Marcin Grygiel

Proposing a new model of foreign language learning based on Vygotsky's theory of concept formation, Vladiv-Glover (2014) makes a theoretical claim for the use of literary texts as the most effective means for acquiring concepts rather than words and grammatical rules in second language acquisition (SLA). Here, I would like to consider how these ideas correspond to the basic assumptions developed within the framework of cognitive linguistics and how the same views match parallel claims put forward in linguistics in general, as opposed to counterpart ideas associated with developmental psychology and literary studies. Let me start by saying that the very idea of attributing higher position to concepts over formal structures, advocated by Vladiv-Glover, goes hand in hand with the, supported by cognitive linguists, perception of language as a means for the expression of conceptualisations. The terms " conceptualisation " and " conceptual structure " are ubiquitous in cognitive linguistics. For example, cognitive linguists equate meaning with conceptualisation and linguistic structures with conceptual structures, thus stressing the superordinate function of symbolic relations and semantics in the study of language. It should be stressed that the debate over supremacy of either meaning over form or form over meaning has been a central issue throughout the history of linguistics. The 19 th century philological approaches to the study of language were largely meaning and concept-oriented, drawing extensively on many psychological ideas. Post-saussurean linguistics, on the other hand, both in its structural and generative version, rejected this content-centred view of language – as being subjective, imprecise and non-scientific – at the same time giving priority to the study of formal structures and grammatical rules. In this respect, cognitive linguistics constitutes an attempt to reactivate many of the pre-saussurean philological ideas. Like philology, cognitive linguistics has deep interest in all dimensions of meaning and texts which include not only purely linguistic, but also cultural, social and literary aspects. Vygotsky's cultural-historical psychology was a deliberate attempt to establish a new paradigm in psychological research that would overcome the narrow objectivism of behaviorism. His emphasis on the sociocultural nature of human cognition and learning was at variance with both behaviorist and later information-processing models. It is worth remembering that Soviet linguists at that time, unlike their fellow scholars in Western Europe, where Ferdinand de Saussure's structural ideas were quickly gaining the upper hand, remained under a strong influence of the 19 th century philological school of thinking and the Soviet linguistics remained closely focused on cultural-historical aspects of language instead of delving into synchronic and systematic properties of language structure. As a result, Vygotsky's views on language must have been shaped mostly by this " old fashioned " meaning and communication oriented approach rather than more fashionable interest in abstract aspects of language, clearly visible in the Prague School of Linguistics with its main representatives – both Russian ex-patriots – Roman Jakobson and Nikolay Trubetskoy. This formal approach to language initiated in the first half of the 20 th century, visible in the Copenhagen Linguistic Circle headed by Louis Hjelmslev, was continued by Chomsky's generative grammar in the second half of the 20 th century and subsequently contributed to the