aspects in the neural-cognitive processing mechanism of SLA: for example, through the way-construction, he found that the specific EEG (electroencephalogram) attention-driven component P3a and contrastive-memory driven component P3b matters in the understanding of construction in SLA (2019). Besides, the role of ERP (event-related points) in SLA is also pointed, whose deviation and vacancy are of significance in the identification of qualitative and quantitative differences between L2 learners and native speakers (Zhang, 2021). His themes also involve other routes of neural cognition. His comprehensive, in-depth studies facilitate the further neural-cognitive orientation of SLA at home. Further, Xue and Pei (2014) verified the core semantic hypothesis by collecting EEG data from Chinese-English bilinguals, finding that there was a grade effect on the age with differences in the EEG activation intensity in different brain regions in terms of the sequence of acquisition in English words. What’s more, Pei et al. (2014). comprehensively investigated the activation effects of left and right spatial imagery schemas in the English SLA process of time concepts by combining behavioral experiments and ERP studies, while Fan et al. (2017) examined the effect of the degree of Chinese lexicalization on English lexical reasoning by psychological experiments as the audible thought and introspection. Through the method of eye movements, Chen (2009) studied the impact of cognitive mechanisms and information clues on English metonymy comprehension. Jin et al. (2019) expiated the role and contribution of EEG and ERP data in SLA from the critique of the L2 learning experience, environment, age, and similarity to the structure of L1. All the listed researches are indicative of a more objective, accurate empirical shift in the new era. Another research realm as connectionist networks and models are further deepened based on psychological-neural science. This paradigm depends on the premise of the theory that self-consistency and coherence of artificial lingual-neural systems can explain human intelligence capability. Modern connectivist theories can be traced back to the pioneering work of neuroscientists and computer scientists such as McCulloch and Pitts (1943) and Rosenblatt (1963) in the 1940s-1950s, who interpreted the inner object neural mechanism and induced activities of the human brain in cognition process. It is an integration of IT, AI, psychology and many other fields, and gradually forms a www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/eltls English Language Teaching and Linguistics Studies Vol. 6, No. 4, 2024 Published by SCHOLINK INC. 165 multi-level and cross-field orientation, constructs a series of new network learning algorithms and uses them to study and apply them to appropriate fields. Based on this, Wang conducted a series of works, established a connectionist network semiotic model to illustrate the legitimacy of theories and concrete performing process of connectionism in SLA (2004), and supports the accessibility of UG in SLA via connectionism. Her model involved the L1 and L2 dimensions along with non-linguistic elements, proposing a universal phenomenon of L1, whose extension and structure are closely related to the SLA process. This proposition echoes with the idea that the emphasis of L1 and SLA is the result of analogies with L1 of contemporaneous domestic scholar Wang (2001). Further, Teng (2006) probed into the language input, transfer, and interlanguage pragmatic ability from connectionism. Zhang and Liu (2009) reviewed the neo-connectionist epistemology to explain the three major hypotheses in SLA as the “monitoring model” input hypothesis, the CRH and the natural sequence hypothesis, concluding that the sociality as epistemological consistency in terms of cognitive theory and new orientations in SLA. Those connectionist views that are based on the psychological neural networks are helpful to establish an abstract, physical interpretation for phenomena in SLA such as transfer, the necessity for comprehensible input, and the clear dynamic process of L2 acquisition in the brain. In domestic academia, scholar Ye (2005) also conducted studies on the formation of the lingual nerve network and the L1 thought in SLA. However, there is also inadequacy in the connectionist perspective. As Hulstijn (2002) cautions, existing connectionist simulation networks are mainly limited to modeling simple linguistic phenomena, which use a limited amount and scope of data (such as the past tense of verbs, noun grammatical gender, grammatical structure of German and Russian noun phrases, etc.) Therefore, it’s unclear whether the inferential learning mechanisms has incontrovertibility to more nuanced, abstracted linguistic knowledge. As for the quantitative research of corpus-based, methods could be categorized as corpus-based approach and corpus-driven approach,and the former can further utilise the Computer-Assisted Error Analysis and Contrastive Interlanguage Analysis (CIA) to conduct more accurately targeted pedagogical studies (Deng, 2007). For nearly two decades, the application of the corpora approach in cognitive perspective for SLA is mainly to verify some theory or rationalize certain cognitive phenomena with forceful scientific, documentary proof as a sound practical foundation. With different varieties of corpora, Wang and He (2005) verified the feasibility of the“chunking theory” and “attention hypothesis” with the impact of corpora index on attention and memory in SLA. While, Gao and Mei (2007) discussed the causes of fossilization in SLA with the assistance of Chomsky’s Principles and Parameters and corpora data. In general, the domestic focus in this area takes a wide range of L2 as an object, from Chinese, English to all other domestic minority languages or other languages, which indicates a relatively limited domain particularly for English as L2. Yet, on the other hand, there is still huge potential and patent utility value in English as the L2 thanks to the existing research of those languages, offering a prospect www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/eltls English Language Teaching and Linguistics Studies Vol. 6, No. 4, 2024 Published by SCHOLINK INC. 166 for research further via bilingual corpora to improve English pedagogy in China. 3. Conclusion Through the overview of how cognitive linguistics, the development of cognitive linguistics theory and its further application in practice are enriched and testified to be productive,bring the cross-fertilization of the two disciplines. On the one hand, the theoretical and methodological feasibility and diversity from such perspective boasts great attention in SLA, but, in general, it seems that this direction is still in the initial stages, requiring it to be further broadened in scope and validated in more ways. One of the deficiencies lies in that although some complicated, particular English linguistic acquisition can be interpreted on a more qualitative, scientific way, some other general linguistic phenomena still lack related adequate proof. On the other hand, the new perspective can explain the dynamic and developmental issues that traditional linguistic theories cannot solve, which not only greatly deepens our understanding of how the brain processes L2 learning tasks, but also shows that L2 pedagogy is a complex system featured with non-linearity, emergence, and indeterminacy (Gui, 2005). Based on the groundwork, those new trends develop and extend cognitive perspective in SLA in a deeper sophisticated, interdisciplinary way, which conversely will further facilitate the progress of cognitive linguistics and science. For better development in the future, it is recommended that this direction should be conducted in wide, overall range of language aspects, and more perspicuous,clear scientific evidence should be gathered to corroborate its physical rationale. References Ambridge, B., Noble, C. H., & Lieven, E. V. M. (2014). The semantics of the transitive causative construction: Evidence from a forced—Choice pointing study with adults and children. Cognitive Linguistics, 25(2), 293-311. https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2014-0012 Bardovi⁃Harlig, K. (2002). A new starting point? Investigating formulaic use and input. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24(2), 189-198. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263102002036 Bi, L. S., & Li, Y. N. (2017). Research on the acquisition of the metastructure of L2 directionality. Journal of Philology, (04), 73-79. Bian, J., & Zhang, H. (2021). Neurocognitive differences in the effects of second language and mother tongue extraction. Electronic Teaching of Foreign Languages, (04), 18-25+33. Bian, J., & Zhang, H. (2023). The Number Attraction Effect of L2 Subject-Verb Consistent Processing and Its Individual Differences: ERP Evidence from Chinese High-Level English Learners. Foreign Language and Foreign Language Teaching, (01), 60-72+146. Boers, F., & Lindstromberg, S. (2009). Optimizing a Lexical Approach to Instructed Second Language Acquisition. New York: Palgrave Macmillan Press. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230245006 Cadierno, T., & Robinson, P. (2009). Language typology, task complexity and the development of L2 lexicalization patterns for describing motion events. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 7(1), www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/eltls English Language Teaching and Linguistics Studies Vol. 6, No. 4, 2024 Published by SCHOLINK INC. 167 245-276. https://doi.org/10.1075/arcl.7.10cad Chen, X. L. (2009). Constructive view of cognitive linguistics. Journal of Chongqing University(Social Sciences), (02), 129-134. Croft, W. (2007). Construction grammar: In D. Geeraerts, & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), Oxford: Oxford University (pp. 463-508). Cognitive Linguistics Press. Dai, M. C., & Liu, X. Y. (2008). An Empirical Study on Psychological Verb Acquisition among Chinese English Learners. Journal of Foreign Languages, (05), 114-122. Deng, Y. C. (2007). A Literature Review of Learner Corpus and Second Language Acquisition. Foreign Language Circles,(01), 16-21. Dirven, R., & Verspoor, M. H. (1999). Cognitive Exploration of Language and Linguistics. https://doi.org/10.1075/clip.1(1999) Dong, Y. P., & Liang, J. Y. (2004). The Role of Architecture in Chinese Students’ Comprehension of English Sentence Meaning. Journal of Foreign Language Teaching and Research, (1), 42⁃48. Du, J. (2009). Concept Integration Theory and Second Language Vocabulary Acquisition. Journal of Jixi University, (04), 103-105. Fan, L., Hong, N., & Wang, Z. (2017). A Study on Lexical Competition and Its Repetitive Priming Effect in the Production Process of Chinese-English Nouns by Chinese Students. Foreign Language Teaching and Research, (03), 405-415+481. Fillmore, C. (1985). Frame and Semantics of Understanding. Quadernidi Semantica, 6(2), 222-253. Gao, W. C., & Mei, D. M. (2007). Explanation of the Causes of Intermediary Rigidity Based on Corpus. Electronic Teaching of Foreign Languages, (02), 17-22. Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199268511.001.0001 Goldberg, A. E. (2006). Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gui, S. C. (2005). Cognitive Foundations of Foreign Language Teaching. Journal of Foreign Language Teaching and Research, (4), 1-9. Hu, X. W. (2007) . Cognitive Explanations of Language Acquisition Theory. Journal of Anhui University (Philosophy and Social Science), (06), 117-123. Hulstijn, J. (2002). Towards a unified account of the representation, processing and acquisition of second language knowledge. Second Language Research, (18), 193-223. https://doi.org/10.1191/0267658302sr207oa Hulstijn, J. H., Young, R. F., Ortega, L., Bigelow, M., DeKeyser, R., Ellis, N. C., Lantolf, J. P., Mackey, A., & Talmy, S. (2014). Bridging the gap: Cognitive and social approaches to research in second language learning and teaching. SSLA, 36(3), 361⁃421. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263114000035 www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/eltls English Language Teaching and Linguistics Studies Vol. 6, No. 4, 2024 Published by SCHOLINK INC. 168 Ji, M., Luo, C., Ren, Y. et al. (2023). A comparative study of the cognitive load of basic-level category, superordinate category and subocdinate catedory. Psvcholodical Research, (87), 2102-2203. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-023-01799-8 Jin, H. G., Gao, F., & Chen, Z. (2019). Application of Event-Dependent Potential (ERP) Technology in Second Language Syntax Acquisition. Chinese Language Teaching in the World, (04), 522-547. Jin, L. (2011). Second Language Acquisition of Spatial Metaphors in English and Chinese Writings: Insights from Native and Learner Corpora (PhD dissertation). University of Arizona. Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001 Langacker, R. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar (Vol. I). Stanford, CA.: Stanford University Press. Li, J., & Cai, J. T. (2008). A Study on English Spatial Preposition Acquisition from the Perspective of Cognitive Linguistics. Modern Foreign Languages, (2), 185⁃193. Li, X. H., & Wang, L. F. (2010). A Constructive Grammatical Perspective on Second Language Acquisition: Constructional Theory and Implications. Journal of Foreign Languages, (02), 107-111. Littlemore, J. (2010). Metaphoric competence in the first and second language: Similarities and differences. In M. Pütz, & L. Sicola (Eds.), Cognitive Processing in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 293⁃316). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.13.20lit Ma, S. H. (2010). Classification and Acquisition of Prepositional Semantic Members in English Space: An Empirical Study Based on Categorization Theory. Journal of PLA Foreign Chinese University, (4), 64⁃69. Mcculloch, W. S., & Pitts, W. (1943). A Logical Calculus Of The Ideas Immanent In Nervous activity. Bulletin of Mathematical Biophysics, (5), 115-133. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02478259 Murphy, G. L., Hampton, J. A., & Milovanovic, G. S. (2012). Semantic memory redux: An experimental test of hierarchical. Journal of Memory and Language, 67(5), 521⁃539. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2012.07.005 Pei, S. S. (2014). Activation of Left and Right Spatial Intention Schemas in the Processing of Time Concepts: Behavioral and ERP Experimental Evidence. Proceedings of the 4th National Symposium on Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition (pp. 46-47). Peng, X. H. (2010). New Strategies for Second Language Acquisition: Categorization and Metaphorization. Educational Academic Monthly, (06), 109-111. Qi, C. X. (2020). Cognitive Construction of English Neologisms under Conceptual Integration Theory: A Case Study of English Neologisms in 2017. Journal of Hubei Second Normal University, (06), 15-20. Robinson, P. (2001). Cognition and Second Language Instruction. Cambridge: CUP. www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/eltls English Language Teaching and Linguistics Studies Vol. 6, No. 4, 2024 Published by SCHOLINK INC. 169 https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524780 Robinson, P., & Elis, N. (2008). Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition. New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203938560 Rosenblatt, F. (1963). Principles of neurodynamics. perceptrons and the theory of brain mechanisms. American Journal of Psychology, (76), 705. https://doi.org/10.2307/1419730 Shu, D. F. (2009).Twenty Years of Cognitive Linguistics in China: Review and Reflection. Modern Foreign Languages, 32(03), 248-256+328-329. Sun, X. Y. (2008). English Sentence Comprehension, Improvement and Enlightenment for Second Language Acquisition from the Perspective of Construction. Journal of Longdong University, (02), 97-101. Taler, V., Johns, B. T., Young, K., Sheppard, C., & Jones, M. N. (2013). A computational analysis of semantic structure in bilingual verbal fluency performance. Journal of Memory and Language, 69(4), 607-618. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2013.08.004 Talmy, L. (1988). Force dynamics in language and cognition. Cognitive Science, 1(12), 49. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1201_2 Tang, S. M. (2020). Second Language Acquisition of Verb Semantics and Argumentative Metastructure. Journal of Changzhou Institute of Technology (Social Sciences Edition), (01), 86-90. Teng, Y. J. (2006). Connectionism and Second Language Acquisition. Journal of Yantai Normal University (Philosophy and Social Science), (01), 99-102. Wang, C. M. (2001). Explaining Second Language Acquisition, Connection Theory Prevails Over Universal Grammar. Journal of Foreign Chinese (Journal of Shanghai Foreign Chinese University), (05), 11-17. Wang, L. Y., & He, A P. (2005). Corpus-based Links between Foreign Language Teaching and Second Language Acquisition. Foreign Language and Foreign Language Teaching, (03), 28-32. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263106210295 Wang, W. (2004). A Connectionism-based Model of Cognitive Processes in Second Language Acquisition. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, (05), 6-24. Xu, J. F. (2023). The Convergence of Cognitive Linguistics in Foreign Language Education: Current Situation and Prospects. Journal of PLA Foreign Chinese College, (06), 79-86+156. Xu, R. K., & Gao, S. Q. (2023). The Application of Constructional Grammar in Second Language Acquisition. Journal of Foreign Language Teaching and Research, (05), 678-689+799. Xu, W. H., & Zhang, H. (2010). Constructional Grammar and Second Language Acquisition: Current Situation, Problems and Implications. Contemporary Foreign Language Studies, (11), 23-28+61. Xu, Y. Y., &Wang, T. S. (2015). Effects of frequency, consistency, and level on L2 chunk processing. Modern Foreign Languages, (3), 376⁃385. Xue, J., & Pei, X. N. (2014). The Learned Age Effect in Reading: Evidence from EEG Studies in Chinese-English Bilinguals. In Proceedings of the 4th National Symposium on Cognitive www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/eltls English Language Teaching and Linguistics Studies Vol. 6, No. 4, 2024 Published by SCHOLINK INC. 170 Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition (pp. 69-70). Beijing Second Foreign Language Chinese College. Yan, W. (2013). Application of Concept Integration Theory to Semantic Understanding. Journal of North University of China(Social Sciences), (06), 75-79. Ye, J. Q. (2005). A Preliminary Study on the Relationship between Second Language Acquisition and Neurological Language. Foreign Language and Foreign Language Teaching, (12), 61-64. Yu, C. H. (2015). Research on the Re-lexicization Model of Way Construction in Chinese Based on English-Chinese Parallel Corpus. Foreign Language Teaching and Research, (1), 42⁃54. Yu, J., & Zhang, H. (2019). A neurocognitive study of English phrasal verb processing in Chinese English learners. Journal of FLTR, (06), 838-849+960. Zhang, H. (2014). ERP Research on Syntactic Processing of Second Language Learners. Journal of PLA Foreign Language and Chinese University, (01), 88-99+160. Zhang, Q. Y., & Liu, X. L (2009). New Connectionist Cognitive Perspectives and New Cognitive Orientations in Second Language Acquisition. Chinese Foreign Languages, (02), 61-65+77. Zhu, M., & Xi, J. G. (2011). A Review of Ten Years (2000-2010) of Domestic Concept Integration Theory and Its Application. Theory Monthly, (11), 96-100. 1.Introduction 2.Review of Cognitive Perspectives & Cognitive Lingu 2.1 Construction-Based Cognitive Perspectives In S 2.1.1 Basic Information of Linguistic View of Cons 2.1.2 Further Cognitive Mechanism of Construction 2.2 An Emphasis on Category and Metaphor in Cognit 2.3 Under the Framework of Experimental Study 3.Conclusion