| . |
. |
. |
|
Metaphors
We Can Learn By:
|
|
|
How
insights from cognitive linguistic research can improve the teaching/learning of
figurative language.
|
|
|
One of the many problems in the
teaching/learning of a foreign language is the acquisition of competence in the area of
figurative language. All aspects of figurativeness (metaphor, idiomaticity, and semantic
extension) seem to present difficulty for learners. The ability to grasp expressions like
"She cast a spell over me" is considered characteristic of advanced stages of
language competence. Most textbooks skirt the issue of figurativeness and concentrate on
the denotative aspects of language. Although some idiomatic phrases are usually included
in first-level coursebooks, they are usually presented as exceptions to the rule, things
to be learned very often as fixed expressions and to be used in specific contextual
situations. In later phases, work on figurativeness is suggested through reading and
vocabulary building exercises, and students are often referred to specialized learner
dictionaries of idioms, phrasal verbs, etc. It is common that intensive work on the
figurative use of language is left to courses on literature, and metaphor especially is
tackled through the presentation of literary texts.
|
|
|
Underlying this common practice in L2 is the
long-held philosophical and linguistic conviction of a strong distinction between the two
levels of language: literal and figurative . In the tradition of classical
rhetoric, the primary aim of language is considered to be the description of the world,
the transparent representation of the facts of reality. Any other usage is a departure
from the ordinary mode of language. Language which means (or intends to mean) what it
says, and which uses words in their "standard sense," derived from the common
practice of ordinary speakers of the language, is said to be literal. Figurative language
is language which doesn't mean what it says. When Shelley writes in Love's Philosophy
:
|
|
|
See the mountains kiss high heaven
|
|
|
And the waves clasp one another;
|
|
|
he manipulates language for poetic effects,
since mountains do not kiss and waves do not embrace. He transfers the terms of one object
to another, by attributing the qualities of human beings (kissing and embracing) to
elements of nature (sea and mountains). Figurative language then is considered to be a
principle of poetry, distinct from ordinary language, useful for the purpose of special,
ornamental, aesthetic effects. In a certain sense figurative language is seen to
deliberately interfere with the system of literal usage. (See Hawkes 1972.)
|
|
|
Rethinking the classical distinction
|
|
|
It is important for applied linguists,
foreign-language teachers, materials writers, etc., to be aware of the fact that recent
trends in contemporary linguistics have questioned this premise. Where do we draw the line
between literalness and figurativeness in expressions like the following: (see Footnote 1 )
|
|
|
- Those are high stakes.
- He's bluffing.
- He's holding all the aces.
- The odds are against me.
- That's the luck of the draw.
|
|
|
Example 5 is obviously a very figurative way of
speaking. Sentences 1 and 2 would probably be accepted as quasi-literal due to their
simple syntactic structure and to their frequency in everyday usage. Sentences 3 and 4
could be judged somewhat in- between. Yet on closer look, all five sentences use idiomatic
expressions.
|
|
|
The awareness of the necessity to rethink the
classical distinction between the literal and figurative levels of meaning has come from
various directions. Many experiments in psychology have demonstrated that the mind
activates the same strategies in the processing of both literal and figurative meaning
(Ortony 1979). Studies in linguistics, in psycholinguistics, in philosophy, in semiotics,
and in literary semantics have all demonstrated that the understanding of what constitutes
figurativeness is extremely complex, leading to the suggestion that the literal and
figurative levels of language are far less distinguishable than previously thought.(See
Ortony 1979)
|
|
|
The most convincing contribution to this
question comes from the area of cognitive linguistics. One of its major theorists, Ronald
Langacker, has argued that syntax is not autonomous, that grammar is symbolic in nature,
that there is little distinction between grammar and lexicon, and that semantic structure
is not universal but language specific. One of the questions that stimulated a cognitive
approach to language description was the problem of figurativeness. Noting that figurative
language is generally ignored in current linguistic theory, Langacker (1987:1) observed:
|
|
|
It would be hard to find
anything more pervasive andfundamental in language, even (I maintain) in the domain
ofgrammatical structure; if figurative language weresystematically eliminated from our
data base, little if anydata would remain. We therefore need a way of conceiving
anddescribing grammatical structure that accommodates figurativelanguage as a natural,
expected phenomenon rather than aspecial, problematic one. An adequate conceptual
framework forlinguistic analysis should view figurative language not as aproblem but as
part of the solution.
|
|
|
If we accept this premise, that is, if we admit
that figurativeness is a natural and common phenomenon in language, then all L2 programs
must give ample space to aspects of idiomaticity, polysemy, semantic extension, and the
metaphorical traditions and potentialities of the target language.
|
|
|
Now, although the theoretical aspects of
cognitive grammar may be of little interest to classroom teachers, there is one area that
I am sure they will find particularly stimulating. This is the work that the American
linguist George Lakoff has done on metaphor. One of his most popular efforts was a
collaboration with the philosopher Mark Johnson entitled Metaphors We Live By
(1980). In this seminal study, Lakoff and Johnson undermine the very basis of the
literal/figurative distinction in language. They demonstrate that metaphor is not a
"special" use of language but pervades all interaction. They claim that metaphor
in language is the result of the analogical nature of human conceptualization: "Our
ordinary conceptual system, in terms of which we think and act, is fundamentally
metaphorical in nature." Metaphor is possible in language because it is present in
the mind. To demonstrate this, Lakoff and Johnson take the concept ARGUMENT and note that
it is often described in English in terms of WAR.
|
|
|
Your claims are indefensible .
|
|
|
He attacked every weak point in my
argument.
|
|
|
His criticisms were right on target
.
|
|
|
I demolished his argument.
|
|
|
I've never won an argument with
him.
|
|
|
You disagree? Okay, shoot !
|
|
|
If you use that strategy , he'll wipe
you out . He shot down all of my arguments.
|
|
|
The words in *italics* all refer to the semantic
domain of war, not arguments. The war lexemes are transferred to the domain of argument.
When confronted with this phenomenon, we often speak of figurative use, but this use is
not necessarily "special" but pervades everyday language. Moreover, when an
analogy is productive, i.e., when we have a multitude of expressions which derive from the
same analogy, we can identify a cognitive metaphor in this case ARGUMENT IS WAR.
|
|
|
To return to the examples reported above
"Those are high stakes, "He's bluffing, "
"He's holding all the aces, " "The odds are against me,
" and "That's the luck of the draw, " Lakoff and Johnson
suggest that they are expressions which emerge from the same cognitive metaphor, i.e.,
LIFE IS A GAMBLING GAME. In other words, we talk about life in terms of games of cards,
luck, and stakes though there is no reason why we should necessarily speak of life in this
way. From the cognitive metaphor LIFE IS A GAMBLING GAME we can derive a variety of
expressions as if there existed a continuum of figurativeness made possible because of the
original conceptual metaphor.
|
|
|
Implications for language teaching
|
|
|
What kind of insight does this theory give us
for language teaching?
|
|
|
First of all, if figurativeness is a natural,
expected phenomenon of language, pervasive in everyday interaction, then it should be an
important part of EFL curricula. Metaphor should not be excluded or postponed or relegated
to special ad hoc exercises, but be integrated into the method and materials of the course
from the very beginning.
|
|
|
Secondly, the awareness of cognitive metaphor
would give us a more solid and comprehensive tool for the teaching/ learning of figurative
expressions. I am sure that many teachers have grappled with various techniques
(explanations, translations, parallels, paraphrases, references to context, etc.) to
explain expressions as these:
|
|
|
We hit a peak last year, but it's
been downhill ever since.
|
|
|
Things are at an all-time low .
|
|
|
He does high -quality work.
|
|
|
Would it not be easier to present the metaphor
suggested by Lakoff and Johnson:
|
|
|
GOOD IS UP / BAD IS DOWN,
|
|
|
explaining to students that we think sometimes
in terms of orientational metaphors? In Western culture, happiness, health, success, and
normal daily activities are linguistically expressed in terms of UP, while negative
aspects of life are expressed in terms of DOWN. Would that not be a faster way to help
students understand expressions like "He fell ill," "He's
feeling down ," "He's depressed ," "He's
in top shape," "He's flying high ," or even a
simple "He got up "? Expressions which are normally taught as
fixed phrases ("get up "), whether by structural or communicative
practice, could be inserted into sets of expressions coherently structured by an organic
cognitive metaphor.
|
|
|
I have experimented using cognitive metaphors as
a starting point for language practice with intermediate-level students. For example, I
have tried the following exercise:
|
|
|
Underline all the expressions
in the following sentences whichrefer to the conceptual metaphor.
|
|
|
He's holding all the aces.
|
|
|
If you play your cards
right, you can do it.
|
|
|
Where is he when the chips
are down.
|
|
|
That's my ace in the hole.
|
|
|
Maybe we need to sweeten
the pot.
|
|
|
I think we should stand
pat.
|
|
|
That's the luck of the
draw.
|
|
|
The students had no trouble identifying the
relevant lexical items. Moreover, when given a reading passage with other expressions
relating to the same metaphor, decoding seemed to be more rapid and comprehension more
precise.
|
|
|
Thirdly, this approach is highly motivating.
Imagine adolescents who are asked to work with the metaphors concerning the concept LOVE.
For example, I have experimented successfully with exercises like the following:
|
|
|
Exercise I There are many
ways of conceptualizing LOVE.
|
|
|
- LOVE IS A MAGNET.
- LOVE IS MAGIC.
- LOVE IS WAR.
- LOVE IS MADNESS.
- LOVE IS A PATIENT.
|
|
|
In the following examples, identify the
metaphor that structuresthe expression:
1. |
I'm crazy about her. |
__d_ |
| (Answer: LOVE IS MADNESS) |
|
2. |
I was spellbound. |
____ |
3. |
Their marriage is on its last legs. |
____ |
4. |
I could feel the electricity between us. |
____ |
5. |
He fled from her advances. |
____ |
|
|
|
Exercise II: Look at the
expressions in the English language often used todescribe love which stem from the
metaphor LOVE IS WAR.
|
|
|
He is known for his many rapid conquests
.
|
|
|
He fought for her, and in time
they got married.
|
|
|
He fled from her advances
.
|
|
|
She pursued him relentlessly
.
|
|
|
He is slowly gaining ground with
her.
|
|
|
He won her hand in marriage.
|
|
|
She is beseiged by suitors.
|
|
|
He enlisted the aid of her
friends.
|
|
|
He made an ally of her mother.
|
|
|
Theirs is a misalliance if I've
ever seen one.
|
|
|
Do you have the same expressions in your
language? Does yourlanguage have many similar expressions? What are they? Do you thinkthat
the metaphor LOVE IS WAR is universal? Do you think that themetaphor is more productive in
your language or in the Englishlanguage? etc.
|
|
|
Teaching culture-specific differences
|
|
|
This strategy has a further advantage of
introducing students to the culture-specific differences in language. Naturally all
languages are rich in metaphor, but metaphors may be different across cultures. Since
metaphoricity is deeply rooted in the culture of a people, it is representative of how a
given community cognizes reality, how a way of thinking evolved into specific traditions
and social practices.
|
|
|
An interesting study in this direction has come
from the Japanese linguist Masako Hiraga (1991), who has provided a detailed analysis of
some differences between the Japanese and American cultures within the framework of
cognitive metaphor theory. She has demonstrated that there are four possible combinations
when comparing the metaphors of two cultures. The two cultures can have:
|
|
|
- similar concepts, represented in similar expressions;
- similar concepts, represented in different expressions;
- similar expressions which do not however share the same metaphorical concept; or
- different metaphorical concepts and different metaphorical expressions.
|
|
|
Below are examples taken from Hiraga for all
four types of comparison:
|
|
|
1. In both America and Japan TIME IS MONEY as in
the shared expressions:
|
|
|
- You're wasting my time. Kimi-wa boku-no jikan-o roohishi-te i-ru
.
- He's living on borrowed time. Jikan- o kari-te iki-te-i-ru
yoona mono da.
- That flat tire cost me an hour. Sono panku-ni ichijikan kakat-ta
.
|
|
|
2. The metaphor LIFE IS A GAME becomes LIFE IS A
BASEBALL GAME in the United States, and LIFE IS A SUMO GAME in Japan.
|
|
|
In English we have the expressions:
|
|
|
- Right off the bat , he asked me my age.
- You are way off base in criticizing the boss.
|
|
|
Japanese provides the following examples:
|
|
|
- Ano seijika-wa nanigoto-ni tsuketemo nebari-goshi-garu. (Literally:
That politician has a sticky back about everything. Figuratively: That politician has a
lot of grit.)
- Shinya-ni hait-te, suto-no rooshi kooshoo-ni mizu-ga hait-ta.
(Literally: After midnight, water was brought into the negotiations between labor and
management. Figuratively: After midnight there was a breakdown in the negotiations between
labor and management.)
|
|
|
3. In English, SWEET IS GOOD, SOUR IS BAD, but
in Japanese, AMAI (sweet) IS BAD.
|
|
|
- You are sweet .
- What sweet music.
- The car turned out to be a real lemon .
- That's only sour grapes.
|
|
|
- Aitsu-wa amai . (That guy [ pejorative ] is sweet, meaning,
That guy is immature, spoiled, or a pushover.)
- Ano sensei-no saiten-wa amai . (That teacher is sweet in grading,
meaning, That teacher is an easy grader.)
|
|
|
Hiraga warns us that careful attention should be
paid to this type of comparison (same expression but different metaphorical meaning) since
failure to recognize it may result in miscommunication.
|
|
|
4. In English IDEAS ARE IN THE MIND. In Japanese
IDEAS ARE IN HARA (belly).
|
|
|
- I'll keep your opinion in mind .
- Do you have any idea in mind .
- He couldn't make up his mind .
|
|
|
- Hayaku hara-o kime-nasai . (Decide your belly quickly,
meaning, Make up your mind quickly.)
- Hara-o kukut-te irasshai . (Please come with your belly closed,
meaning, Please come with your mind made up.)
|
|
|
Some of my students who were given Hiraga's
typology produced
| English: |
I'm crazy about you. |
| Italian: |
Sono pazzo di te. |
| French: |
Je suis fou de toi. |
examples of cultural similarity:
|
|
|
and of cultural differences:
a. |
English: |
That is completely beside the point. |
|
Italian: |
Quello come il cavolo a merenda. (That's like having cabbage at
snacktime.) |
b. |
English: |
To bring grist to one's mill. |
|
German: |
Das Wasser auf seine M hle leiten. (To draw water to one's mill.) |
|
Italian: |
Tirare l'acqua al proprio mulino. (To draw water to one's mill.) |
|
|
|
This last example is interesting since it shows
how a metaphorical concept can sometimes activate the same linguistic expressions as in
the case of German and Italian ( water to the mill ), but sometimes activate
only one term of the analogy ( grist to the mill ). (See Footnote 2 )
|
|
|
Searching for metaphor in texts
|
|
|
Once introduced to the idea of metaphor as a
system, students can then be taught to search for coherent, structuring patterns in texts.
Examples have been given for English literary texts by D. Freeman (1992), M. Freeman
(1992), Deane (1992), and Barcellona (1992). (See Hiraga and Williams 1992.)
|
|
|
Barcellona has given us an analysis of cognitive
metaphor in Romeo and Juliet . Beginning with an identification in this
Shakespearean play of those metaphors which constitute a typical model of love, LOVE IS
FOOD, LOVE IS WAR, LOVE IS A VALUABLE COMMODITY, etc., he goes on to demonstrate the
relationship of metaphor variation to character delineation. Therefore, for Romeo, besides
the classical universal love metaphors, we also find UNREQUITED LOVE IS WAR, whereas for
Juliet, we find LOVE IS A DIVINE NEED. An expansion of the metaphorical range is
determined by constructing novel metaphors on the basic analogical structure, so that we
find extensions like LOVE IS A BIRD, or LOVE IS A PRISON. Students can capture here an
insight into some aspects of the specificity of poetic metaphor, which emerges from the
extension of the range of associations and the combination of unexpected analogies to
create "something new." What is significant in this analysis is that the sets of
metaphors conventional, character specific, or novel are not presented as casual
occurrences but as part of a coherently structured metaphorical pattern.
|
|
|
Non-literary texts may be also approached
through this technique. For example, let us take a look at the magazine advertisment on
page 6, taken from New Woman , September 1992, p. 149.
|
|
|
Its significance rests on the so-called
"birth metaphor" identified by Lakoff and Johnson (1980). For some reason we
speak of nations in terms of birth. That is why the authors of the United States
Constitution are called fathers, the "Founding Fathers." Fathers are supposed to
support their children. Therefore, if many American children are undernourished, as
claimed in (an) advertisement of the Children's Defense Fund, then the country is not
"fathering," or doing its duty. That is why the text can be headlined: These
Fathers Are Behind in Their Child Support. The birth metaphor functions as a kind of frame
for the text. The message would be incomprehensible to any reader who is not able to
activate the birth metaphor and to understand its connection with the history of the
United States. This is a prime example of how necessary it is to understand metaphoricity
and especially its culture-specific connotations in order to correctly interpret even
simple everyday texts.
|
|
|
In its search to describe phenomena hitherto
neglected in linguistic analysis, cognitive linguistics has provided some useful insights
into the relationship between thought, language, and reality. It has also suggested some
fruitful ways of searching for language data which can provide a clearer understanding of
the nature of language structure and use, as this discussion has tried to demonstrate.
More significantly, it has posed serious questions to linguists. It has made us aware that
the essence of language is not form or structure as emphasized by both the structuralist
or generative grammar schools. It lies closer to the heart of semantics. The cognitive
turn in linguistics has shifted attention to problems of meaning, idiomaticity, and
metaphoricity in language. For teachers of foreign languages, these insights may be useful
for traditional hurdles in language teaching and learning, and may provide more efficient
and creative ways of presenting English language data to learners from other cultures.
|
|
|
- Barcellona, A. 1992. Romeo and Juliet's love. Paper presented to the XVth International
Congress of Linguists, Universit de Laval, Qu bec, August 1992.
- Deane, P. 1992. Metaphors of center and periphery in Yeats's The Second Coming. Paper
presented to the XVth International Congress of Linguists, Universit de Laval, Qu bec,
August 1992.
- Freeman, D. 1992. Catching the nearest way: Path and container metaphors in Macbeth.
Paper presented to the XVth International Congress of Linguists, Universit de Laval, Qu
bec, August 1992.
- Freeman, M. 1992. Metaphor making meaning: Dickinson's conceptual universe. Paper
presented to the XVth International Congress of Linguists, Universit de Laval, Qu bec,
August 1992.
- Hawkes, T. 1972 Metaphor. London: Methuen.
- Hiraga, Masako. 1991. Metaphor and comparative cultures. In Cross- cultural
communication: East and west, vol. III., ed. P. Fendos. Taiwan: National Cheng-Kung
University.
- Hiraga, M. and J. Williams. 1992. Metaphor and the poetic text. Panel presented at the
XVth International Congress of Linguists, Universit de Laval, Qu bec, August 1992.
- Lakoff, G. and M. Johnson. 1980. Metaphors we live by. New York and Chicago: Chicago
University Press.
- Langacker, R. 1987. Foundations of cognitive linguistics. Stanford, California: Stanford
University Press.
- Ortony, A., ed. 1979. Metaphor and thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.}
|
|
Footnote 1
| 1. Most of the examples in this article are
taken directly from Lakoff and Johnson 1980. |
Footnote 2
| 2. I would like to thank Prof. Gregorio Costa
of the University of Molise, Italy, for directing my attention to this point. |
Back to Article
|
. |
. |