Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

European Journal of Applied Linguistics

Founded by Knapp, Karlfried

Editor-in-Chief: Bührig, Kristin / ten Thije, Jan D.


Agenzia Nazionale di Valutazione del Sistema Universitario e della Ricerca: Classe A

Online
ISSN
2192-953X
See all formats and pricing
More options …

Teaching Conceptual Metaphors to EFL Learners in the European Space of Higher Education

Regina Gutiérrez Pérez
  • Corresponding author
  • Pablo de Olavide University – Philology and Translation Department, Ctra. Utrera, km.1, Sevilla 41013, SpainSpain
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
Published Online: 2016-01-27 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/eujal-2015-0036

Abstract

The CEFR encourages a more effective international communication. Given that effective communication in a L2 involves the ability to use metaphors, this figure becomes of prime importance to the teaching of languages. The present study applies a methodology for teaching English metaphors and idioms following the tenets of Cognitive Linguistics (CL). It argues the importance of “metaphoric competence”, and, by a conceptual metaphor awareness method, it advocates the usefulness of teaching metaphors and idioms and its explicit inclusion in a language syllabus aimed at increasing proficiency in L2. This conceptual basis for language is almost entirely unavailable to L2 learners in course books and reference materials. This paper reviews the scope of metaphor and metaphoric competence in the context of second-language teaching and learning, and provides some tips on how to teach metaphors and idioms effectively in a foreign language context. By analizing the systematicity and experiential basis of the expressions subject of study, it offers some pedagogical suggestions and teaching material that can facilitate the acquisition of idiomatic expressions by raising awareness of the conceptual metaphors that underlie them.

Zusammenfassung

Der GER fördert eine effektivere internationale Kommunikation. Da die effektive Kommunikation in einer L2 beinhaltet die Fähigkeit, Metaphern zu verwenden, wird diese Figur von höchster Bedeutung für den Sprachunterricht. Die vorliegende Studie legt eine Methodik für das Unterrichten von Englischen Metaphern und Idiome nach den Grundsätzen der Kognitiven Linguistik (KL). Es wird argumentiert, die Bedeutung der “metaphorischen Kompetenz”, und, durch eine konzeptuelle Metapher Bewusstsein Methode, es befürwortet den Nutzen der Lehr Metaphern und Idiome und ihre ausdrückliche Einbeziehung in einer Sprache Lehrplan bei zunehmenden Kenntnisse in L2 ausgerichtet. Diese konzeptionelle Grundlage für die Sprache ist fast vollständig nicht verfügbar L2 Lernende in Kurs Bücher und Referenzmaterialien. In diesem Papier werden den Umfang der Metapher und metaphorische Kompetenz im Rahmen der zweiten Sprache Lehren und Lernen, und bietet ein paar Tipps, wie man Metaphern und Idiome effektiv in einer Fremdsprache Kontext zu lehren. Durch die Analyse der Systematik un experimenteller Basis der Ausdrücke Thema der Studie, bietet es einige pädagogische Anregungen und Unterrichtsmaterialien, die zu erleichtern können der Erwerb der Redewendungen durch Sensibilisierung der konzeptuelle Metaphern, die ihnen zugrunde liegen.

Resumen

El MCER promueve una comunicación internacional más efectiva. Dado que una comunicación efectiva en una L2 conlleva la habilidad de usar metáforas, esta figura es de suma importancia para la enseñanza de las lenguas. El presente estudio aplica una metodología para enseñar metáforas y modismos ingleses siguiendo los principios de la Lingüística Cognitiva (CL). Argumenta la importancia de la “competencia metafórica” y, a través de un método de concienciación sobre la metáfora conceptual, aboga por su utilidad en la enseñanza de lenguas y su explícita integración en un temario de lengua que tiene como objetivo aumentar el dominio de una L2. Este artículo revisa el ámbito de la metáfora y de la competencia metafórica en el contexto de enseñanza y aprendizaje de una segunda lengua, y proporciona algunas indicaciones sobre cómo enseñar metáforas y modismos de una manera eficaz en un contexto de lengua extranjera. A través del análisis de la sistematicidad y la base experiencial de las expresiones objeto de estudio, ofrece algunas sugerencias pedagógicas y material docente que facilita la adquisición de expresiones idiomáticas despertando conciencia sobre las metáforas conceptuales que subyacen en ellas.

Keywords: Cognitive Linguistics (CL); Conceptual Metaphor; Metaphoric Competence; Idioms; Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR).

Stichwörter: Kognitive Linguistik (KL); konzeptuelle Metapher; metaphorische Kompetenz; Idiome; Gemeinsamen Europäischen Referenzrahmen für Sprachen (GER).

Palabras clave: Lingüística cognitiva (CL); metáfora conceptual; competencia metafórica; modismos; Marco común europeo de referencia para las lenguas (MCER).

References

  • Achard, M. and Niemeier, S. (eds.). 2004. Cognitive Linguistics, Second Language Acquisition, and Foreign Language Teaching. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Andreou, G. and Galantomos, L. 2008a. Designing a conceptual syllabus for teaching metaphors and idioms in a foreign language context. Porta Linguarum, 9: 69–77.Google Scholar

  • Andreou, G. and Galantomos, L. 2008b. Teaching idioms in a foreign language context: preliminary comments on factors determining Greek idiom instruction. Metaphorik.de, 15: 7–26.Google Scholar

  • Amaya Chávez, E. and MacArthur, F. 2006. Analysis of the treatment of the polysemous senses of hand, cool, and run in twenty-four EFL text books. Paper presented at RaAM 6, Researching and Applying Metaphor: Ten Years On. Leeds, UK.Google Scholar

  • Barcelona, A. 2000. Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads: A Cognitive Perspective. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Beréndi, M. 2005. Metaphor in Vocabulary Teaching. A Cognitive Linguistc Approach. Unpublised doctoral thesis. Pécs: JPTE.Google Scholar

  • Beréndi, M. 2006. Metaphors in Foreign Language Teaching. In R. Benczes and S. Csábi (eds.), The Metaphors of Sixty. Papers Presented on the Occasion of the 60th Birthday of Zoltán Kövecses (pp. 62–70). Budapest: ELTE.Google Scholar

  • Beréndi, M., Csábi, S. and Kövecses, Z. 2008. Using conceptual metaphors and metonymies in vocabulary teaching. In F. Boers and S. Lindstromberg (eds.), Cognitive Linguistic Approaches to Teaching Vocabulary and Phraseology (pp. 65–100). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Boers, F. 1997. “No Pain, No Gain” in a Free Market Rhetoric: A Test for Cognitive Semantics? Metaphor and Symbol, 12/4: 231–241.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Boers, F. 2000a. Metaphor Awareness and Vocabulary Retention. Applied Linguistic, 21.4: 553–571.Google Scholar

  • Boers, F. 2000b. Enhancing metaphoric awareness in specialized reading. English for Specific Purposes, 19: 137–147.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Boers, F. 2003. Applied linguistics perspectives on cross-cultural variation in conceptual metaphor. Metaphor and Symbol, 18.4: 231–238.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Boers, F. and Demecheleer, M. 1997. A Few Metaphorical Models in (Western) Economic Discourse. ELT Journal, 52.3: 197–204.Google Scholar

  • Boers, F. and Demecheleer, M. 1998. A Cognitive Semantic Approach to Teaching Prepositions. ELT Journal, 52.3: 197–204.Google Scholar

  • Boers, F. and Lindstromberg, S. 2008. How cognitive linguistics can foster effective vocabulary teaching”. In F. Boers and S. Lindstromberg (eds.), Cognitive Linguistic Approaches to Teaching Vocabulary and Phraseology (pp. 1–61). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Brugman, C. 1983. The Story of Over: Polysemy, Semantics, and the Structure of the Lexicon. Trier: LAUT.Google Scholar

  • Cameron, L. and Low, G. 1999. Metaphor. Language Teaching, 32: 77–96.Google Scholar

  • Charteris-Black, J. 2000. Metaphor and Vocabulary Teaching in ESP Economics. English for Specific Purposes, 19: 149–165.Google Scholar

  • Charteris-Black, J. 2002. Second language figurative proficiency: A comparative study of Malay and English. Applied Linguistics, 23(1): 104–133.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Cooper, T. C. 1999. Processing of Idioms by L2 Learners of English. Tesol Quarterly, 32/2: 233–262.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Cornell, A.1999. Idioms: an approach to identifying major pitfalls for learners. IRAL, 37.1: 1–21.Google Scholar

  • Council of Europe. 2001. Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar

  • Cowie, A. et al. 1993. Oxford Dictionary of English Idioms. Oxford: Oxford UP.Google Scholar

  • Csábi, S. 2004. A Cognitive Linguistic View of Polysemy in English and its Implications for Teaching. In M. Achard and S. Niemeier (eds.), Cognitive linguistics, second language acquisition, and foreign language teaching (pp. 233–256). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Danesi, M. 1986. The Role of Metaphor in Second Language Pedagogy. Rassegna Italiana di Linguistica Applicata, 18.3: 1–10.Google Scholar

  • Danesi, M. 1992a. Metaphor and Classroom Second Language Learning. Romance Language Annual, 3: 189–194.Google Scholar

  • Danesi, M. 1992b. Metaphorical Competence in Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Teaching. In J.E Alatis (ed.) Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics (pp. 489–500). Washington, D.C: Georgetown UP.Google Scholar

  • Danesi, M. 1995. Learning and teaching languages: The role of ‘conceptual fluency. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 5.1: 3–20.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Danesi, M. 2004. Metáfora, pensamiento y lenguaje. Sevilla: Kronos.Google Scholar

  • Deignan, A., Gabrys, D. and Solska, A. 1997. Teaching English Metaphors Using Crosslinguistic Awareness-Raising Activities. ELT Journal, 51.4: 352–360.Google Scholar

  • Dirven, R. 1981. Metaphors of spatial relations. In J. Hasler (ed.), Anglistentag Trier 1981 (pp. 63–91). Frankfurt: Lang.Google Scholar

  • Dobrovol’skij, D. 1995. Kognitive Aspekte der Idiom-Semantik. Studien zum Thesaurus deutscher Idiome. Tubinga: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar

  • Fernando, C. 1996. Idioms and idiomaticity. Oxford: Oxford UP.Google Scholar

  • Glynn, D. 2009. Polysemy, syntax, and variation: A usage-based method for Cognitive Semantics. In V. Evans and S. Pourcel (eds.), New directions in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 77–104). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Gutiérrez Pérez, R. 2008. A Cross-Cultural Analysis of Heart Metaphors. Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses, 21: 25–56.Google Scholar

  • Gutiérrez Pérez, R. 2010. Estudio cognitivo-contrastivo de las metáforas del cuerpo. Análisis empírico del corazón como dominio fuente en inglés, francés, español, alemán e italiano. Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main.Google Scholar

  • Herrera, H. and White, M. 2000.Cognitive Linguistics and the Language Learning Process: A Case from Economics. Estudios Ingleses de la Universidad Complutense, 8: 55–78.Google Scholar

  • Kömür, S. and Cimen, S. 2009. Using conceptual metaphors in teaching idioms in a foreign language context. ILKE, 205–222.Google Scholar

  • Kövecses, Z. 2000. Metaphor and Emotion. Language, culture and body in human feeling. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar

  • Kövecses, Z. 2001. A cognitive linguistcs view of learning idioms in an FLT context. In M. Piitz and R. Dirven (eds.), Applied Cognitive Linguistics II: Language Pedagogy (pp. 87–116). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Kövecses, Z. 2002. Metaphor: A practical introduction. Oxford: Oxford UP.Google Scholar

  • Kövecses, Z. 2005. Metaphor in Culture. Universality and Variation. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar

  • Kövecses, Z. and Peter Szabó 1996: Idioms: A View from Cognitive Semantics. Applied Linguistics 17.3: 326–355.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: Chicago UP.Google Scholar

  • Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M. 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar

  • Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M. 1993 [1979]. The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (ed.), Metaphor and Thought, 2nd edn. (pp. 202–251). Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar

  • Lazar, G. 1996. Using Figurative Language to Expand Students’ Vocabulary. ELT Journal 50.1: 43–51.Google Scholar

  • Lazar, G. 2003. Meanings and Metaphors. Activities to Practise Figurative Language. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.Google Scholar

  • Lindner, S. 1983. A Lexico-Semantic Analysis of English Verb-Particle Constructions. LAUT: Trier.Google Scholar

  • Lindstromberg, S. 1997. English Prepositions Explained. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Low, G. 1988. On teaching metaphor. Applied Linguistcs, 9.2: 125–147.Google Scholar

  • Littlemore, J. 2001. Metaphoric Competence: A Language Learning Strength of Students With a Holistic Cognitive Style? TESOL Quarterly, 35.3: 459–491.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Littlemore, J. 2002. Developing metaphor interpretation strategies for students of economics: a case study. Les Cahiers de l’APLIUT, 22, 4: 40–60.Google Scholar

  • Littlemore, J. 2004a. The effect of cognitive style on vocabulary learning strategy preferences. Iberica, The Academic Journal of AELFE7: 5–32.Google Scholar

  • Littlemore, J. 2004b. What kind of training is required to help language students use metaphor-based strategies to work out the meaning of new vocabulary? Documentao de Estudos em Linguistica Teorica e Aplicada DELTA20 (2): 265–279.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Littlemore, J. 2004c. Interpreting metaphors in the language classroom. Les Cahiers de l’APLIUT23, 2, 57–70.Google Scholar

  • Littlemore, J. and Low, G. 2006a. Figurative Thinking and Foreign Language Learning. NewYork: Palgrave McMillan.Google Scholar

  • Littlemore, J. and Low, G. 2006b. Metaphoric Competence, Second Language Learning, and Communicative Language Ability. Applied Linguistics, 27.2: 268–294.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Martyniuk, W. 2006. Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment (CEFR) – a synopsis. Available at: http://lrc.cornell.edu/events/past/2005-2006/martyniuk.doc

  • MacLennan, C. 1994. Metaphors and prototypes in the learning teaching of grammar and vocabulary. IRAL 32/2: 97–110.Google Scholar

  • Moon, R. 1998. Fixed Expressions and Idioms in English. A Corpus-Based Approach. Oxford: Oxford UP.Google Scholar

  • Nacey, S. 2013. Metaphors in Learner English. John Benjamins: Amsterdam/ Philadelphia.Google Scholar

  • Ortony, A. 1993 [1979]. Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar

  • Ponterotto, D. 1994. Metaphors We Can Learn by. English Teaching Forum, 32.3: 2–7.Google Scholar

  • Radden, G. 1981. Die übertragenen Bedeutungen der englishen Raumpräpositionen. In G. Radden and R. Dirven (eds.), Kassusgrammatik und Fremdsprachendidaktik (pp. 133–179). Trier: Wissenschaftlicher.Google Scholar

  • Rahmani Samani, E. and Abad Branch, N. 2012. The Effect of Conceptual Metaphors on Learning Idioms by L2 Learners. International Journal of English Linguistics, 1: 2: 249–256.Google Scholar

  • Reddy, M. 1993 [1979]. The conduit metaphor. In A. Ortony (ed.), Metaphor and Thought (pp. 164–201). Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar

  • Rogers, A. 1986. Teaching Adults. Berkshire: Open UP.Google Scholar

  • Rosch, E. 1973. On the Internal Structure of Perceptual and Semantic Categories. In T. E. Moore, (ed.), Cognitive Development and the Acquisition of Language (pp. 111–144). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

  • Rosch, E. 1975. Cognitive representations in semantic categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 104: 192–233.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Rosch, E. 1977. Human categorization. In N. Warren, (ed.), Studies in Cross-Cultural Psychology. Vol. 1. (pp. 3–49). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

  • Rosch, E. 1978. Principles of categorization. In E. Rosch and B. B. Lloyd, (eds.), Cognition and Categorization (pp. 27–48). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

  • Rosch, E. and Mervis, C. 1975. Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology, 7: 573–605.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Rosch, E., Mervis, C., Gray, W., Johnson, D., and Boyes-Braem, P. 1976. Basic objects in natural categories. Cognitive Psychology, 8: 382–439.Google Scholar

  • Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. 1997. Metaphor, metonymy and conceptual interaction. ATLANTIS. Revista de la Asociación Española de Estudios Anglonorteamericanos, 19/1: 281–295.Google Scholar

  • Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. 2000. The role of mappings and domains in understanding metonymy. In A. Barcelona (ed.), Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads (pp. 109–132). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Rundell, M. and Fox, G. 2002. Macmillan English Dictionary Dictionary for Advanced Learners. Oxford: Macmillan Education.Google Scholar

  • Saville-Troike, M. 2006. Introducing Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.Google Scholar

  • Schmitt, N. 2000. Vocabulary in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.Google Scholar

  • Tyler, A. and Evans, V. 2004. Applying Cognitive Linguistics to Pedagogical Grammar: The Case of Over. M. Achard and Niemeier, S. (eds.), Cognitive Linguistics, Second Language Acquisition, and Foreign Language Teaching (pp. 257–280). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Vandeloise, C. 1984. L’Espace en Français. Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar

  • Wray, A. 1999. Formulaic language in learners and native speakers. Language Teaching, 32: 213–231.Google Scholar

  • Wray, A. 2000. Formulaic sequences in second language teaching: Principles and practice. Applied Linguistics, 21.4: 463–489.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Wright, J. 2002. Idioms organizer: Organized by metaphor, topic, and key word. Boston (MA), USA: Thomson.Google Scholar

About the article

Published Online: 2016-01-27

Published in Print: 2017-03-01


Citation Information: European Journal of Applied Linguistics, Volume 5, Issue 1, Pages 87–114, ISSN (Online) 2192-953X, ISSN (Print) 2192-9521, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/eujal-2015-0036.

Export Citation

© 2016 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston.Get Permission

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in