CHAPTER TWOLITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter reviews the related literature in the broad area of
Cognitive Linguistics, Conceptual Metaphors, vocabulary learning
and reading comprehension. The structure is as follows; the
examination of cognitive linguistics and its relationship to
metaphor and vocabulary learning; next, the most prevalent aspects
of cognitive linguistics and its relationship to English language
learning; followed by specific aspects of the above mentioned areas
and finally the manner in which metaphors are utilized in language
learning and teaching.
2.1 INTRODUCTIONMetaphor usage occurs very widely and is a
dominant feature of everyday language as well as academic language.
As seen from the traditional view, metaphor is treated as a special
language which deviates from linguistic norms and is primarily
considered as merely decorative and ornamental. However, metaphor
according to cognitive linguistic view is not exclusively
decorative or ornamental. Cognitive linguistic departs from the
traditional view of metaphor in a much broader sense namely:
metaphor is not a special language which deviates from linguistic
norms, metaphor is not merely decorative and ornamental, metaphor
is the representation of human thoughts, and metaphor varies and is
versatile in its textual manifestations in a variety of texts and
genres. The next section discusses cognitive linguistics and its
relationship with metaphor.
2.2 COGNITIVE LINGUISTIC THEORY (CLT)CLT views language as part
of cognitive systems comprised of perception, emotions,
categorization, abstraction process and reasoning (Dirven &
Verspoor, 2004). In this view, the cognitive process is manifested
through language used: spoken and written. Rudzka-Ostyn (2003)
points out that human beings use their cognition to understand and
construe the world around them. In fact, language allows us to
impose order on the world by categorizing or grouping its phenomena
into categories or concepts (Rudzka-Ostyn, 2003: 20). Human needs
language to describe and label the phenomena around them. In other
words, it is language that interconnects the cognitive abilities
and the world around. Tyler (2008: 7) summarizes the particulars of
this process and mentions that language is a reflection of general
cognitive process. Based on this cognitive view, Lakoff and Johnson
(1980) theorize that the language that humans use to communicate is
largely metaphorical.According to CLT, metaphor plays major roles
in the way human think, speak and live. In other words, the world
is seen through metaphors. Metaphors act as tools to construe the
way the world is seen and to carry out abstract reasoning. In
understanding abstract events, metaphors are used to associate
abstracts objects, situations and events with their concrete
counterparts (Juchem-Grundmann, 2009). Teaching strategies inspired
by Cognitive Linguistics (CL) aim at a deeper understanding as a
basis for increasing language proficiency and it offers a better
understanding of the nature of language and vocabulary learning. CL
also has a huge potential in helping to improve the efficiency and
effectiveness of a vocabulary within a second language for the
implementation of teaching and learning (Robinson & Ellis,
2008; De Knop & De Rycker, 2008; Boers & Lindstromberg,
2008; Juchem-Grundmann, 2009). Kalyuga and Kalyuga (2008) point out
that the human cognitive system includes several basic components
that are essential in the learning processes: sensory memory,
working memory and long-term memory. Working memory plays a major
role in short-term knowledge retention Baddely (1999) and is
limited in capacity and duration when dealing with unfamiliar
information. Long term memory stores information in the form of
organizing knowledge structures within a specific domain. Learned
information stored in long term memory is unlimited in capacity and
duration (Kalyuga & Kalyuga, 2008). Organized information
stored in the long term memory could reduce the amount of mental
effort required to learn vocabulary (Nation, 2001). Available
knowledge structures in long-term memory also provide guidance
during cognitive processes such as problem-solving or language
comprehension. Information that is stored in an organized domain
help learners retrieve information effortlessly and helps them
attain recall in a cognitively efficient manner (Kintsch, 1998).In
the area of vocabulary learning, the concept of the learning burden
of word is defined as the amount of mental effort required to learn
the new word (Nation, 2001). However, learning burden is heavily
influenced by prior knowledge and familiarity with related similar
patterns (e.g. similar sounds, spellings, grammatical patterns and
a similar collocation in the first language). Learning burden could
be potentially reduced by drawing the learners attention to
systematic patterns, analogies and a connection between the first
and second languages (Laufer, 1998; Nation, 2001). Combining
multiple elements of information in an organized domain in the
working memory and the long term memory allow learners to avoid
processing overwhelming amounts of information and to eliminate the
potential for working memory overload.Kalyuga and Kalyuga (2008)
call for the need of specific approaches to reduce potential
cognitive overload and associate learning burdens among language
learners. The specific approaches are needed since vocabulary
learning is a cognitively demanding process and involves a very
high level of working-memory. Juchem-Grundmann (2009) summarizes
four well-defined didactic approaches that have been developed in
the history of language teaching. Figure 1.1 below refers to the
four didactic approaches in the history of language teaching.
Methodology of foreign language teaching and learning
Learner-centered/autonomy-focused
approachesInstruction-centered/teacher -centered approaches
ConstructivismBehaviorismGrammar translation method
CognitivismAudio-visual methodAudio-lingualMethod
Figure 1.1: Foreign Language Teaching Methodology (adapted from
Juchem-Grundmann, 2009)
Juchem-Grundmann (2009) categorizes foreign language teaching
methodologies into two broad categories. On the one hand, the
instructor or teacher-centered approaches and on the other the
learner-centered or autonomy-method focused approaches. The
traditional Grammar Translation Method arose from early language
instruction which is known through the regular Latin courses.
Behaviorism, initiated by Skinner (1957), sees learning in terms of
habit formation and therefore teaching as conditioning. Frequently
introduced as separate methods, the audio-lingual as well as the
audio visual method are subsumed under the theoretical framework of
Behaviorism as they follow the same process of imitation and
reinforcing repetition and only differ in stimulus
(Juchem-Grundmann, 2009). In general, both classical approaches are
characterized by a clear focus on the teacher as the learning
initiator in charge and the pre-structured material he or she
distributes. On the contrary, as the main focus of the present
study, Cognitivism under the broader theory of Constructivism
focuses on learning and views the learners as the main agents of
this process. In brief, the aforementioned traditional theories
draw attention to teaching whereas the more modern theories
highlight learning. Cognitivist learning strategies concentrate on
knowledge and language processing in ensuring comprehension while
constructivist strategies devote attention to the process of
construing knowledge. However, both approaches aim at the same
goal: learner autonomy. Cognitivist theory aims at gaining detailed
insights in the cognitive learning processes and develops learning
strategies to optimize storage; the latter also focuses upon the
access and retrieval of knowledge. Constructivist theory actually
builds on learner autonomy because knowledge is solely construed
through human interaction with the concrete events (empirical)
around them (Juchem-Grundmann, 2009).Under constructivism, CLT
brings about the implementation of the Conceptual Metaphor Theory
developed by Lakoff and Johnson (1980). The two have shown that
many metaphorical expressions such as your claims are indefensible,
he attacked every weak point in my argument exist in the English
language. They argue that these expressions are not simply ways of
talking about one thing in terms of another, but evidence that
people also think about one thing in terms of another (Semino,
2008). The metaphorical expressions given earlier also reflect
conventional patterns of thought, known as conceptual metaphors
(Lakoff & Johnson, 1980).
2.3 CONCEPTUAL METAPHOR THEORYThe etymological origin of the
word metaphor in this study is in line with the Cognitive
Linguistic approach. The term metaphor originates from the Greek
word meta meaning; with/after, expressing change, above or over,
and pherien meaning; bring across, to carry, or to bear
(Charteris-Black, 2000; Lazar, 1996; Kopp & Eckstein, 2004;
Klein, 1971). Therefore metaphor means to carry meaning from one
thing, or place to another thing, or place. Aristotle (1979) as
cited in Kelley-Laine (2003) describes metaphors as giving
something a name that belongs to something else. Metaphors create a
likeness, or an analogy between two things (Slavik, 1999). In other
words, metaphors involve the carrying across or transferring of
meanings from one concept (the source domain) to another (the
target domain). Thus, the use of metaphors often results in
comparisons being made between two essentially dissimilar things,
by identifying one with the other. For example, in the metaphor my
love is like a rose, a comparison is made between love (the target
domain) and a rose (the source domain), where the concrete
qualities of the rose, such as beauty, fragrance and softness are
carried over to the abstract notion of love. Cognitive linguistics
makes use of the technical term domain. Metaphors transfer
something from one domain to another domain. According to Evans
(2007: 12), a domain constitutes a coherent knowledge structure
possessing, in principle, any level of complexity of organization.
Conceptual metaphor has two main domains namely the source domain
and the target domain. In short, the term metaphor identifies
systematic transfer from one domain (the source domain) to another
domain (target domain). The source domain is the conceptual domain
from which metaphorical expression is drawn to understand another
conceptual domain (the target domain). The source domain is a
concrete concept, based on sensory experience for example money,
seeing, journey and war. Whereas, the target domain is a domain
through which learners try to understand the use of a source
domain. The target domain is an abstract concept for example, love,
ideas, argument and life. Therefore, in the conceptual metaphor
LOVE IS JOURNEY; LOVE is the target domain and JOURNEY is the
source domain. In other words, the known or concrete domain is
transferred to understand the abstract domain. The source and
target domains of metaphorical transfer are referred to as
conceptual domains that are defined as relatively complex knowledge
structures which relate to coherent aspects of experience (Evans,
2007). In making sense of metaphor, interlocutors understand and
experience one domain in terms of another, which is what Lakoff and
Johnson (2003) call the essence of metaphor. The Conceptual
Metaphor Theory (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980) questions and
challenges the traditional linguistic views which were held by
philosophers such as Aristotle (1979). Traditionally, metaphor is
viewed as a matter of words rather than thoughts or actions. In
literary contexts, metaphor is regarded as used for effect or for
ornament and contrasts with literal language. For most people,
metaphor is above the ordinary. They believe that the function of
metaphor is a device of poetic imagination and rhetoric (Lakoff
& Johnson, 1980). Lakoff and Johnsons main assertion is that
metaphorical thought is normal and ubiquitous in our mental life,
both conscious and unconscious and metaphors are a natural
phenomenon and as such are pervasive in everyday language. In fact,
the crucial addition to Lakoff and Johnsons claims is that metaphor
is not just in language but in thought and action. In other words,
the integration of the two domains namely the source domain and the
target domain takes place. Source domain is used to make the more
abstract target domain tangible and comprehensible (Lakoff, 2006).
In fact, metaphor is the major mechanism through which we
understand abstract concepts and perform abstract reasoning
(Lakoff, 2006). In similar vein, metaphor helps in understanding
unfamiliar phenomena in terms of phenomena we are familiar with
(Semino, 2008). At the conceptual level, a metaphor is the
relationship between two concepts, one of which functions as the
source and the other as the target. For example, in ARGUMENT IS
WAR, ARGUMENT is the target domain while WAR is the source domain.
The linguistic level is motivated by the conceptual metaphors and
represents the realization on words. It appears in the forms of
everyday written and spoken languages. Thus, a variety of
metaphorical expressions are developed from the conceptual metaphor
ARGUMENT IS WAR, such as Your claims are indefensible, He attacked
every weak point in my argument, and I demolished his argument
(Lakoff & Johnson, 2003). Conceptual metaphor is denoted in
upper case letter (ARGUMENT IS WAR), while linguistic metaphor is
denoted in lower case letter (he attacked every weak point in my
argument, your claims are indefensible).According to Grundmann
(2009) considerable researches have been carried out on various
discourses for metaphorical language under the tenet of Cognitive
Linguistics; e.g., spoken discourse (Cameroon & Deignan, 2003),
educational discourse (Cameron, 2003), university lectures
(Littlemore, 2001), political discourse (Goatly, 2007; Musolff,
2000), economic discourse (Boers, 1997; Boers & Demecheleer,
1997; Bretones-Callejaz, 2002; Charteris-Black & Ennis, 2001;
Charteris-Black & Musolff, 2003; Henderson, 1982; Herrera &
White, 2000; Koller, 2004; Smith, 1995; White, 2003; White &
Herrera, 2002), advertising (Forceville, 1996) and religious
discourse (Balaban, 1997).Apart from the statement that metaphors
are ubiquitous and used unconsciously, the most significant
findings in Lakoff and Johnsons (1980) work is that metaphors are
not a mere matter of language but a matter of thought
(Juchem-Grundmann, 2009). The discipline of Cognitive linguistics
views language as part of a cognitive system which comprises
perception, emotions, categorization, abstraction process, and
reasoning (Dirven & Verspoor, 2004: 8). In this view, language
becomes the observable output of invisible input of cognitive
process. Hence, Conceptual Metaphor theory exemplifies that the
metaphors in the native language influence the way people think,
speak and ultimately the way people live, serving as a tool to
categorize the way the world is seen and to carry out abstract
reasoning (Grundmann, 2009). Metaphors assist human cognition to
understand abstract events by associating it with physical world
(concrete events).
The Conceptual Metaphor (Lakoff & Johnson, 2003) is
illustrated in the diagram below:Conceptual Metaphor(in the
mind)
(in
Source domain(Concrete concept)Target domain(Abstract
concept)
TIMEARGUMENTMONEYWAR
TIME IS MONEY ARGUMENT IS WARLinguistic Metaphor(verbal,
written)
1. Youre wasting my time2. How do you spend your time?3. I
demolished his argument4. He attacked every weak point in my
argument
Figure 2.1: Conceptual Metaphor (Lakoff & Johnson, 2003)
2.4 METAPHOR IN SPECIALIZED GENRESMetaphor is a common feature
of texts in a wide range of specialization (Lindstromberg, 1991;
Henderson, 1994; Smith, 1995; Charteris-Black, 2000; Grundmann,
2009; Semino, 2008; Krenmayar, 2010). Some metaphorical words are
so common that learners and teachers may not even be aware that
some words they encounter in specialized texts are actually
metaphorical. Semino (2008) gives a specific term for metaphors
that appear so commonly that they are not realized as metaphor. She
calls those common metaphors as conventional metaphor which are
often used and understood without being conscious of their
metaphoricity. Smith (1995) talks specifically about conventional
metaphors in relation to economics discourse. He says: A number of
what were originally metaphors have become conventionalized in the
language of economics, and can now better be considered as
technical terms than living metaphors. Such terms as equilibrium,
float, inflation, leakage, boom, liquidity and slump are now so
familiar in the jargon of the subject that their metaphorical
etymology is not immediately obvious (p.4)
Some evidence of conventional metaphors in specialized genres
can be seen in the architectural language used to describe
theory-making in general. When discussing theories, authors or
writers of the specialized texts often see theories as building.
For example, linguists or economists, when discussing their
theories, talk about models, or constructs; these require a
structure in which their component elements are bonded or cemented
together; this is to prevent the theories from being shaky or
crumbling and at a later stage, they may need buttressing.
Similarly, when teachers advise students on developing their ideas,
they require them to write a plan and to provide evidence to
support their point of view. This is to guard against their work
lacking foundations and their arguments falling down. Cameron
(2003) has found that metaphorical words involving nouns accounted
lesser than metaphorical words involving verbs. Metaphorical words
involving adverbs, adjectives, prepositions were found to be
infrequent. Skorczynska (2001) has found out that metaphorical
words involving verbs were frequent in business periodicals but
less frequent in scientific journals. Noun metaphors were
frequently used in scientific journals than in business
periodicals. Shoukouhi and Isazadeh (2009) suggest that, not only
an awareness to metaphor is important in language learning, an
awareness to metaphorical word class (nominal, verbal, adjectival,
adverbial and prepositional) is also equally significant to
learners.Low (1999) enlists word class metaphor with respect to the
conceptual metaphor AN ESSAY IS A PERSON. For example: the views of
this paper have not been communicated to the subjects involved
(Nominal metaphor), the essay first of all sets out to define the
term bureaucracy and traces its development from the late 16th
century (Verbal metaphor), An optimistic and an aggressive paper
(Adjectival metaphor), The paper happily, if selectively, examines
the opposite argument, however (Adverbial metaphor), the essay
first of all sets out to define the term bureaucracy and traces its
development from the late 16th century (prepositional metaphor).The
existence of conventional metaphors in specialized texts needs to
be deliberately taken into consideration in language learning.
Vocabulary lessons geared towards teaching these metaphors could
assist in the understanding of specialized vocabulary. An
understanding of content specific vocabulary can provide learners
with the knowledge that will enhance their understanding of
academic texts and their stylistic awareness. Semino (2008) points
out that metaphors are varied in their textual appearance,
versatile in their functions and central to many different types of
communication. The functions of metaphors are not exclusive to
literature but vary considerably depending on the genres. The next
section discusses the function of metaphor in greater details.
2.5 THE FUNCTION OF METAPHORMetaphor plays a major role in human
life. Since the primordial man exists on earth, humans have used
metaphor to make sense of their world particularly of what is
abstract around them. Kristiansen (2006) outlines some functions of
metaphor in human life. According to her, metaphors are the main
tools of conceptualization by which human thought manages to
explore and conceptually structure the experiential world of man.
Indeed metaphors serve a number of different cognitive functions.
The most essential one is their ability to make a new or abstract
domain accessible through metaphorical concrete domain (Allbritton,
1995). As explained earlier, structure and vocabulary from the
source domain are transferred to the target domain to provide a
framework for understanding a new domain. According to
Juchem-Grundmann (2009), due to this quality of metaphor, its use
has become increasingly popular in scientific discourse, amongst
specialists in the field and also in explaining scientific
interrelation to laypeople or students to facilitate access to the
field and improve understanding (Littlemore, 2001; Low, 2008). In
reference to the role of metaphors in scientific discourse and
learning science, Low (2008) gives the following summary:Using
analogies is an essential aspect of academic expertise, whether one
is discovering things or creating theories they allow the teacher
to communicate with learners who have not mastered a theory..; they
allow learners to visualize abstract concepts; they motivate
learners..; they allow the teacher to tailor teaching to individual
needs and levels of understanding (p.45)
Indeed, metaphors provide insights into an unknown domain by the
mere use of familiar words and phrases, and in this way initiate
and guide mapping processes. Using well-defined and commonly known
vocabulary and knowledge structures, scientists are thus able to
make their research available to laypeople. Teachers are able to
break down complex structures in accessible and digestible
knowledge available to learners. Cameroon (2003) claims that the
ability to map from one domain to another seems to be a basic human
feature. Cameroon (2003) explicitly extends the potential of
metaphors in educational discourse to them functioning as a
critical challenge of ones own understanding of target domain by
applying source domain structures, which might reveal knowledge
gaps that either call for the acquisition of more information to
fill these gaps or for a restructuring with a different metaphor.
Metaphors assist the problem-solving process which is usually based
on individual examples, by providing analogies to make up for
abstract principles needed. The function of metaphors in
educational discourse opens a whole new field of research. Cameron
(2003) further claims that metaphors could help facilitate reading
comprehension and enhance retention.The advantage of metaphorical
over non-metaphorical structures is their visual component. Indeed,
explaining target structures by mapping familiar knowledge from
different source domains, metaphor actually draw pictures. The
reader or listener is guided to understand something in terms of
something else, and in order to do so, the knowledge of source
domain needs to be activated to process the metaphorical
information (Low, 2008). The freshly generated knowledge is thus
coded verbally and visually which makes it easier to retrieve from
memory and thus easier to remember. Paivios (1986) Dual Coding
theory suggests that dual coding ease in retrieval and remembrance
through parallel verbal and visual processing of
knowledge.Juchem-Grundmann (2009) in his study formulated ten
theoretical implications for practical metaphor teaching:1.
Metaphors are ubiquitous in everyday communication; they are being
used consciously as well as unconsciously. Therefore, metaphors
cannot be considered the 'icing on the cake' that may be learned
last. Language learners need to be made aware of metaphorical
language usage and learn to make use of metaphors themselves as
soon as possible. That is, metaphors need to find their way into
the language teaching curriculum.2. Metaphors are not arbitrary but
they can be traced from their source domain. Therefore, language
teaching should provide insights into different experiential
grounding of metaphors in order to foster understanding.3.
Metaphors do not come singly; they are linguistic instantiations of
coherent concepts. Therefore, language learners need to be made
familiar with conceptual metaphors or should be qualified to
pinpoint the overarching concept themselves, trace the individual
mappings and successfully decode them in order to be able to
eventually draw creatively on metaphorical concepts.4. Metaphors
are a phenomenon of thought and not merely of language and as such
they have a physical neuronal basis (Lakoff, 2008). The acquisition
of metaphors does not require the storage of the entire source
domain together with the target domain. In fact, the only necessary
establishment is that of new neural connections from the source to
the target domain, in particular, those which save mental space
(Lakoff & Johnson, 2003). Therefore, language learners need to
be encouraged to reassign, and in this way link, existing
vocabulary by comparing source and target domain structures.5.
Metaphors are figurative, that is they draw mental pictures in
assigning the source domain vocabulary to the target domain.
Metaphor teaching should use visual materials to make the
underlying mappings explicit to language users.6. Metaphors make
abstract domains accessible. Thus, they are the cognitive tool that
imparts scientific knowledge to the public and are most frequently
used in academic discourse. Therefore, language learners,
especially business English students, who are most likely to
encounter abstract discourse, need to be able to decode linguistic
metaphors.7. Metaphors highlight and at the same time hide certain
aspects of target domains by choosing particular source domains and
then utilizing only parts of the source domains for understanding.
Therefore, language learners need to be sensitized to this
construction of ambivalent reality and guided perception.8.
Metaphors vary in degree of conventionality and are thus most
likely processed differently. Elaboration on metaphor may enhance
and improve storage and retrieval of vocabulary learning.9.
Metaphors are highly culture-specific. Therefore, language learners
need to learn about the cultural underpinnings of individual
concepts used in the target language. Even metaphors that are
biologically grounded in the organization of the human organism may
lead to intercultural misunderstandings as they are not always
universal.10. Metaphors differ from language to language.
Therefore, the foreign language classroom needs to include a
contrastive approach to study metaphor.The implications of metaphor
teaching in the classroom proposed by Grundman (2009) show that
metaphor plays significant roles in vocabulary learning and can be
exploited in the ESL and ESP classrooms. Four significant
implications should be given priority with regard to metaphor in
ESL and ESP classrooms:1. Metaphors are ubiquitous in everyday
communication, therefore it should be exploited in the classroom
because metaphors can evoke phenomena that are likely to be
familiar to learners from their everyday experiences.2. Metaphors
are not arbitrary but can be traced from their source domain.3.
Elaboration on metaphor can enhance and improve storage and
retrieval of vocabulary.4. Metaphors can help explain abstract
concepts to be more vivid and concrete.
2.6 COGNITIVE LINGUISTICS AND VOCABULARY LEARNINGWilkins (1974)
points out that without grammar very little can be conveyed, but
without vocabulary nothing can be conveyed. This best saying about
the importance of vocabulary learning has been welcomed by teachers
and learners for many years. Zhao (2003) proposes three principles
based on cognitive linguistics to direct the teaching of
vocabulary, that is, the study of categorization, prototype and
metaphor.1. Categorization Categorization is the classification of
things in the cognitive process. Correspondingly, the process that
the subject interacts with the objects and classifies is a process
of categorizing. On this basis, human can conceptualize and make
sense of the world around them. More importantly, categories and
categorizations exist everywhere and are ways we perceive the
world, otherwise we cannot know it in an appropriate way (Glass
& Holyoak, 1986; Zhao, 2003). Experience tells people that one
object can at the same time belong to some multi-categories. For
example, a husky (part wolf, part dog) can be listed under the
categories of animals, dogs, puppy, dogs, etc. and constitutes the
different levels of categories. In CL, human minds gets to know
things at the middle level, on which they know objects most easily,
and the categories in this level is thus called basic level
category. Vocabulary that comes into existence on the basis of the
basic categories goes to basic level vocabulary. A great emphasis
should be given to the acquisition and instruction of basic
vocabularies because basic lexicon is the basis for teaching other
vocabulary categories. Linguistic categorization is the major focus
of CL, because cognitive linguistics is not a single theory of
language, but rather a cluster of theoretically and
methodologically compatible approaches (Zhao, 2000). 2.
PrototypeRosch (1988) carried out experiments of the category BIRD.
She identified that to be a bird, it should share 13 common
attributes, which involve (a) laying eggs, (b) having a beak (c)
having two wings and two legs (d) having feathers (e) being able to
fly (f) being small and lightweight g) chirps/sings (h) legs are
thin/short (i) has long neck (j) has decorative feathers (k) has
exotic colours (Ungerer & Schmid, 2001). She found that ROBIN
shares the most attributes that resemble with other family members,
which she classified as the prototype of the category BIRD. All the
family members have similar features with the prototype. Prototype
can be deduced from categorization experiments where some members
of a category first come to mind in association experiments and are
recognized more quickly as category members in verification tasks.
If one takes these members as prototypes of the respective
categories, this leads to definition like best example of category,
salient example, clearest cases of category membership, most
representatives of things included in a class (Rosch, 1988; Lakoff,
1986; Brown, 1990). Thus, the prototype of this theory can be
applied to the understanding of polysemy of words. In other words,
among the bundles of meaning of a certain vocabulary, there must be
a core meaning that can be served as prototype of the others. Or
all the other meanings are based on the extension or radiation of
this prototypical meaning. For instance, the core meaning for the
word down is of motion from a higher level to a lower level (the
prototype). Then, following this prototype, there are expressions
like he feels a bit down today or she is in the high spirit. As a
result, the different meanings given in a dictionary is relatively
limited and humans can in effect use the prototype and extend to
many other meanings. In the teaching of English vocabulary, the
teacher should try to make her students aware that the meaning of a
word is not fixed and unchanged, but when using human cognitive
imagination, there are some more correlated categories based on the
prototypical meaning. Accordingly, core words are devised.
Therefore, they are likely to be more useful than non-core words.
Core words are typically those words used when defining other
words. This approach can save students from blindly memorizing each
meaning listed in the dictionary. Instead they are encouraged to
learn vocabulary in a more scientific way by making full use of
prototypical sense of the given semantic meaning.
3. Conceptual metaphorLakoff and Johnson (1980) note that the
conceptual system that humans thought and behavior rely on is
metaphoric in nature. In the same sense, metaphor is an important
way of language change and development. The most important feature
of metaphor is that its relatedness between things and categories.
For example, the word leg can be used to refer to legs of human
beings, legs of a chair, a bed, a table and so on which basically
means the support of things. Vocabulary teaching and learning is a
cycle of semantization and internalization, which is closely linked
to and to a large extent dependent on the way a word is presented.
To reduce students learning load and make sure that students can
enlarge their vocabulary quickly and efficiently, a cognitive
approach that is based on characterization, prototype and
conceptual metaphor is a worthwhile attempt for learners to try out
in both elementary and intermediate level of English Learning.
2.7 VOCABULARY LEARNING AND METAPHOR AWARENESSMetaphorical words
or expressions do not just exist in academic reading text, it
exists in everyday life. Reddy (1979) states that English,
particularly ordinary everyday English is largely metaphorical. Low
(1988) discusses that metaphors are so pervasive and argues that
students need to develop metaphoric competence which according to
him refers to awareness of words or expressions as metaphors, and
strategies for comprehending and creating metaphors.In linguistic
studies, metaphor awareness and linguistic awareness are
interrelated. According to Carter (2003), linguistic awareness
refers to the language learners deepened understanding of the
linguistic form and function of the target language while metaphor
awareness refers to the language learners enhanced awareness of
metaphor and its function in language. In other words, metaphor
awareness means that learners are aware and conscious of the
metaphorical sense of words as they encounter them in their
reading. A language learner with metaphor awareness is one who can
identify metaphor in various forms, such as nominal metaphor,
verbal metaphor and adverbial metaphor, after realizing the fact
that metaphor exists in all languages and gaining knowledge of the
formation of metaphor. Having had metaphor awareness has enabled
them to extend the non-metaphorical meaning of words to
metaphorical meaning. Schmidt (1995) addresses the notion of
consciousness in the area of attention and language learning and
says that consciousness or awareness is necessary for language
learning to take place. Schmidt acknowledges the role of
consciousness in language learning and argues that awareness is
necessary in vocabulary learning. Learners select specific parts of
the input they are exposed to which then become available for
further processing.Boers (2004) points out that enhanced metaphoric
awareness involve:1) Recognition of metaphor as a common ingredient
of everyday language2) Recognition of the metaphoric themes
(conceptual metaphors or source domains) behind many figurative
expressions3) Recognition of non-arbitrary nature of many
figurative expressions4) Recognition of possible cross-cultural
differences in metaphoric themes5) Recognition of cross-linguistic
variety in the linguistic instantiations of those metaphoric
themesThere is a parallel between Boers (2004) enhanced metaphoric
awareness and Grundmanns (2009) implications on metaphor teaching
where both of them reach common ground that metaphor is a common
ingredient of everyday language, metaphor is non-arbitrary but can
be stimulated and metaphor can concretize abstract concept, thus
making the explanation more vivid and concrete. The fact that
metaphor allows human to think and talk about one domain of
experience in terms of another can be exploited in order to help
students understand new, unfamiliar phenomena in terms of phenomena
they are familiar with. Metaphor can, therefore, help to make
topics clearer, more accessible, and easier to imagine and
remember. This is particularly important when learners are
introduced to phenomena that are not just new to them, but also
complex and inaccessible to ordinary perception. Metaphor also has
the potential in helping learners to remember information, make
inferences, answer questions and solve problems.Studies on metaphor
awareness and vocabulary improvement are numerous. A recent study
on metaphor awareness by Kalyuga & Kalyuga (2008) states that
awareness of literal meaning or core meaning of metaphors or
conceptual metaphors and grouping of various words and expressions
in a metaphorical chunk may improve the process of vocabulary
acquisition. Since words that appear in language as a result of the
extension of metaphorical meaning resemble other
etymologically-related words, this method may help learners in
establishing mental associations and speed up learning, especially
if students already know words to which the new vocabulary is
related. Boers (2000) claims that various figurative expressions
can often be traced back to a common metaphoric theme or source
domain. He concludes that a lexical organization along such
metaphoric themes or source domain can facilitate retention of
unfamiliar figurative expressions. He also states that an enhanced
metaphoric awareness on the part of language learners can be
beneficial to their specialized reading.Charteris-Black (2000) says
that metaphors provide insights into particular ways of thinking,
both in general terms and in relation to the development of
semi-technical registers. He asserts that vocabulary teaching to
ESP economics students based on lexis that reflects important
underlying metaphors of the subjects can help improve the
comprehension of economic terminology.Another positive aspect of
metaphor awareness application is that it may encourage students to
figure out idiomatic expressions without the teachers assistance;
and therefore help foster the development of learning independence
and problem-solving skills (Kalyuga & Kalyuga, 2008). Moreover,
the understanding of common metaphorical extensions in vocabulary
may facilitate students understanding of cross cultural differences
in metaphor usage and help to avoid errors caused by the mother
tongue (Boers, 2003; Kovecses, 2002).Nation (2000) suggests that
one useful strategy in learning polysemous words might be to define
a word in terms of a concept which is utilized in all senses; such
a strategy reduces the number of words to be learned. Thus, every
occurrence of the word will act as a repetition of that word,
rather than as a different one; and will therefore build on
previous learning. Similar to Nation (2000), Verspoor and Lowie
(2003) suggest that the effects of the guessing method for
polysemous words can be made more effective and more efficient if
the student is given the core sense of a target word and is
consequently encouraged to make meaningful links between this sense
and the other senses of a target word. The meaning will be
processed at a deeper level (Craik & Lockhart, 1972).According
to Brown and Perry (1991), a considerable amount of research has
taken place since the late 1970s concerning vocabulary learning
strategies. Emphases have mainly been on four strategies namely
keyword (Pressly et al., 1982), contextual (Sternberg, 1987,
Krashen, 1985; Mondria & Wit-de Boer, 1991; Laufer &
Hulstjin, 2001; Cain, 2007; Pulido, 2007), semantic processing
(Beck, Meckeown & Omanson, 1987) and awareness of the
conceptual metaphor (Nation, 2000; Verspoor & Lowie, 2003;
Boers, 2004; Charteris- Black & Ennis, 2001; Csabi, 2004;
Deignan, Gabrys & Solska, 1997; Herrera & White, 2000;
Kondaiah, 2004; Cameron & Low, 1999; Cameron, 1999; Kovecses
& Szabo, 1996; Lazar, 1996; Kalyuga & Kalyuga, 2008).Brown
and Perry (1991) mention that keyword method has received most
attention and has been shown to be superior to contextual and
no-strategy conditions. Sternberg (1987) claims that even though
most vocabulary is learned from context, it does not necessarily
mean that teaching specific vocabulary using context is the most
effective or even relatively effective way of teaching that
vocabulary. The fourth strategy, that is teaching vocabulary
through raising metaphor awareness, is just beginning to receive
attention in applied linguistics. Kalyuga and Kalyuga (2008) state
that in recent years, studies in applied linguistics have been
successfully adapted to facilitate foreign language vocabulary
acquisition. In particular, steps have been taken to find out how
metaphor awareness can increase the speed of vocabulary learning.
These studies have demonstrated that knowledge of conceptual
metaphors has a positive effect on a students ability to acquire
polysemantic words and idiomatic expressions. Boers (2000a) in his
experiments to measure the potential benefits of organizing
figurative expressions according to their underlying metaphoric
themes concluded that a lexical organization along such metaphoric
themes or source domains can facilitate retention of unfamiliar
figurative expressions. In his other study Boer (2000b)
investigated whether students can cope better with specialized
reading of economics if their metaphoric awareness is enhanced. One
of the ways to raise learners metaphoric awareness is to draw their
attention to the source domain or to the origin of unfamiliar
figurative expressions as they encounter in their specialized
reading. He concludes that an enhanced metaphoric awareness may
help students to recognize the inference patterns associated with
given figurative expression and thus remember unfamiliar figurative
pattern. Henderson (1986) also proposes to raise students awareness
of the role of metaphors in theory construction and question
formulation in economics as a social science. Helping economics
students to recognize the metaphors behind commonly accepted
economics models and encouraging them to adopt alternative
metaphorical perspective may foster a questioning attitude. By
questioning attitude, he means that the inquisitive mind that
learners have that is manifested in their habit of asking
questions. Kalyuga and Kalyuga (2008) investigated how an awareness
of conceptual metaphor and grouping of various words and
expressions in a metaphorical chunk according to shared
metaphorical themes may improve the process of vocabulary
acquisition. They concluded that the presentation of vocabulary in
chunks united by the same metaphorical themes could create a mental
link and enhance learning by reducing a potential cognitive
overload and associated learning burden. This method also may help
learners in establishing mental associations and speed up learning,
especially if students already know words to which new vocabulary
is related. Charteris-Black (2000) suggests that conceptual
metaphor can be made useful for vocabulary teaching in ESP
Economics. He claims that familiarity with the metaphors through
which impersonal and abstract processes are conceptualized seems a
valuable addition to content-based ESP approaches. Learning a
semi-technical register requires teaching the subject specific
meanings of vocabulary and this provides the L2 learner with
insight into the conceptual domain of their subject. Ortony (1993)
summarizes three ways in which metaphor facilitates learning namely
compactness, vividness and inexpressibility. Compactness involves
the transfer from well-known to less well-known domains, vividness
allows a more memorable learning experience due to the greater
imagery, and inexpressibility shows that metaphors work by encoding
certain aspects of peoples experience which seems to be impossible
to encode. Together these three elements provide a strong basis for
the claim that learning can be enhanced through the use of
metaphors. Deignan et al. (1997) suggest that since metaphor is
recognized as pervasive in language, more attention should be given
to the teaching of strategy for comprehending and generating
metaphors in L2. The researchers investigated the extent to which a
small set of metaphorical expressions have equivalents across two
languages (English and Polish), and whether metaphorical
expressions might create difficulties for students. They suggested
that raising metaphor awareness through discussion and comparison
of metaphors in L1 and L2 is a useful approach to helping learners
understand and appropriately produce metaphors. Lazar (1996)
suggests three implications of using metaphors for language
learning namely understanding metaphorical language involves a
process of inference, metaphorical language ranges from the
conventional to the original and metaphorical meanings are
culturally determined. Vocabulary learning through metaphor
awareness can be achieved through two means namely i) an explicit
reference to the literal sense or origin ii) grouping figurative
expressions under their source domains. The first means will be the
main focus of the present study. Furthermore, the study also aims
to explore the density of metaphorical words in the specialized
texts and to find out the effects of metaphor awareness on the
improvement of vocabulary learning and reading comprehension.2.8
VOCABULARY LEARNING AND CONTEXTUAL GUESSING Vocabulary learning
through context helps learners learn specific strategies for
acquiring words (Oxford & Scarcella, 1994: 231). Oxford (1986)
advances the point that discrete learning democratizes the learning
process by transferring more responsibility to students. Moreover
Honeyfield (1977) points out that it is important to provide
learners with strategies for inferring the meaning of unknown
vocabulary from the context in which it occurs rather than having
learners simply memorize long lists of words that makes the
learning process slow and tedious. They should also be taught and
encouraged to look for contextual clues to guess the meaning and
function of an unknown word.Nation (1990) argues that because of
the large number of low frequency words and because of their
infrequent occurrence and narrow range, it is best to teach
learners strategies for dealing with these words rather than to
teach the words themselves. He further adds that a large proportion
of the unknown words (at least 80 percent) can be successfully
dealt with in this way. Similarly, Sternberg (1987) claims that
most vocabulary is learned from context. Some researchers (Clarke
& Nation, 1980; Liu & Nation, 1985) discuss factors that
affect guessing vocabulary in context. According to them techniques
and type of clues can provide information to help learners in
guessing. According to Steinberg (1978), grammar, punctuation,
definition, contrast, connectives, reference words, word analysis,
and the learners experience and common sense could help learners in
guessing the unfamiliar words in texts. Similar studies on metaphor
awareness and on contextual guessing and vocabulary improvement
have been carried out. According to Cain (2007) although context
will not always reveal word meanings, the presence of written
context to learn the meaning of new words and to elaborate the
meaning of less familiar words are crucial. Other studies in
vocabulary learning strategy highlight the importance of inferring
meanings of words from context (e.g., Ittzes, 1991; Nagy, 1997;
Schouten-van Parreren, 1992; Cain, 2007; Mondria & Boer, 1991;
Pulido, 2007). These studies usually show that words must be
offered in rich contexts to provide the learners with cues to learn
new words. One way of using a context effectively is to ask the
learner to guess explicitly the meaning of a word within its
context. Advocates of the guessing method (e.g., Dupuy &
Krashen, 1993; Schouten-van Parreren, 1992) argue that inference
leads to better retention of vocabulary than learning words in
isolation because increased mental effort should have a positive
effect on retention. Schouten-van Parreren (1992) states that the
inference of the meaning of words is conducive to retention. She
further explains that in the process of guessing, the reader makes
associations between the context and his own personal knowledge
(both linguistic knowledge and knowledge of the world) and also
guessing results in a strong affective involvement on the part of
the guesser, especially if the guessing is followed by the
verification of the meaning. Sternberg (1987: 20) claims that the
greatest part of our own vocabulary has been acquired as a result
of encountering words in a certain context or situation, from which
we have inferred the meaning. Schouten-van Parreren (1992) has
found that guessing of new words from the context yielded better
results in a composition test in which words had to be used
actively than when words were semanticized by means of pictures or
through synonyms. Carpay (1975) carried out a series of experiments
in which students of psychology were required to learn Russian
using texts. The results showed that through the inference of
meanings from the context, words could indeed be learnt
receptively. Li (2002) carried out an experiment in which
well-educated subjects had to guess the meaning of unknown foreign
words with the aid of a sentence context. It was found that of the
words that were guessed with the aid of a good cue in the reading
condition, 74 percent were known in the (receptive) retention
test.To summarize, the empirical research on the hypothesis that
guessing is conducive to retention has so far provided inconclusive
evidence of the superiority of this method with respect to others.
It can be concluded that contextual guessing, on its own, is not
sufficient in helping learners to enhance their vocabulary.
Metaphor awareness method should be incorporated as one of the
alternative methods in vocabulary learning and reading
comprehension.
2.9 READING COMPREHENSIONThe present study provides a view of
the reading comprehension from the perspective of Schema Theory.
Schema theory is a theory of how knowledge is acquired, processed
and retrieved. Schema theory is based on the belief that every act
of comprehension involves ones knowledge of the world (Anderson et
al., 1977, cited in Carrell & Eisterhold, 1983). Schemata
reflect the experiences, conceptual understanding, attitudes,
values, skills, and strategies one brings to a text situation
(Vacca & Vacca, 1999).Research on the theory of schema has had
great impact on understanding reading comprehension in first and
second language (Carrell & Eisterhold, 1983; Vacca & Vacca,
1999). It made clear the case that understanding the role of schema
in the reading process provides insights into why students may fail
to comprehend text material. Students are in a better position to
comprehend their assigned reading when they are familiar with the
topic of the text they are reading, aware of the discourse level
and structural make-up of the genre of the text, and skillful in
decoding features needed to recognize words and recognize how they
fit together in a sentence. Carrell (1988) points out that students
apparent reading problems may be problems of insufficient
background knowledge. However, as further pointed out by the same
author, students might have sufficient schemata, yet unable to
comprehend the text if such schemata are not appropriately
activated.According to Brown (2001) with regards to reading, a text
does not by itself carry meaning. The reader brings information,
knowledge, emotion and culture that is schemata to the printed
words. Clark and Silberstein (1977) indicate that research has
shown that reading is only incidentally visual. More information is
contributed by the reader than by the print on the page. An
understanding of a text depends on how much schema one as readers,
possess while reading. Consequently, readers failure or confusion
in making sense of a text is caused by the lack of appropriate
schemata that can easily fit with the content of the text. This
lack of appropriate schemata can be either formal or content-based.
Brown (2000) defines these two as follows: content schemata
includes what one knows about people, the world, culture and the
universe, while formal schemata consists of ones knowledge about
discourse structure. Research in the area of schema theory and
reading comprehension conclude that the closer the match between
the readers schema and the text, the more comprehension occur
(Brown, 2000). Comprehension of any kind depends on knowledge that
is relating what people do not know to what they know. In other
words, peoples understanding of a text depends on how much related
schemata they as readers posses while reading. Consequently,
failure of L1 or L2 readers to make sense of a text could be caused
by the lack of an appropriate schema that can easily fit within the
content of the text. This missing of an appropriate schema can be
content, formal or linguistic.According to Carrell (1981), the text
must activate in the reader, all of the appropriate cognitive
schemata in order to comprehend. When reading a story with a
familiar theme, especially one from the native culture, L2 readers
might more easily activate the appropriate background concepts and
hence more efficiently process the text. Not only is it important
for the reader to have background knowledge to read more
efficiently, but that knowledge also needs to be activated.
2.10 THE ROLE OF METAPHOR IN READING COMPREHENSIONFrom the
perspective of cognitive linguistics, metaphor offers significant
values in reading comprehension especially in specialized texts.
This is because it has a special role in organizing conceptual
knowledge through the interaction of two domains: source domain and
target domain. Allbrighton and McKoon (1995) call the structure
that maps source domain onto the target domain metaphor-based
schema. In their research, Allbritton and McKoon claim that
metaphor can aid in the comprehension of new information. They
further claim that in our characterization of metaphor-based
schemas, we have assumed that they are part of the world knowledge
that readers bring to the process of text comprehension (p.613). An
example of this is the use of metaphorical expressions in
situations where the topic of the discourse is scientific, complex
and highly abstract. Concrete source domains are then often
metaphorically employed to explain scientific, abstract and
difficult processes or events to make them easier to understand.
Studies that deal with this aspect of metaphor predominantly focus
on genres such as academic discourse, popular scientific prose, and
educational discourse, both written and spoken. Mayer (1993)
discusses metaphor and students understanding of science and how
metaphor awareness can aid in the understanding of abstract
scientific topics. He suggests that the instructive nature of
metaphors, which set up analogies between the topic and the
metaphor, is important in students understanding of the topic. More
recently, Nuez (2008) showed that in technical books and articles
about mathematics, highly conventional spatial source domains such
as MOTION, ROTATION and OBJECTS IN BOUNDED SPACE were used to talk
about complex, abstract mathematical issues such as limits and
continuity functions. In addition, some of the gestures made in
university-level classes that Nuez analysed depicted the same
ideas; lecturers used their hands to make rotating and spatial
movements while explaining the abstract issues. As Nuez suggests,
these gestures reflect the idea that these concepts were also
psychologically real for the persons using them. Darian (2000)
studied the role of metaphor in the explanation and teaching of
science, and its function in scientific texts. According to him,
metaphorical expressions are common in biology texts. For example,
the word factory in a sentence like Imagine the many millions of
chloroplasts in just one lettuce leaf, each a tiny factory for
producing sugars and starches (p. 171). Cameron (2003) found that
groups of metaphors, or clusters, tended to appear close together
in explanations of difficult concepts, illustrated by a stretch of
talk in which a teacher explains the phenomenon of volcanic lava.
Concrete metaphorical expressions such as treacle, runny butter and
a bit like wax were used by the teacher intentionally and close
together to refer to the working of volcanic lava, and were
preceded and followed by stretches of talk in which only a few and
highly conventional metaphors occurred. Tomohiro and Takashi (2000)
claimed that there was a significant effect of metaphor awareness
on reading comprehension. Metaphors that existed in texts helped
readers acquire information because many important concepts were
abstract and metaphors were needed to grasp them. According to
Reynolds and Schwartz (1983), the memorability of passages is
increased when the concluding statement is metaphorical rather than
literal.In relation to the explanatory function of metaphors in
science-related discourse, there is another function of metaphor in
educational discourse, in written text books as well as spoken
classroom interaction, which has to do with the topic or classroom
management. Low (2005: 137) suggested that for at least one of the
texts used in his study, the author made use of metaphor to
summarize, disengage and evaluate a topic immediately prior to
changing the topic. The metaphorical expressions there seemed not
only used to explain the difficult topic, but also to summarize it
more clearly. For spoken classroom interaction, Cameron and Low
(2004: 360) showed that metaphors can have similar framing
functions; they were used in an organisational manner, concerned
with the design of the classroom and to negotiate with students
about what was going to happen in the lesson or task. However,
research on the roles of metaphor in text comprehension are still
scarce in Malaysia. One study was found on the effects of
conceptual mapping on reading comprehension. Rasaya and Elangkeeran
(2005) in their experimental study on the effects of concept
mapping as a cognitive strategy in reading comprehension among UiTM
students in Terengganu found that the use of appropriate cognitive
strategies could promote reading comprehension skills and also help
in nurturing learners to be autonomous.
2.11 COGNITIVE LINGUISTICS AND METAPHOR TEACHINGCL highlights
the main function of language as a tool of conceptualization
(Radden & Dirven, 2007, p.17). Language is seen as a concrete
evident or output of our cognitive process (input). CL views
language as a major means to manifest human cognitive process. In
other words, the cognitive process is realized through language
used: spoken or written language (Rudzka-Ostyn, 2003). Furthermore,
CL asserts that language is part of a cognitive system which
comprises perception, emotion, categorization, abstraction process
and reasoning (Dirven & Verspoor, 2004, p.9). Within the
framework of CL, language is considered as an integral part of the
cognition system. Tyler (2008) summarizes that language is a
reflection of general cognitive process p.12.Juchem-Grundmann
(2009) outlines the three basic principles of explicit language
teaching in the classroom namely (1) explicitly activating already
acquired knowledge to make sense of the newly learned knowledge (2)
showing possible links between the existing and new knowledge
structure (3) encouraging the embedding of a new information into
the existing web of knowledge. Metaphors lend themselves to
teaching in the framework of the cognitive linguistic paradigm for
several reasons (Grundmann, 2009) namely i) Metaphors are grounded
in human socio-cultural experience, ii) Metaphors enable abstract
events to be understood by means of understanding concrete events,
iii) Metaphors are means to construct or reconstruct concrete
knowledge structures in abstract domains.Boers (2000) reported a
study on conceptual metaphor in specialized reading. The study
focused on whether metaphor awareness made a difference in the
students ability to decode and interpret the metaphorical words
used in the expressions. In this experiment, two groups (N=85) were
presented with a reading text. A vocabulary list which also
incorporated explanations for the five metaphorical expressions had
been explicitly put into the text for the purpose of the study. The
control group was provided with a glossary list that gave
explanations based on the context of economics. The experimental
group was given the explanation based on the source domain. After
having read the text, the students were tested on their
comprehension by means of statements concerning the text content,
which they had to agree or disagree with. The result of the study
showed that the experimental group outperformed the control group
in decoding and interpreting the inference in the texts. These
findings provide empirical evidence for two aspects in favor of
raising metaphor awareness namely that the students were able to
successfully make the transfer from non metaphorical meaning to
metaphorical meaning. Secondly, metaphor awareness might improve
the ability to understand texts in detail (Boer, 2000). Three days
after the reading comprehension was given, Boers administered a
follow-up gap-filling test with which he researched the effect of
unfamiliar vocabulary in the source domain context had on the
retention of the five targeted items. He concluded that the
subjects in the experimental group turned out to be more likely to
reproduce at least one of the targeted metaphorical expressions. In
other words, the metaphor awareness, which had supposedly been
increased by presenting the vocabulary with the source domain
explanation, might have significantly contributed to retention of
vocabulary.Deignan, Gabry and Solska (1997) reported an experiment
with 143 Polish students of English who had been asked to translate
68 English sentences into Polish. Students were informed not to do
word by word translation but they were asked to do translation
based on the whole meaning into Polish.The experiment did not aim
to compare the different result of students after certain
intervention but it addressed the issue of contrastive research as
a necessity for gaining metaphor awareness. As a result of the
study, four different types of cross-cultural metaphor variations
used in the students translation were identified that required
different degrees of contrastive research and metaphor awareness:
(1) same conceptual metaphors and equivalent linguistic expressions
(2) same conceptual metaphors but different linguistic expressions
(3) different conceptual metaphors (4) words similar in literal
meanings but different in metaphorical meanings (Deignan et al.,
1997).On the basis of these four variations, Deignan et al. (1997)
developed the awareness raising activities. The first task provided
the students with a Polish text and its English translation in
which the linguistic metaphors were enhanced in bold print.
Students were simply asked to read the text and discus the
highlighted expressions. In the second task, the students were
provided with a set of six English sentences and source domain
concepts (plants), they were asked to underline all words and
phrases in the sentences to do with the source domain, define these
words in the given context by consulting a dictionary and finally
instructed to think about the concept of plant in their native
tongue and whether the linguistic metaphors used in the English
sentences could also be used in a Polish translation. The third
task again provided students with six isolated English sentences.
In this task the students were instructed to underline words for
the same target concept, namely increase and decrease of economical
key data such as prices, inflation or unemployment. Furthermore
they were supposed to use a dictionary to find the literal meaning
of the expressions and instructed to find the differences to the
metaphorical context used in the examples sentences. This study
provided insights on how to possibly deal with metaphors and draw
attention to linguistic metaphors in the foreign language
classroom. Most importantly, the main focus of Deignans study was
to give the explicit guidance back to the literal meaning, the
source domain and the comparison of the different meanings. Deignan
et al. (1997) concluded that students found it easier to learn
English metaphors if their awareness on metaphor were raised and
they were asked to compare the use of metaphor in English and their
mother tongue.Boers (2000) studied the benefits of metaphor
awareness rising for productive language output with 73 French
students of Business English. Provided with a list of vocabulary
for up and downward movements and given 10 minutes to study the
vocabulary items, students were presented with graphs depicting the
growth of economic key data and asked to write a short essay
describing the graphs. Although this general experimental set up
was the same for both groups (experimental and control), the
handout with the sample lexis varied in the last sentence of the
instruction. The sample lexis in the experimental group focused on
explicitly drawing students attention to the source domain of the
targeted words, while the sample lexis in the control group was
focused on the speed of development or change. The analysis of the
students texts showed that the experimental group significantly
outperformed the control group in productive usage of the targeted
linguistic metaphors. In this study, Boers expanded the task from a
mere receptive and analytical task to a productive and creative
task. Indeed, in this study linguistic metaphors were explicitly
taught to expand productive vocabulary and provide students with a
tool to become more precise.Inspired by the earlier results, Boers
(2000) carried out another experiment that explicitly taught
linguistic metaphors. This was done by grouping them under the
source domain headings. 118 Flemish secondary school pupils,
subdivided into two groups, read a sample text dealing with
emotions and received additional vocabulary notes. They were
supposed to study for 10 minutes. Again, the additional vocabulary
notes in the experimental group were sorted under the heading of
source domains (e.g. anger welled up inside of me was grouped under
anger as hot fluid in a container). The vocabulary utilized for the
control groups were grouped along different pragmatic or functional
lines (e.g. anger welled up inside of me was grouped under to
describe anger as a process). Most importantly there were no
written explanations or translations given, the vocabulary was only
presented in groups. After the reading and subsequent study of
vocabulary, the students were engaged in a guided discussion about
anger and conflicts. There, they had the chance to make use of and
try out their newly acquired vocabulary which was finally tested in
a closed test. In this experiment, the students were explicitly
encouraged to give alternative possibilities for the different gaps
in order to offer more opportunities to make use of the targeted
vocabulary. The output analysis of the targeted vocabulary compared
between the two groups revealed significant differences in the
scores. The experimental group was found to outperform the control
group. Boers concluded that a basic awareness of the source domain
behind the vocabulary could facilitate retention.Berendi (2005)
conducted a similar experiment to Boers (2000) concerning the
language material used as well as the teaching and testing
procedure. In this study, students were confronted with a text
filled with linguistic metaphors of anger and additional vocabulary
notes that listed all targeted items but were asked to first read
then translate the items. Afterwards, they were given some time to
memorize the vocabulary and finally had to do a cloze test with the
encouragement to list all alternatives for the individual gaps.
Vocabulary for the control group was listed in order of appearance
and for the experimental group the source domain was highlighted.
Unlike Boers, Berendi differentiated four different groups. Apart
from the regular control group (Group 1), Berendi distinguished
three experimental groups that received different degrees of
information on their handouts. The metaphor group (Group 2)
received the vocabulary sorted by source domain. The metaphor
finder group (Group 3) received the vocabulary similar to the
control group sorted in order of appearance but was told about the
four metaphoric themes prevalent in the text, and was instructed to
identify these and group the vocabulary respectively (to give an
example two of the four conceptual metaphors were already given).
The last, the image group (Group 4), also received the vocabulary
list in order of appearance but was additionally provided with
illustrative drawings and further instructed to match the examples
with the drawing. In addition to the four different sets of
materials, Berendi also varied the degree of instructions. In the
metaphor group, she started with a general discussion of idioms,
activated students pre-knowledge, triggered their attitude towards
idioms and explicitly introduced the idea of underlying metaphoric
motivation followed by a discussion of the conceptual metaphor
ANGER IS HOT FLUID IN A CONTAINER. The metaphor-finder group also
started with a general discussion of idioms but did not go into
details with the underlying metaphoric concepts. After the varied
starters, the reading and the working with the vocabulary, all four
groups had to translate the targeted items, which functioned as a
analysis toll referred to as the comprehension of the figurative
meanings check. Analyzing the quality of the translation, Berendi
found out that the rate of misunderstanding was significantly lower
in the metaphor group than in the control group. This provided
evidence for the hypothesis that knowledge about the underlying
conceptual metaphor facilitated understanding. The comprehension
findings for the metaphor-finder group and the image group drew a
different picture, which made Berendi concluded that only the
explicit awareness raising was effective, the implicit attempt at
the activation of metaphorical competence in the form of images and
encouraging the self-reliant recognition of common sources without
prior instruction was not (Berendi, 2005, p.15). Berendi concluded
that the introduction to the conceptual framework in the
introduction made all the difference as it encouraged students to
realize the connection between source and target right from the
start and to use these when decoding the expressions. Consequently,
as far as comprehension is concerned, Berendi clearly argued in
favor of explicit teaching, that is making metaphorical mappings
the topic of teaching. Similar to Berendi (2005), Li (2002)
reported on a program of explicit metaphor instruction trying out
different methods of teaching. He conducted a series of experiments
with 394 Chinese learners of English. The study involved testing
for effective conceptual metaphor knowledge on vocabulary recall.
Explicit guided class-room discussions, explicit application of
conceptual mappings, and the use of visuals for mnemonic support
constituted the experimental conditions. Li did not focus on
familiarizing students with linguistic metaphors by introducing the
conceptual metaphor. However, he used simple semantic sets as
experimental condition. In this experiment, phrases were grouped
under super ordinate terms, such as anger, insanity or revelation.
In his experiment, Li intended to show that positive effects were
mainly due to conceptual metaphor and not because of reasonable
grouping. The other experimental condition explicitly addressed
imaging in questioning the students what image they had in mind
when processing the linguistic metaphors and what the implications
were. This way, Li hoped to initiate visual processing. In other
words, all three conditions made more or less use of concepts, only
the degree of cognitive activation differed. In the experiments,
the conceptual metaphor-group significantly outperformed the other
groups in the post-test (Li, 2002). Lis experiment tackling
linguistic metaphors of different degrees of complexity, that is
from simple linguistic metaphors to multi-word idioms, suggested
that a conceptual metaphor approach fostered meaning recall but did
not significantly influence the recall of form as the results for
the most complex category showed. Another interesting study similar
to the ones discussed earlier is by Caballero-Rodriguez (2003). In
this study, Caballero-Rodriguez investigated the teaching of
metaphors to architects. Focusing on the analysis of specialized
architecture discourse for the use of metaphors,
Caballero-Rodriguez did not present an empirical study of teaching
metaphors but rather suggested how to approach teaching on the
basis of this experience. However, she highlighted some useful
insights to the present study. According to her, explicit
presentation and explanation of conceptual metaphors would be
helpful for vocabulary learning. The success of metaphor teaching
demands the active role of the learners in accomplishing both
comprehension and production tasks (Caballero-Rodriquez, 2003).
Hong-Mei (2010) in her recent study, suggests some insights on how
metaphor awareness could be utilized in the English language
classroom:1. Teachers should make their students aware of the
ubiquity and significance of metaphors in their daily life. They
should be made to understand the nature of conceptual metaphors,
the differences between metaphoric expressions and conceptual
metaphors in general and realize the significance of conceptual
metaphors in language learning.2. Teachers can use conceptual
metaphors to explain the existence of some word formations.
According to Lakoff and Johnson (2009), the way the world is
perceived is largely metaphorical and all concepts are structured
on the basis of one experience. The experience is interactions
between human and the physical environment or other people within
their culture.3. Metaphors can be used to explain the
reasonableness of the collocation of words. The structure of one
concept can be used to form another concept. Therefore, many
aspects of a word can be used to talk about another concept. For
example, Time flows, current of history are derived from the same
conceptual metaphor TIME IS RIVER. A variety of words originally
used to talk about river can naturally be used to talk about
time.Radden (1997) points out, the idea of combining the teaching
of linguistic metaphors with insights into their cognitive
stimulation results in insightful learning that is more successful
than schematic rote learning. Indeed, elaborating on metaphoric
motivation means asking the basic question of how humans, and in
foreign language teaching, native speakers of the language,
perceive and accordingly construe the world and in which way this
is shown in language. Metaphoric motivation is mainly based in the
underlying conceptual metaphors. Therefore, these concepts in their
coherent structure, that is different mappings between source and
target domain, should be made explicit in the foreign language
classroom. Concepts become the organizing principle for vocabulary
in order to create semantic webs that provide learners with
vocabulary for at least two domains: the source and target domain.
Vocabulary would not be learned twice in different contexts but
simply reassigned, that is explicitly linked to another domain
(Juchem-Grundmann & Krennmayar, 2009). The motivation of
linguistic metaphors can be derived from the conceptual metaphor
ACTIVE IS UP, INACTIVE IS DOWN and HEALTHY IS UP in simple
statements the company set up a new business or the company had to
close down a factory. By introducing the conceptual metaphor ACTIVE
IS UP, INACTIVE IS DOWN and HEALTHY IS UP, students are not only
enabled to recognize the metaphorical usage of language in to set
up and to close down, but they also understand the choice of the
particle. When they understand the conceptual metaphors, the old
traditional habit of memorizing words in parrot-like fashion is
substituted by the deeper understanding thus result in long term
retention. Teachers should provide linguistic input or device
exercises to activate familiar vocabulary of the same concept and
in this way encourage linkage between the newly encountered
metaphorical expressions and other already familiar linguistic
instantiations. With insights into the conceptual motivation of
metaphors, students will not only be able to decode several verbal
expressions and understand their choices, but they will also be
able to usefully organize the newly acquired expressions. Thus,
acquiring concepts becomes the guiding tool towards learning as
well as towards organizing this learning (Juchem-Grundmann,
2009).Littlemore (2009) claims that insights into the motivation of
metaphors mainly serve language comprehension (p.13). What is in
general claimed to assist language comprehension, namely teaching
the decoding of metaphorical language by referring to the
underlying concepts is implied to be expandable to language
production. Insights into conceptual grounding paint a bigger
picture namely the connection of whole concepts, and may thus
facilitate language production as much as language comprehension
(Juchem-Grundmann, 2009; Caballero, 2003).Exploiting conceptual
metaphor for language production should be the next step in
language teaching. Juchem-Grundmann (2009) suggests two strategies
that need to be discriminated in language production namely making
use of existing linguistic metaphors and extending metaphorical
language within common conceptual frameworks. Boers (2004) states
that metaphor provides learners with a tool to extend the meaning
of simple and concrete words utilized to denote more complex and
abstract concepts; concepts for which they have not yet acquired
precise terms. Thus, students should apply previously acquired
vocabulary to new domains in order to discern the unfamiliar. The
following are guidelines for metaphor teaching in English language
classroom (Juchem-Grundmann, 2009).1. Examine course book texts for
linguistic metaphors. If necessary, design new or edit existing
texts in order to systematically make use of linguistic metaphors
and thus lend themselves more easily to teaching conceptual
metaphors.2. Organize vocabulary learning along conceptual
metaphors.3. Draw attention to type and function of metaphors.4.
Conduct etymological and diachronic research for linguistic
metaphors.5. Elaborate on cognitive motivation of metaphors.Most
importantly, teachers should give an emphasis on teaching the
concepts instead of teaching the expressions because concepts ease
understanding, improve storage and retrieval and enable a creative
application.
2.12 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKThe approach to metaphors in this
study is based on Cognitive Linguistic Theory, henceforth (CLT)
under the broader Constructivism theory. The constructivist
approach looks at metaphors as being instrumental in constructing
reality and is considered a phenomena of both language and thought.
This approach has produced numerous theories concerning metaphor
description, processing and production over the last two decades
(Kittay, 1987; Lakoff, 1987; Turner, 1987; Johnson, 1988; Steen,
1994; Gibbs, 1994). CLT views language as part of the cognitive
system which comprises perception, emotions, categorizations,
abstraction process and reasoning (Dirven & Verspoor, 2004). In
this view, cognitive process is manifested through language used:
spoken and written. CLT exemplifies that metaphor plays a major
role in the way human think, the way human speak, and the way human
live. Constructivism views metaphor as a tool to construct reality,
while CL under constructivism extends its view on metaphor as
seeing one thing in terms of another or seeing abstract reality in
terms of concrete reality (Nation, 2000; Verspoor & Lowie,
2003; Boers, 2004; Charteris-Black & Ennis, 2001; Csabi, 2004;
Deignan, Gabrys & Solska, 1997; Herrera & White, 2000;
Kondaiah, 2004; Cameron & Low, 1999; Cameron, 1999; Kovecses
& Szabo, 1996; Lazar, 1996; Kalyuga & Kalyuga, 2008).The
cognitive approach to metaphors was largely initiated by Lakoff and
Johnson (1980). Lakoff and Johnson claim the metaphor is not only a
poetic device, but it is also pervasive throughout everyday
language. The ubiquity of metaphor structures not only govern how
human talk, but also how they think and act. In this approach, the
assumption that conventional language is essentially literal is
seen as false; rather the essence of metaphors is seen as how one
mental domain is conceptualized in terms of another (Lakoff &
Johnson, 1980). Primacy is thus given to metaphors as a way of
thinking about one idea in terms of another. For example; 1. He has
a wealth of ideas 2. I see what youre saying According to Lakoff
and Johnson (1980) wealth and see are the instantiations of the
underlying conceptual metaphors. In this case, ideas are
conceptualized as money and see is conceptualized as understanding
as opposed to their entailed/literal meanings. A conceptual
metaphor hence, is a unidirectional linking of two different
concepts, where some of the attributes of one thing (money) are
transferred to another (ideas). In this study, two important terms
of conceptual metaphors and linguistic metaphors will be used
widely. A conceptual metaphor refers to the thought or concept and
is denoted by capital letters, for example, IDEAS ARE MONEY and
UNDERSTANDING IS SEEING (these two are metaphoric because they
refer to the concepts or thoughts of underlying meanings).
Linguistic metaphors, on the other hand, are the realization of
conceptual metaphors and refer to words, phrases, or sentences
occurring in spoken language, or written texts (Lakoff &
Johnson, 1980). The description of a metaphor in the present study
is based on Lakoff and Johnsons (1980) comprehensive view of
metaphors as conceptual and linguistic. Figure 2.2 illustrates the
theoretical framework and the outcome of the present study.
The Summary of the thesis is illustrated in the diagram below:
CONSTRUCTIVISM
Cognitive Linguistics (CL)
Conceptual Metaphor (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980)
Target DomainSource Domain
Linguistic Metaphor
Textual Analysis and Metaphor Awareness
Enhancement of reading comprehensionEnhancement of
vocabulary
Figure 2.2: Theoretical Framework