Conceptual metaphors and emotion expressions in the English for Specific Purposes classroom

  1. Antonio José Silvestre-López
  2. Vicent Beltrán-Palanques
Revue:
Cultura, lenguaje y representación = Culture, language and representation: revista de estudios culturales de la Universitat Jaume I = cultural studies journal of Universitat Jaume I

ISSN: 1697-7750

Année de publication: 2019

Titre de la publication: La metáfora en la comunicación social / Metaphor in social communication

Número: 22

Pages: 135-152

Type: Article

DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAccès ouvert editor

D'autres publications dans: Cultura, lenguaje y representación = Culture, language and representation: revista de estudios culturales de la Universitat Jaume I = cultural studies journal of Universitat Jaume I

Résumé

The bulk of studies dealing with conceptual metaphors in the language classroom describe conceptual metaphor-based pedagogical proposals to teach vocabulary (e.g., Boers, 2000, 2013; Littlemore, 2009; Cortés de los Ríos and Sánchez, 2017). All these are substantial contributions to the field of English language teaching and learning. Despite the growing interest in the field, the effects of conceptual metaphor-based vocabulary instruction on learners still require further attention (Boers, 2013). This paper is an attempt to advance this line of research by exploring the effects of instruction of a pedagogical proposal to teach metaphorical vocabulary belonging to two basic emotions (happiness and sadness). The study is set in a Spanish higher education context, particularly in an English for Specific Purposes subject offered in the Bachelor’s Degree in Psychology. A pre-experimental design consisting of pre-test and post-test measures was adopted to gauge participants’ previous knowledge and progress after instruction. In order to analyse participants’ performance, a paired-sample T-test was used, and effect size was calculated by applying Cohen’s d. Results show statistically significant effects of the pedagogical approach as well as a large size effect, which reveals the efficacy of the instruction. This exploratory study suggests that this area deserves further investigation and its findings set the ground for future research involving experimental designs.

€ Voir financement

Information sur le financement

We would like to thank the two anonymous reviewers for the useful comments on an earlier version of this paper. We would also like to thank the institutional support received by Universitat Jaume I and the Interuniversity Institute for Applied Modern Languages. The research presented in this paper is farmed within the projects UJI-B201859 (Universitat Jaume I) and GV/2019/101 (Conselleria d?Innovaci?, Universitats, Ci?ncia i Societat Digital, Generalitat Valenciana).

Financeurs

Références bibliographiques

  • Asher, Stephen. R. 1979. “Referential Communication”. In The functions of language and cognition, eds. Grover Whitehurst and Barry Zimmerman (175–197). New York: Academic Press.
  • Barnden, John A. 1997. “Consciousness and common-sense metaphors of mind”. In Two sciences of mind: Readings in cognitive science and consciousness, eds. Sean O’Nuallain, Paul Mc Kevitt and Eoghan Mac Aogain (311–340). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Beréndi, Márta, Sandra Csábi. and Zoltán Kövecses. 2008. In “Using conceptual metaphors and metonymies in vocabulary teaching”, eds. Frank Boers and Seth Lindstromberg Cognitive linguistic approaches to teaching vocabulary and phraseology (65–99). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Boers, Frank and Seth Lindstromberg. (Eds.), 2008. Cognitive linguistic approaches to teaching vocabulary and phraseology. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Boers, Frank. 2000. “Metaphor awareness and vocabulary retention”. Applied Linguistics, 21(4): 553–571.
  • Boers, Frank. 2013. “Cognitive linguistic approaches to teaching vocabulary: Assessment and integration”. Language Teaching, 46(2): 208–224.
  • Boeynaems, Amber, Christian Burgers, Elly A. Konijn, and Gerard J. Steen. 2017. “The impact of conventional and novel metaphor in news on issue viewpoint”. International Journal of Communication, 11: 2861–2879.
  • Bowdle, Brian F. and Drede Gentner. 2005. “The Career of Metaphor”. Psychological Review. 112. 1: 193–216.
  • Cameron, Lynne and Robert Maslen. (Eds). 2010. Metaphor analysis: Research practice in applied linguistics, social sciences and the humanities. London: Equinox.
  • Campos-Pardillos, Miguel A. 2016. “Increasing metaphor awareness in legal English teaching”. ESP Today, 4(2): 165–183.
  • Carless, David. 2012. “Innovation in language teaching and learning”. In The encyclopedia of applied linguistics, ed. Carol A. Chapelle (1–4). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
  • Charteris-Black, Jonathan. 2004. Corpus approaches to critical metaphor analysis. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
  • Chen, Yi-Chen 2016. “Teaching figurative language to EFL learners: an evaluation of metaphoric mapping instruction”. The Language Learning Journal, 47(1): 49–63
  • Chen, Yi-Chen and Huei-ling Lai. 2013. “Teaching English idioms as metaphors through cognitive-oriented methods: A case in an EFL writing class”. English Language Teaching. 6(6): 13-20.
  • Chen, Yi-Chen and Huei-ling Lai. 2014. “The influence of cultural universality and specificity on EFL learners’ comprehension of metaphor and metonymy”. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 24(3): 312–336.
  • Cortés de los Ríos, María E. and María M. Sánchez2017. “Developing Business English students’ metaphorical competence in foreign language learning higher education contexts”. ES Review: Spanish Journal of English Studies, 38: 113–138.
  • Creswell John. W. 2003. Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
  • Danesi, Marcel. 1992. “Metaphorical competence in second language acquisition and second language teaching: The neglected dimension”. In Georgetown University round table on language and linguistics, ed. James E. Alans (489–515). Washington D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
  • Danesi, Marcel. 2008. “Conceptual errors in second-language learning”. In Cognitive approaches to pedagogical grammar: A volume in honour of René Dirven, Sabine De Knop and Teun De Rycker (231–256). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Doiz, Aintzane and Carmen Elizari. 2013. “Metaphoric competence and the acquisition of figurative vocabulary in foreign language learning”. Estudios de Lingüística Inglesa Aplicada, 13: 47–82.
  • Ekman, Paul. 1995. “Strong evidence for universals in facial expressions: A reply to Ruissell’s mistaken critique”. Pyschological Bulletin, 15: 268–287.
  • Fauconnier, Gilles. 1994. Mental Spaces. Aspects of meaning construction in natural language. 2nd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Forceville, Charles. 2017. “Visual and multimodal metaphor in advertising: cultural perspectives”. Styles of Communication, 9(2): 26–41.
  • Forceville, Charlesand Eduardo Urios-Aparisi, (Eds.), 2009. Multimodal metaphor. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Goatly, Andrew. 2011. The language of metaphors. 2nd edition. New York: Routledge.
  • Grady, Joseph E. 1997. Theories are buildings revisited. Cognitive Linguistics, 8.3: 267–290.
  • Kömür, Şevki and Şeyda Selen Çimen 2009. “Using conceptual metaphors in teaching idioms in a foreign language context”. Sosyal Bilimler Enstitütu Dergisi, 23: 205–222.
  • Kövecses, Zoltán 2000. Metaphor and emotion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Kövecses, Zoltán, Veronika Szelid, Eszter Nucz, Olga Blanco-Carrión, Elif Arica Akkök and RékaSzabó. 2016. “Anger metaphors across languages: A cognitive linguistic perspective”. In Bilingual figurative language processing, Roberto R. Heredia and Anna B. Cieślicka (341–367). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Kövecses, Zoltán. 2005. Metaphor in culture. Universality and variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Kövecses, Zoltán. 1990, Emotion concepts. Berlin/NY: Springer.
  • Kövecses, Zoltán. 2000. Metaphor and emotion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Kövecses, Zoltán. 2010. Metaphor: A practical introduction. 2nd edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Lakoff, George and Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
  • Lakoff, George and Mark Johnson. 1999. Philosophy in the flesh. The embodied mind and its challenge to western thought. New York: Basic Books.
  • Lakoff, George and Mark Turner. 1989. More than cool reason: A field guide to poetic metaphor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press
  • Lakoff, George. 1990. “The invariance hypothesis: Is abstract reason based on image-schemas?” Cognitive Linguistics, 1(1): 39–74.
  • Lakoff, George. 1993. “The contemporary theory of metaphor”. In Metaphor and thought, ed. Andrew Ortony (202-251). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Lakoff, George. 1996. Moral politics: What conservatives know that liberals don’t. Chicago: University of Chicago Press
  • Littlemore, Jeannette and Graham Low. 2006a. “Metaphoric competence, second language learning, and communicative language ability”. Applied Linguistics, (27)2: 268–294.
  • Littlemore, Jeannette and Graham Low. 2006b. Figurative thinking and foreign language learning. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
  • Littlemore, Jeannette. 2009. Applying cognitive linguistics to second language learning and teaching. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
  • Marika Kalyuga and Kalyuga Slava. 2008. “Metaphor awareness in teaching vocabulary”. The Language Learning Journal, 36: 249–257.
  • McQuarrie, Edward F. and Barbara Phillips. 2005. “Indirect persuasion in advertising: How consumers process metaphors presented in pictures and words”. Journal of Advertising, 34(2): 7–20
  • Musolff, Andreas. 2016. Political metaphor analysis. Discourse and scenarios. London/New York: Bloomsbury.
  • Navarro, Ignasi. 2017. “Conceptual metaphor types in oncology: Cognitive and communicative functions”. Ibérica, 34: 163–186.
  • Navarro, Ignasi. 2019. (Ed.) Current approaches to metaphor analysis in discourse. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Pérez-Sobrino, Paula. 2017. Multimodal metaphor and metonymy in advertising. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Piquer-Píriz, Ana M and Rafael Alejo. 2016. “Applying cognitive linguistics: Identifying some current research foci (figurative language in use, constructions and typology)”. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 14(1): 1–20.
  • Piquer-Píriz, Ana M. 2008. “Reasoning figuratively in early EFL: Some implications for the development of vocabulary”. In Cognitive linguistic approaches to teaching vocabulary and phraseology, eds. Frank Boers and Seth Lindstromberg (219–240). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Porte, Graeme K. 2010. Appraising research in second language learning. A practical approach to critical analysis of quantitative research. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Ruiz de Mendoza, Francisco. J. 1998. “On the nature of blending as a cognitive phenomenon”. Journal of Pragmatics, 30(3): 259–274.
  • Ruiz de Mendoza, Francisco. J. and Francisco Santibáñez. 2003. “Content and formal cognitive operations in construing meaning”. Italian Journal of Linguistics, 15(2): 293–320.
  • Sanz, Maria. 2015. Teaching lexicon through metaphors. Master’s thesis, Universitat Jaume I, Castelló, Spain. http://hdl.handle.net/10234/144586
  • Semino, Elena, Zsófia Demjén and Jane Demmen. 2016. “An integrated approach to metaphor and framing in cognition, discourse, and practice, with an application to metaphors for cancer”. Applied Linguistics, 39(5): 625–645.
  • Semino, Elena. 2008. Metaphor in discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Silvestre-López, Antonio-José and Ignasi Navarro. 2017. “Metaphors in the conceptualization of meditative practices”. Metaphor and the Social World, 7(1): 26–46.
  • Skoufaki, Sophia. 2008. “Conceptual metaphoric meaning clues in two idiom presentation methods2. In Cognitive linguistic approaches to teaching vocabulary and phraseology, eds. Frank Boers and Seth Lindstromberg (101–132). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Steen, Gerard J. 2011. “The contemporary theory of metaphor—now new and improved!”. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 9(1): 24–64.
  • Thyer, Bruce A. 2012. Quasi-experimental research designs. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Turner, Mark. 1990. Aspects of the invariance hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics, 1(2): 247–55.
  • Velasco-Sacristán, Marisol 2004. “Metaphor and ESP: Metaphor as a useful device for teaching L2 business English learners”. Ibérica, 10, 115–131.
  • Velasco-Sacristán, Marisol 2009. “A translation approach to metaphor teaching in the LSP classroom: Sample exercises from a business English syllabus”. Ibérica, 17: 83–98.
La source de données: Dialnet