Cognitive Linguistics and Its Impact on Language Processing: A Meta-Synthesis of Research Findings

Authors

  • Fauzia

    English Education Study Program, Universitas Ahmad Dahlan, Bantul, Yogyakarta 55166, Indonesia
  • Djoko Sutrisno

    Master of English Education, Universitas Ahmad Dahlan, Umbulharjo, Yogyakarta, 55161, Indonesia
  • Muhammad Nafi Annury

    English Education Department, Universitas Islam Negeri Walisongo Semarang, 50185, Indonesia
  • Loso Judijanto

    IPOSS Jakarta, Indonesia
  • Siti Tarwiyah

    English Education Department, Universitas Islam Negeri Walisongo Semarang, 50185, Indonesia
  • Siti Mariam

    English Education Department, Universitas Islam Negeri Walisongo Semarang, 50185, Indonesia
  • Catur Kepirianto

    Master Program of Linguistics, Universitas Diponegoro, Semarang 50275, Indonesia
  • Setia Rini

    English Education Department, Universitas Islam Negeri Salatiga, 50712, Indonesia
  • Sri Winarti

    National Research and Innovation Agency (BRIN), Jakarta Selatan 12710, Indonesia
  • Lina Herlinawati

    National Research and Innovation Agency (BRIN), Jakarta Selatan 12710, Indonesia
  • Nandang Rusnandar

    National Research and Innovation Agency (BRIN), Jakarta Selatan 12710, Indonesia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.30564/fls.v7i6.9461
Received: 11 April 2025 | Revised: 13 May 2025 | Accepted: 27 May 2025 | Published Online: 13 June 2025

Abstract

Cognitive linguistics represents a critical interdisciplinary approach exploring the relationships between cognitive functions and linguistic communication. This meta-synthesis systematically examines how cognitive mechanisms shape language acquisition, comprehension, and production. Following PRISMA guidelines, 48 studies were analyzed from an initial pool of 754 records. The investigation covered multiple dimensions including embodied cognition, working memory, neural networks, and cross-linguistic processing. Findings revealed robust correlations between embodied cognition and concrete concept processing (r = 0.72) and between working memory and complex language comprehension (r = 0.64). Cognitive linguistics-based teaching approaches demonstrated substantial effectiveness (g = 0.76), significantly outperforming traditional language instruction methods. Cross-linguistic processing constraints showed moderate effects (d = 0.59), suggesting linguistic structures evolve to accommodate cognitive processing preferences. The study identified critical methodological limitations, including the absence of psychometric meta-analyses and individual participant data approaches. While all studies employed bare-bones meta-analysis techniques, only 50% conducted publication bias analysis, highlighting inconsistencies in research quality assessment. Recommendations include developing more sophisticated analytical techniques, expanding cross-linguistic studies, and integrating cognitive linguistics principles into language research and pedagogy. This synthesis confirms language processing as a dynamic, context-dependent process deeply rooted in human cognitive experience. The findings provide transformative insights for linguistics, education, and cognitive science, emphasizing that language is not a monolithic system but rather a multifaceted process influenced by embodied cognition, individual differences, and specific cognitive constraints, opening new horizons for understanding how humans construct and communicate meaning.

Keywords:

Cognitive linguistics; Language Processing; Meta-Synthesis; Systematic Review; Cognitive Functions Linguistic

References

[1] Pelkey, J., 2023. Embodiment and language. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews in Cognitive Science. 14(5), e1649. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.1649

[2] Alduais, A., Al-Khawlani, A., Almaghlouth, S., et al., 2022. Cognitive Linguistics: Analysis of Mapping Knowledge Domains. Journal of Intelligence. 10(4), 93. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence10040093

[3] Eley, E., van den Berg, M., Rose, M.L., et al., 2023. The effects of cognitive-linguistic interventions to treat aphasia in the first 90 days post-stroke: A systematic review. Aphasiology. 38(8), 1351–1376. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02687038.2023.2282659

[4] Turker, S., Kuhnke, P., Eickhoff, S.B., et al., 2023. Cortical, subcortical, and cerebellar contributions to language processing: A meta-analytic review of 403 neuroimaging experiments. Psychological Bulletin. 149(11–12), 699. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000403

[5] Ness, T., Langlois, V.J., Kim, A.E., et al., 2023. The State of Cognitive Control in Language Processing. Perspectives on Psychological Science. 17456916231197122. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/17456916231197122

[6] Liu, D., Qin, J., 2024. The effectiveness of cognitive linguistics-inspired language pedagogies: A systematic review. Modern Language Journal. 108(4), 794–814. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12959

[7] Sinnemäki, K., 2014. Cognitive processing, language typology, and variation. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews in Cognitive Science. 5(4), 477–487. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.1294

[8] Lewis, S., Phillips, C., 2015. Aligning Grammatical Theories and Language Processing Models. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research. 44(1), 27–46.

[9] Sutrisno, D., Abbas, A., 2023. Fostering Critical Thinking through Integrating Edpuzzle in Blended Learning. Global Synthesis in Education Journal. 1(1). DOI: https://doi.org/10.61667/9drysn02

[10] Sim, J., Mengshoel, A.M., 2022. Metasynthesis: issues of empirical and theoretical context. Quality and Quantity. 57(4), 3339–3361. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-022-01502-w

[11] Levy, R., Bicknell, K., Smith, N.J., 2010. Computational psycholinguistics. In: Baldwin, J., Clark, P., Tur, G. (eds.). NAACL HLT 2010 Tutorial Abstracts. Association for Computational Linguistics: Los Angeles, California, USA. pp. 19–20.

[12] Phillips, C., Ehrenhofer, L., 2015. The Role of Language Processing in Language Acquisition. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism. 5(4), 409–453. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.5.4.01phi

[13] Sutrisno, D., Martina, M., Karsana, D., et al., 2024. Semiotic Analysis of Psycholinguistic Strategies in Indonesian President Candidates' Debates 2024: Unraveling Linguistic Signifiers and Mental Processes in Argumentative Discourse. Forum Linguistic Studies. 6(5), 943–976. DOI: https://doi.org/10.30564/fls.v6i5.7251

[14] Hurtienne, J., 2017. How Cognitive Linguistics Inspires HCI: Image Schemas and Image-Schematic Metaphors. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction. 33(1), 1–20. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2016.1232227

[15] de la Rosa, V.M., 2023. Taking back control: The role of image schemas in the Brexit discourse. Russian Journal of Linguistics. 27(2), 276–296. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22363/2687-0088-31509

[16] Martínez, M.-A., Sánchez-Pardo, E., 2019. Past storyworld possible selves and the autobiographical reformulation of Dante's myth in Lorine Niedecker's 'switchboard Girl'. Journal of Literary Semantics. 48(1), 41–58. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/jls-2019-2008

[17] Leong, C.K., Tamaoka, K., 1998. Cognitive processing of Chinese characters, words, sentences and Japanese kanji and kana: An introduction. In: Leong, C.K., Tamaoka, K. (eds) Cognitive Processing of the Chinese and the Japanese Languages. Neuropsychology and Cognition, vol 14. Springer: Dordrecht, the Netherlands. pp. 1–10. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-9161-4_1

[18] Cienki, A., 2023. Speakers' Gestures and Semantic Analysis. Cognitive Semantics. 9(2), 167–191. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/23526416-bja10051

[19] Sun, C., Wang, C., Liu, W., 2024. A critical cognitive analysis of Japan's nuclear contaminated water discharge discourse. Frontiers in Communication. 9, 1475515. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2024.1475515

[20] Kaipa, R.M., Kennison, S.M., Rudra, P., 2024. Sentence processing in monolinguals and trilinguals. Speech, Language and Hearing. 28(1), 2334562. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/2050571x.2024.2334562

[21] MacDonald, M.C., 2022. A computational model of language comprehension unites diverse perspectives. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 119(49). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2217108119

[22] Myaksheva, O.V., 2023. Linguistic Analysis of a Literary Text as the Key to its Comprehension: Cognitive and Discoursive Aspect. Rudn Journal of Language Studies Semiotics and Semantics. 14(3), 704–718. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22363/2313-2299-2023-14-3-704-718

[23] van Rij, J., van Rijn, H., Hendriks, P., 2010. Cognitive architectures and language acquisition: a case study in pronoun comprehension. Journal of Child Language. 37(3), 731–766. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000909990560

[24] Karimi, H., Ferreira, F., 2016. Good-enough linguistic representations and online cognitive equilibrium in language processing. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. 69(5), 1013–1040. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2015.1053951

[25] Hasshim, N., Kukona, A., 2024. Linking cognitive control to language comprehension: proportion congruency effects in syntactic ambiguity resolution. Language Cognition and Neuroscience. 39(4), 431–447. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2024.2314027

[26] Escudero, M.D.P., Cruz, M.d.R.R., Méndez, E.H., 2015. The impact of a linguistic intervention on rhetorical inferential comprehension and metacognition in EFL academic reading: A quasi-experimental, mixed-methods study. Revista Signos. 48(89), 332–354. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-09342015000300003

[27] Lindes, P., Laird, J.E., 2017. Cognitive Modeling Approaches to Language Comprehension Using Construction Grammar. Proceedings of the AAAI 2017 Spring Symposium on Computational Construction Grammar and Natural Language Understanding; 27–29 March 2017; Stanford University: Stanford, California, USA. pp. 213–221.

[28] Bril, M., Gerrits, A., Visser, M., 2021. The effects of linguistic and cognitive factors on the l2 processing of oral input: a self-paced listening experiment. International Journal of Listening. 36(3), 268–282. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10904018.2021.1992281

[29] Guichet, C., Banjac, S., Achard, S., et al., 2024. Modeling the neurocognitive dynamics of language across the lifespan. Human Brain Mapping. 45(5), e26650. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.26650

[30] Forseth, K.J., Pitkow, X., Fischer-Baum, S., et al., 2024. 149 Dynamical Network State Sequences for Human Language Production. Neurosurgery. 70(Supplement_1), 33–34. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1227/neu.0000000000002809_149

[31] Révész, A., Jeong, H., Suzuki, S., et al., 2024. Task-generated processes in second language speech production: Exploring the neural correlates of task complexity during silent pauses. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 46(4), 1179–1205. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/s0272263124000421

[32] Zhang, H., Eppes, A., Beatty-Martínez, A.L., et al., 2018. Task difficulty modulates brain-behavior correlations in language production and cognitive control: Behavioral and fMRI evidence from a phonological go/no-go picture-naming paradigm. Cognitive Affective and Behavioral Neuroscience. 18, 964–981. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/s13415-018-0616-2

[33] Keogh, A., Kirby, S., Culbertson, J., 2022. Predictability and Variation in Language Are Differentially Affected by Learning and Production. Cognitive Science. 48(4), e13435. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.13435

[34] Gurunandan, K., Carreiras, M., Paz-Alonso, P.M., 2022. Verbal production dynamics and plasticity: functional contributions of language and executive control systems. Cerebral Cortex. 33(3), 740–753. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhac097

[35] Milin, P., Bermel, N., Blevins, P., 2024. Cognitive approaches to uniformity and variability in morphology. Cognitive Linguistics. 35(2), 167–176. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2024-0027

[36] Johansson Falck, M., Okonski, L., 2022. Procedure for Identifying Metaphorical Scenes (PIMS): A Cognitive Linguistics Approach to Bridge Theory and Practice. Cognitive Semantics. 8(2), 294–322. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/23526416-bja10031

[37] Clark, K.M., 2024. Embodied Imagination: Lakoff and Johnson's Experientialist View of Conceptual Understanding. Review of General Psychology. 28(2), 166–183. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/10892680231224400

[38] Qin, J., Liu, D., Lei, L., 2024. Cognitive linguistics-inspired language instruction. Language Teaching. 57(4), 478–500. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444824000119

Downloads

How to Cite

Fauzia, Sutrisno, D., Annury, M. N., Judijanto, L., Tarwiyah, S., Mariam, S., Kepirianto, C., Rini, S., Winarti, S., Herlinawati, L., & Rusnandar, N. (2025). Cognitive Linguistics and Its Impact on Language Processing: A Meta-Synthesis of Research Findings. Forum for Linguistic Studies, 7(6), 1065–1089. https://doi.org/10.30564/fls.v7i6.9461

Issue

Vol. 7 , Iss. 6 (July 2025)

Article Type

Article

License

Copyright © 2025 Fauzia, Djoko Sutrisno, Muhammad Nafi Annury, Loso Judijanto, Siti Tarwiyah, Siti Mariam, Catur Kepirianto, Setia Rini, Sri Winarti, Lina Herlinawati, Nandang Rusnandar

Creative Commons License

This is an open access article under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0) License.