DOI:https://doi-0004.org/6812/17910488235114
Hachemi Mohamed Belhabib 1, Bakhti Bouamama 2
1 University of Oran 1 Ahmed Ben Bella, Algeria
Email : haouiadab@yahoo.com
2 University of Oran 1 Ahmed Ben Bella, Algeria
Email: bou86amama@gmail.com
Received: 09/01/2026 ; Accepted : 22/05/2026 ; Published : 03/10/2026
Abstract
In recent decades, linguistic studies have undergone an important cognitive shift with the emergence of Cognitive Linguistics. This approach reconsidered the nature and function of language. It moved away from viewing language as a closed formal system and treated it instead as a system of meaning linked to human cognition and lived experience. From this perspective, language is an extension of thought and a manifestation of how people represent the world around them. Cognitive Linguistics therefore offers a promising approach to understanding language across different contexts, including education. Educational contexts rely fundamentally on educational discourse as a means of constructing meaning and transmitting knowledge within educational institutions. At its core, this discourse uses language as a tool for communication, teaching, and guidance.
This paper examines the possibility of applying the principles of Cognitive Linguistics to the development of educational discourse and to improving the effectiveness of the educational process. It is based on the assumption that educational language is not merely a means of transmitting knowledge. It is also a cognitive structure through which learners’ ways of thinking and interacting with concepts become visible. On this basis, the paper reviews the main foundations of Cognitive Linguistics, especially conceptual metaphor, grounding in sensory experience, and prototype theory. It then examines how these principles can be used to reconstruct educational discourse in ways that are consistent with the mechanisms of human understanding.
The paper also addresses the characteristics and functions of educational discourse in instructional interaction. It highlights the potential of cognitive analysis to reveal the deeper structures of this discourse. It also proposes instructional formulations that take account of the conceptual and cognitive dimensions involved in receiving knowledge. Overall, the study aims to provide a theoretical and practical framework for developing educational practices. The goal is to make these practices more consistent with the cognitive foundations of language and understanding.
Keywords: Cognitive Linguistics; educational discourse; conceptual metaphor; cognition; education; prototype.
1. Introduction
Educational discourse is a central foundation and the main medium through which the educational process is realized. It is not simply a collection of texts and linguistic rules. Rather, it is a complex communicative practice in which linguistic, cognitive, social, and affective dimensions intersect[1]. Its importance lies in its active role in shaping concepts, organizing knowledge, and guiding behavior within educational settings[2]. As the link between knowledge and the learner, the nature and construction of educational discourse directly affect the quality of learning and the effectiveness of cognitive processing[3].
Educational sciences have undergone an important qualitative shift in recent decades. Attention has moved from behavioral models concerned mainly with observable outcomes to models that emphasize cognitive processes in explaining learning[4]. The learner is no longer viewed as a passive recipient. Instead, the learner is treated as an active constructor of knowledge who participates in organizing and interpreting information and in building meaning[5]. This intellectual shift, embodied in constructivist and cognitive theory, has emphasized a key point. Understanding how learners perceive and organize knowledge is essential for designing more efficient and effective learning environments[6].
In this context, Cognitive Linguistics emerges as a promising field that provides powerful analytical tools for bridging the linguistic and cognitive dimensions of educational discourse[7]. Cognitive Linguistics is not simply a linguistic theory. It is an integrated approach that closely connects language, thought, cognition, and bodily experience[8]. Its central premise is that language is not an autonomous symbolic system. Rather, it reflects how the human mind organizes the world through perception, mental representations, conceptual metaphors, and cognitive models[9]. From this perspective, educational discourse can be analyzed not only in terms of what it says, but also in terms of the deep conceptual frames it activates and directs in the learner’s mind[10].
Despite growing recognition of the importance of cognitive dimensions in learning, educational discourse in many contexts remains rigid or excessively focused on the direct transmission of information. This may hinder active and deep understanding of concepts[11]. This situation leads to the central research problem of the study. The question is: How can principles and methods derived from Cognitive Linguistics help develop educational discourse that is more responsive to human cognitive processes? How can such discourse become more effective in building knowledge? The study therefore proposes a theoretical and practical framework. It shows how teachers and instructional designers can use cognitive tools, including conceptual metaphor analysis and discourse framing. These tools can support educational content that better fits the structure of the human mind and the way it organizes knowledge.
This research has two main objectives. The first is to provide an in-depth theoretical analysis of the relationship between cognitive theories, particularly in linguistics, and educational discourse from linguistic and educational perspectives. The purpose is to identify overlapping theoretical frameworks that can support educational discourse sensitive to learners’ mental processes. The second objective is to offer practical proposals grounded in Cognitive Linguistics to improve the effectiveness of educational discourse and the quality of understanding and cognitive processing. To achieve these objectives, the study adopts a descriptive-analytical method. It reviews the literature on Cognitive Linguistics and educational discourse, then applies conceptual tools from Cognitive Linguistics, such as Conceptual Metaphor Theory, to examples of current educational discourse. This makes it possible to identify strengths and weaknesses and to propose recommendations for improvement.
2. The Concept of Cognitive Linguistics
Cognitive Linguistics is a pioneering approach within the humanities and social sciences. It examines the dynamic relationship among language, human cognition, and the construction of knowledge. It is not merely a linguistic theory. Rather, it is a comprehensive methodological approach that treats language as a reflection of cognitive processes and of the ways human beings organize the world.
A. Definition and Emergence of Cognitive Linguistics
Cognitive Linguistics emerged in the late 1970s and early 1980s as a direct response to formal generative linguistic models that separated language from cognition and bodily experience[12]. It developed within what became known as the Cognitive Turn in the humanities. This shift redirected attention from observable behavior in behaviorism, and from purely logical structure in generative grammar, toward internal mental processes such as perception, memory, thinking, and categorization[13].
Most Arab researchers define Cognitive Linguistics as “a linguistic science that studies language as a cognitive phenomenon, regards it as an integral part of the general human cognitive capacity, and does not treat it as an autonomous unit”[14]. This definition emphasizes the integrated nature of language. Language is viewed as a window onto the human mind and onto the mechanisms through which concepts are formed and processed[15].
B. Core Principles of Cognitive Linguistics
Cognitive Linguistics is based on several central principles that differ from traditional linguistic assumptions. These principles emphasize the role of cognition and experience in shaping linguistic structures:
1. Conceptual Metaphor: This is one of the best-known principles of Cognitive Linguistics. It holds that abstract concepts, such as time, ideas, and emotions, are understood by mapping conceptual structure from a concrete source domain onto an abstract target domain[16]. For example, we use the metaphor “ARGUMENT IS WAR” when we say that someone defended a position or demolished an opponent’s argument. Such expressions show that language reflects a way of thinking in which abstract ideas are understood through more concrete experience[17].
2. Mental/Conceptual Blending: Conceptual blending is also known as the theory of integration networks. It is an advanced cognitive process in which conceptual structure from two input spaces is combined to create a new blended space. This new space contains elements and properties that are not present in either input space alone[18]. The principle helps explain how innovative expressions and imaginative meanings are produced and interpreted. It is therefore highly relevant to the construction of creative educational knowledge[19].
3. Cognitive Categorization and Prototypes: Cognitive Linguistics holds that linguistic and cognitive categorization does not depend on rigid logical boundaries, as in Aristotelian logic. Instead, categories are organized around an ideal reference point or prototype[20]. Other members of the category are classified according to their degree of similarity to that prototype. This principle is important for understanding how concepts are constructed in educational discourse and for selecting effective illustrative examples[21].
C. The Relationship among Language, Cognition, and Knowledge
The central view in Cognitive Linguistics is that language is not an autonomous system of symbols. It is an integral part of the broader human cognitive system[22]. This relationship appears in three main ways:
– Embodiment: Language is grounded in bodily, motor, and perceptual experience. In other words, the basic structure of language and knowledge develops from our physical interaction with the world[23].
– The experiential basis of meaning: Meaning is not an objective or purely logical entity that exists outside the mind. It is a human experience that takes shape through the interaction between mind and environment. Language expresses meanings that are formed through this experience[24].
– Language as a tool for organizing knowledge: Through mechanisms such as metaphor and framing, language does more than transmit knowledge. It also organizes and structures knowledge within specific cognitive frames[25].
In short, Cognitive Linguistics provides a theoretical framework for explaining how lexical and structural choices in educational discourse influence the kind of understanding that is constructed. This makes it an important point of departure for developing education that is more cognitively informed and effective.
3. The Concept of Educational Discourse
Educational discourse is the communicative and cognitive framework through which the educational process is realized. It is not simply content that is delivered to learners. Rather, it is an organized social and linguistic act that seeks to construct knowledge, shape values, and guide cognition within educational institutions[26].
A. Definition and Dimensions of Educational Discourse
Educational discourse may be defined as “the set of linguistic and symbolic products exchanged among the different participants in the educational process, including the teacher, the learner, and the instructional material. It is governed by institutional rules and directed toward specific operational goals”[27]. Educational discourse is not limited to spoken or written texts. It also includes contexts of interaction and the ways knowledge is organized[28].
Educational discourse includes several basic dimensions:
1. The communicative dimension: This dimension concerns the movement of messages between the sender, such as the teacher or curriculum, and the receiver, namely the learner. It focuses on clarity of language, the effectiveness of interaction, and the development of trust among participants in the educational process[29]. Communication is therefore understood as an exchange rather than a one-way transmission.
2. The cognitive dimension: This dimension concerns how knowledge is structured and presented within discourse. It involves organizing concepts, classifying information, and using explanation and reasoning in ways that facilitate understanding, cognition, and deep comprehension of instructional content[30].
B. Characteristics of Traditional and Contemporary Educational Discourse
The structural and functional characteristics of educational discourse vary according to the prevailing educational philosophy. The two main patterns may be compared as follows:
1. Traditional Educational Discourse
Traditional discourse tends to be authoritative and informative. It focuses mainly on the vertical transmission of knowledge from the teacher to the learner[31]. Linguistically, it has the following features:
– Centralization and one-sidedness: The teacher is treated as the sole source of knowledge. Discourse is often monologic, while the learner’s role is limited to reception, memorization, and recitation[32].
– Formalism and rigidity: Attention is directed to the formal and logical aspects of information. The language used is often abstract and direct, with little connection to the learner’s everyday contexts and lived experience[33].
– Quantitative assessment: The discourse is primarily oriented toward preparing learners for tests that measure recall. This reflects the dominance of a behavioral view of learning.
2. Contemporary Educational Discourse (Cognitive/Constructivist)
Contemporary discourse, by contrast, tends to be cognitive and interactive. It focuses on meaning construction and on the development of thinking abilities[34]. It has the following characteristics:
– Interaction and participation: Discourse becomes dialogic and may involve two or more participants. Learners are encouraged to ask questions, discuss ideas, and co-construct knowledge. The teacher becomes a facilitator and guide[35].
– Contextualization and embodiment: The language of instruction links abstract concepts to concrete experience and to the learner’s everyday contexts. It uses tangible examples and mental imagery to support deeper understanding. This is consistent with the cognitive principle of embodiment[36].
– Focus on processes: Discourse is directed toward higher-order cognitive skills such as critical thinking, analysis, and problem solving. This reflects the shift toward cognitive and constructivist approaches to learning.
C. The Role of Language in Shaping Educational Thought
Language has a foundational role in educational discourse. It is not merely a tool for transmitting knowledge; it also shapes thought and cognition[37]. The choice of vocabulary, the design of syntactic structures, and the use of metaphor and framing in instructional discourse influence how learners think about the concept being presented[38].
The language used by the teacher performs several functions:
– It classifies knowledge and builds conceptual frames in the learner’s mind.
– It frames problems and directs learners toward particular solutions rather than others.
– It organizes relationships among concepts and helps build a coherent cognitive structure of knowledge instead of leaving information fragmented[39].
Developing educational discourse therefore requires careful linguistic scrutiny informed by cognitive principles. This helps ensure that the language used leads to effective and cognitively informed education.
4. Interaction between Cognitive Linguistics and Educational Discourse
The application of Cognitive Linguistics provides a crucial theoretical and methodological framework for understanding and developing educational discourse. Its analytical tools go beyond the surface structure of language and reveal the cognitive mechanisms involved in constructing and receiving knowledge[40]. This interaction aims to make educational communication more attuned to the organization of the human mind.
A. How Cognitive Concepts Contribute to Understanding Educational Discourse
Core concepts in Cognitive Linguistics help explain the implicit mechanisms that underlie instructional interaction. One of the most important is conceptual metaphor.
Analysis of educational discourse shows that teachers and textbooks rely extensively on metaphor when explaining abstract concepts[41]. The learning process itself, for example, is often explained through metaphors such as “KNOWLEDGE IS A TREASURE” or “KNOWLEDGE IS A BUILDING,” as in discovering the treasures of knowledge or building the foundations of knowledge. Another common metaphor is “THE MIND IS A CONTAINER,” as in filling students’ minds with information[42].
Understanding these metaphors is crucial because they are not merely ornamental expressions. They are cognitive mechanisms that shape how an educational concept is understood[43]. When educational discourse frames discussion as conflict or battle, it may influence the interactional model adopted by learners. For example, a teacher may say that someone strongly defended a point of view. Such framing can direct learners toward domination and victory rather than understanding and cooperation. This can affect the quality of classroom interaction[44]. Cognitive Linguistics therefore enables us to examine such implicit metaphors critically and to choose cognitive alternatives that are more effective and more deliberately informed[45].
B. Analysis of Examples of Educational Discourse in Light of Cognitive Theories
Cognitive theories such as conceptual blending and framing can provide a deeper analysis of classroom interaction and instructional texts:
– Instructional texts and textbooks: Cognitive analysis focuses on how knowledge and concepts are organized[46]. In a physics lesson, for example, energy may be explained through a conceptual blend. The blend can combine features of “flowing water” with those of a “driving force.” This can create a new and innovative understanding of energy that cannot be achieved through an abstract verbal definition alone[47]. Such analysis helps assess how successfully a text promotes active cognitive engagement.
– Classroom interaction: Cognitive analysis also considers the teacher’s role in framing classroom dialogue. When a teacher asks a question, the wording creates a mental frame that guides students’ responses[48]. Instead of asking, “What are the errors in your classmate’s answer?” the teacher may use a different formulation. The first question frames the response negatively around deficiency. The teacher might instead ask, “How can we develop this answer so that it becomes more accurate and comprehensive?” This second framing focuses on construction and improvement[49]. Cognitive Linguistics shows that changing the linguistic frame can produce a fundamental shift in the mental model adopted by learners and, consequently, the educational outcomes.
C. The Effect of Mental Models on the Formulation of Instructional Messages
Mental models are among the most important cognitive constructs emphasized by Cognitive Linguistics in the educational domain. They are internal cognitive structures used to represent the external world or complex concepts. They also provide a basis for understanding, reasoning, and prediction[50].
The influence of mental models on educational discourse can be considered through three aspects:
1. Clarity and construction of the message: Instructional messages should be formulated in ways that allow learners to build a clear and coherent mental model of the concept[51]. Instead of presenting disconnected facts, discourse should present concepts through a coherent narrative or scenario that reflects how the mind constructs models.
2. Addressing inaccurate models: Cognitive Linguistics can help identify inaccurate or incomplete mental models that learners already hold[52]. A learner, for example, may understand gravity only as “a force of attraction between objects.” Cognitively informed educational discourse should be designed to restructure this limited model and introduce a more comprehensive one through revised explanatory metaphors[53].
3. Cognitive design of language: Effective instructional messages depend on choosing linguistic concepts that activate the intended mental models. This helps ensure that the understanding constructed in the learner’s mind corresponds to the intended cognitive representation[54].
5. Toward More Cognitively Informed and Effective Educational Discourse
The ultimate purpose of applying Cognitive Linguistics is not simply to analyze discourse. It is to harness its potential to design cognitively informed educational discourse that goes beyond the superficial transmission of information to engage the mechanisms through which the human mind constructs meaning[55]. This shift requires cognitive concepts to be integrated into the core of educational practice.
A. Practical Applications of Cognitive Linguistics in Instructional Design
The principles of Cognitive Linguistics can be translated into practical applications that improve the quality of curricula and instructional resources in the following ways:
1. Curriculum analysis and design: Conceptual metaphors used in a curriculum can be analyzed to determine whether they support deep understanding or generate misconceptions[56]. If a curriculum presents “MATHEMATICS AS A SOLID WALL” that is difficult to climb, for example, this metaphor could be replaced with “MATHEMATICS AS A JOURNEY OF EXPLORATION”[57]. Cognitive Linguistics can also be used to design coherent cognitive frames for an entire subject. These frames can begin with concrete experience and gradually move toward abstraction.
2. Design of instructional resources: Audiovisual resources can be designed in accordance with the principle of embodiment. Movements, gestures, and sensory experiences can be incorporated into explanations of abstract concepts[58]. Instead of merely defining motion, for example, an animation can embody motion in a way that allows the learner to cognitively simulate the concept.
B. Developing Teachers’ Awareness of Language as a Cognitive Tool
Educational discourse cannot be developed without strengthening teachers’ awareness that language is not merely a means of communicating content. It is a cognitive tool that helps shape the content itself[59]. This awareness can be strengthened in several ways:
1. Training in cognitive analysis: Teachers can be trained to identify the conceptual metaphors they use in explanation and to consider how these metaphors influence students’ conceptions[60]. This enables teachers to choose language that supports the intended mental model and to avoid expressions that may create incomplete or inaccurate mental models.
2. Managing cognitive dialogue: Classroom dialogue can be shifted from isolated question-and-answer exchanges toward dialogue that promotes conceptual blending[61]. Rather than merely evaluating answers, the teacher can manage interaction in ways that encourage students to connect different domains of knowledge. This supports creativity and more complex understanding.
C. Examples of Using Metaphor and Conceptual Blending to Simplify Concepts
The cognitive approach offers direct models for simplifying complex educational concepts:
– Using metaphor: An abstract concept such as justice can be simplified through the metaphor “JUSTICE IS A BALANCE”[62]. A cognitive application goes further by examining different aspects of the metaphor, such as balance, weight, and precision. This allows the metaphor to be used systematically in explanation while avoiding aspects that might create misconceptions, such as the idea that a balance is rigid and unchanging.
– Using conceptual blending: To simplify a scientific concept such as the living cell in biology, a teacher can create a conceptual blend between the domain of “the cell” and that of “the modern city”[63]. In the resulting model, the nucleus may be represented as a “mayor,” while the mitochondria become a “power station.” This helps the learner build a coherent and functional mental model of the cell. It also reduces reliance on memorizing an abstract list of components[64].
D. Challenges and Future Prospects for Integrating Cognitive Linguistics into Education
Despite its considerable potential, the application of Cognitive Linguistics in education faces several major challenges. These include resistance from traditional educational models based on the quantitative transmission of knowledge and the need for specialized and intensive preparation and training for teachers and instructional designers[65].
Nevertheless, the future prospects are promising and include the following:
3. Cognitively enhanced digital instructional design: Principles from Cognitive Linguistics can be used to design digital applications and curricula that employ conceptual blending and visual embodiment to facilitate understanding[66].
2. Cognitively learner-centered education: Educational discourse can shift from a focus on what students should know to a focus on how students perceive and organize knowledge. This can contribute to education that is more cognitively informed and effective[67].
6. Conclusion
This study represents a serious attempt to frame the foundational relationship between Cognitive Linguistics, with its substantive methodological concepts, and the requirements for developing educational discourse so that it becomes more effective and cognitively informed. The study began from a central assumption: language in educational contexts is not a neutral carrier of information. It plays a fundamental role in shaping learners’ mental models and cognitive frames. The findings and ideas derived from the analysis therefore point to the need to move beyond superficial and traditional linguistic models in education.
A. Main Findings
The theoretical and applied analysis produced several key findings:
1. Language as a cognitive construct: The study showed that educational discourse contains many implicit cognitive mechanisms, particularly conceptual metaphor, which is used to simplify abstract concepts. It also showed that the type of metaphor employed, such as “KNOWLEDGE IS A BUILDING” or “LEARNING IS A JOURNEY,” affects the quality of the mental model that the learner constructs for the relevant concept.
2. The importance of conceptual blending and framing: The study highlighted the crucial role of mechanisms such as conceptual blending and framing in the design of classroom interactions and curricula. Educational success does not depend on the transmission of information alone. It also depends on guiding learners to combine ideas and create new meanings through blending, and on choosing an appropriate cognitive perspective for presenting a problem through framing.
3. From transmission to construction: The comparison between traditional and contemporary educational discourse indicates that the more effective model is one that adopts a cognitive-constructivist perspective. In this model, the teacher’s role centers on facilitating and shaping mental models in the learner’s mind rather than merely transmitting ready-made knowledge.
B. The Importance of the Cognitive Perspective
The central importance of this perspective lies in its capacity to make educational discourse more responsive to learners’ mental and cognitive processes. Cognitive Linguistics provides educational researchers, teachers, and instructional designers with a diagnostic lens that enables them to:
– Diagnose misconceptions by identifying incomplete or ineffective mental models held by students, many of which are rooted in everyday language.
– Design language purposefully by choosing terms and structures that correspond more closely to the way the human mind organizes knowledge, moving from the concrete to the abstract and from prototypes to less central category members.
– Promote deep understanding by moving beyond surface learning based on memorization toward deeper learning based on strong and cognitively interconnected conceptual relationships.
Continuing to ignore the cognitive dimensions of language in education means continuing to use a communication tool that is not cognitively optimized. This undermines the effectiveness of educational efforts.
On the basis of the findings and challenges identified in this study, several directions for future research are proposed to deepen the integration of Cognitive Linguistics into education. These include:
1. Studying the effect of conceptual metaphor on the teaching of scientific or ethical concepts: Comparative experimental studies could examine carefully designed cognitive metaphors. Examples include “TIME IS A FINANCIAL RESOURCE” in time management and “MATTER IS A FLOWING LIQUID” in chemistry. Such studies could measure their direct effect on the quality of understanding and the retention of information in comparison with traditional explanation.
2. Developing teacher-training programs: Specialized programs could equip Arab teachers with practical skills in the cognitive analysis of discourse, including metaphor analysis, framing, and conceptual blending. These skills could be applied to lesson preparation and classroom discussion, while the effect of such training on teaching effectiveness could also be evaluated.
3. Analyzing conceptual blending in literary texts: Research could examine how literary texts and educational stories use conceptual blending to construct complex values and ethical concepts for children and adolescents.
7. Sources and References
- Abd al-Ali Boutayeb. Cognitive Linguistics: Concepts and Models. Casablanca: Arab Cultural Center, 2012.
- Abd al-Ali Boutayeb. Cognitive Linguistics: Concepts and Models. Casablanca: Arab Cultural Center, 2012.
- Abd al-Karim Gharib. Educational Discourse and Epistemic Authority. Casablanca: Faculty of Arts Publications, 1999.
- Abd al-Salam al-Masaddi. Linguistics and Its Cognitive Foundations. Beirut: Arab Book House, 1986.
- Adele E. Goldberg, Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006).
- Ahmad al-Mutawakkil. Function and Structure: A Functional Approach to Arabic Sentence Syntax. Casablanca: Dar al-Thaqafa, 1985.
- Courtney B. Cazden, Classroom Discourse: The Language of Teaching and Learning (Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann, 2001).
- Eleanor Rosch. “Categorization in Language and Cognition.” Journal of Cognitive Linguistic Studies, no. 4 (1999). [Arabic-language source as cited in the original article].
- Fouad Abu al-Haija. Educational Discourse: Concepts and Dimensions. Amman: Dar Safa for Publishing and Distribution, 2008.
- George Lakoff and Mark Johnson, Metaphors We Live By (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980).
- George Lakoff and Mark Johnson. Metaphors We Live By. Translated by Abd al-Majid Jahfa. Casablanca: Africa East, 2003.
- Gilles Fauconnier and Mark Turner. “Integration Networks and Conceptual Blending.” In Cognition and Language: Selected Studies, collective translation. Cairo: National Center for Translation, 2017.
- Jaber Nassar. Communication in the Educational Process: Foundations and Methods. Cairo: Alam al-Kutub, 1995.
- James Paul Gee, Social Linguistics and Literacies: Ideology in Discourses (London: Routledge, 2014).
- Jean Piaget, The Psychology of the Child (New York: Basic Books, 1969).
- Jerome Bruner, Acts of Meaning (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1990).
- Masoud Sahraoui. “Cognitive Linguistics: An Attempt to Ground the Concept.” Journal of the Laboratory of Linguistics and Arabic Language, no. 15 (2018).
- Muhammad al-Khattabi. Text Linguistics: An Introduction to Discourse Theory. Casablanca: Arab Cultural Center, 2002.
- Muhammad Ghalim. Toward a Linguistic Theory of Metaphor. Rabat: Publications of the Faculty of Arts and Humanities, 2008.
- Norman Fairclough, Language and Power (New York: Longman, 1989).
- Philip Johnson-Laird. “Mental Models: Studies in Cognition.” In Cognition and Language: Selected Studies, collective translation. Cairo: National Center for Translation, 2017.
- Richard E. Mayer, Learning and Instruction (New York: Pearson, 2008).
- Ronald W. Langacker, Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. I: Theoretical Prerequisites (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1987).
- Sa’id Alloush. Dictionary of Contemporary Literary Terms. Beirut: Dar al-Kitab al-Lubnani, 1985, 170.
- Vivian Cook and Michael Eardley, eds., Language and Cognition (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991).
- Yusuf Qatami. Cognitive Learning Theories. Amman: Dar al-Shorouk, 2005.
[1] Norman Fairclough, Language and Power (New York: Longman, 1989), 15-18.
[2] James Paul Gee, Social Linguistics and Literacies: Ideology in Discourses (London: Routledge, 2014), 45-50.
[3] Courtney B. Cazden, Classroom Discourse: The Language of Teaching and Learning (Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann, 2001), 7.
[4] Jerome Bruner, Acts of Meaning (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1990), 25-30.
[5] Jean Piaget, The Psychology of the Child (New York: Basic Books, 1969), 120-125.
[6] Richard E. Mayer, Learning and Instruction (New York: Pearson, 2008), 55-60.
[7] George Lakoff and Mark Johnson, Metaphors We Live By (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980), 3-6.
[8] Ronald W. Langacker, Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. I: Theoretical Prerequisites (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1987), 13-15.
[9] Lakoff and Johnson, Metaphors We Live By, 10-13.
[10] Adele E. Goldberg, Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), 2-5.
[11] Vivian Cook and Michael Eardley, eds., Language and Cognition (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991), 100-105.
[12] George Lakoff and Mark Johnson, Metaphors We Live By, trans. Abd al-Majid Jahfa (Casablanca: Africa East, 2003), 12-15.
[13] Muhammad Ghalim, Toward a Linguistic Theory of Metaphor (Rabat: Publications of the Faculty of Arts and Humanities, 2008), 28-32.
[14] Ahmad al-Mutawakkil, Function and Structure: A Functional Approach to Arabic Sentence Syntax (Casablanca: Dar al-Thaqafa, 1985), 10.
[15] Masoud Sahraoui, “Cognitive Linguistics: An Attempt to Ground the Concept,” Journal of the Laboratory of Linguistics and Arabic Language, no. 15 (2018), 52.
[16] Lakoff and Johnson, Metaphors We Live By, 20-25.
[17] Abd al-Salam al-Masaddi, Linguistics and Its Cognitive Foundations (Beirut: Arab Book House, 1986), 150-155.
[18] Gilles Fauconnier and Mark Turner, “Integration Networks and Conceptual Blending,” in Cognition and Language: Selected Studies, collective translation (Cairo: National Center for Translation, 2017), 110-115.
[19] Abd al-Ali Boutayeb, Cognitive Linguistics: Concepts and Models (Casablanca: Arab Cultural Center, 2012), 78-82.
[20] Eleanor Rosch, “Categorization in Language and Cognition,” Journal of Cognitive Linguistic Studies, no. 4 (1999), 40.
[21] Ghalim, Toward a Linguistic Theory of Metaphor, 70.
[22] Boutayeb, Cognitive Linguistics: Concepts and Models, 35-37.
[23] Muhammad al-Khattabi, Text Linguistics: An Introduction to Discourse Theory (Casablanca: Arab Cultural Center, 2002), 65.
[24] Sahraoui, “Cognitive Linguistics: An Attempt to Ground the Concept,” 55.
[25] Lakoff and Johnson, Metaphors We Live By, 120-125. .
[26] Muhammad al-Khattabi, Text Linguistics: An Introduction to Discourse Theory, 85.
[27] Abd al-Salam al-Masaddi, Linguistics and Its Cognitive Foundations (Beirut: Arab Book House, 1986), 160.
[28] Fouad Abu al-Haija, Educational Discourse: Concepts and Dimensions (Amman: Dar Safa for Publishing and Distribution, 2008), 35.
[29] Jaber Nassar, Communication in the Educational Process: Foundations and Methods (Cairo: Alam al-Kutub, 1995), 112-115.
[30] Ahmad al-Mutawakkil, Function and Structure: A Functional Approach to Arabic Sentence Syntax, 200.
[31] Abd al-Karim Gharib, Educational Discourse and Epistemic Authority (Casablanca: Faculty of Arts Publications, 1999), 40-42.
[32] Sa’id Alloush, Dictionary of Contemporary Literary Terms (Beirut: Dar al-Kitab al-Lubnani, 1985), 170.
[33] Gharib, Educational Discourse and Epistemic Authority, 45.
[34] Yusuf Qatami, Cognitive Learning Theories (Amman: Dar al-Shorouk, 2005), 180-185.
[35] Abu al-Haija, Educational Discourse: Concepts and Dimensions, 60-65.
[36] George Lakoff and Mark Johnson, Metaphors We Live By, 150.
[37] Ghalim, Toward a Linguistic Theory of Metaphor, 95.
[38] al-Khattabi, Text Linguistics: An Introduction to Discourse Theory, 90.
[39] Qatami, Cognitive Learning Theories, 190.
[40] Abd al-Ali Boutayeb, Cognitive Linguistics: Concepts and Models, 110-115.
[41] Muhammad Ghalim, Toward a Linguistic Theory of Metaphor, 135.
[42] George Lakoff and Mark Johnson, Metaphors We Live By, 180-185. .
[43] Masoud Sahraoui, “Cognitive Linguistics: An Attempt to Ground the Concept,” 58.
[44] Norman Fairclough, Language and Power, trans. Muhammad Enani (Cairo: Egyptian General Book Organization, 1999), 65.
[45] Boutayeb, Cognitive Linguistics: Concepts and Models, 120.
[46] Muhammad al-Khattabi, Text Linguistics: An Introduction to Discourse Theory, 95-100.
[47] Fouad Abu al-Haija, Educational Discourse: Concepts and Dimensions, 70.
[48] Jaber Nassar, Communication in the Educational Process: Foundations and Methods, 130.
[49] Yusuf Qatami, Cognitive Learning Theories, 210.
[50] Philip Johnson-Laird, “Mental Models: Studies in Cognition,” in Cognition and Language: Selected Studies, collective translation (Cairo: National Center for Translation, 2017), 150.
[51] Ghalim, Toward a Linguistic Theory of Metaphor, 140.
[52] Qatami, Cognitive Learning Theories, 215.
[53] Lakoff and Johnson, Metaphors We Live By, 190.
[54] Sahraoui, “Cognitive Linguistics: An Attempt to Ground the Concept,” 60.
[55] Abd al-Ali Boutayeb, Cognitive Linguistics: Concepts and Models, 150-155.
[56] Muhammad Ghalim, Toward a Linguistic Theory of Metaphor, 170.
[57] Fouad Abu al-Haija, Educational Discourse: Concepts and Dimensions, 95.
[58] Jaber Nassar, Communication in the Educational Process: Foundations and Methods, 145.
[59] Masoud Sahraoui, “Cognitive Linguistics: An Attempt to Ground the Concept,” 62.
[60] Yusuf Qatami, Cognitive Learning Theories, 220-225.
[61] George Lakoff and Mark Johnson, Metaphors We Live By, 210.
[62] Abd al-Salam al-Masaddi, Linguistics and Its Cognitive Foundations, 175.
[63] Boutayeb, Cognitive Linguistics: Concepts and Models, 160.
[64] Qatami, Cognitive Learning Theories, 230.
[65] Ahmad al-Mutawakkil, Function and Structure: A Functional Approach to Arabic Sentence Syntax, 215.
[66] Muhammad al-Khattabi, Text Linguistics: An Introduction to Discourse Theory, 110.
[67] Sahraoui, “Cognitive Linguistics: An Attempt to Ground the Concept,” 65.