Contents
前言
Abstract
Chapter 1 General Introduction
1.1 Metaphorical Competence-A Neglected Dimension in Second
Language Pedagogy
1.2 Defining and Classifying Metaphor
1.3 Defining Metaphorical Competence
1.4 The Importance of Metaphorical Competence in L2
Proficiency
1.5 Structure of the Book
Chapter 2 Studies on L2 Metaphorical Competence
2.1 The Development of Metaphorical Competence in L2 Learners
2.2 Factors Affecting the Development of L2 Metaphorical
Competence
2.3 The Effect of Instruction on the Development of L2 Metaphorical
Competence
2.4 A Critique of Previous Studies
2.5 Summary
Chapter 3 Conceptualizing the Development of L2 Metaphorical
Competence:In Search of a Theoretical Framework
3.1 The Comparison Model
3.2 The Categorization Model
3.3 The Structure-mapping Model
3.4 The Career of Metaphor Hypothesis
3.5 The Career of Metaphor Hypothesis as a Theoretical Framework
for Investigating the Development of L2 Metaphorical
Competence
3.6 Summary
Chapter 4 The Development of L2 Metaphorical Competence:A COM
Hypothesis-based Account
4.1 Redefining and Operationalizing L2 Metaphorical
Competence
4.2 Factors to be Considered in Investigating the Development of L2
Metaphorical Competence
4.2.1 Context
4.2.2 Input
4.3 Variables for Investigation of Metaphorical Competence Within
the COM Hypothesis
4.3.1 Metaphor Type
4.3.2 Learning Condition
4.4 Central Issue of Research
4.5 Summary
Chapter 5 The Development of Metaphorical Competence in Advanced
Chinese EFL Learners-An Empirical Study
5.1 Research Design
5.2 Participants
5.3 Materials
5.3.1 Selection of Target Metaphors
5.3.2 Generation of Grounds for the Target Metaphors
5.3.3 Generation of Exposure Metaphors for the VT Group
5.4 Instrumentation
5.5 Procedures
5.5.1 Phase One:Administration of the Pretest
5.5.2 Phase Two:Experimental Treatment and Administration of the
Posttest
5.5.3 Phase Three:Administration of the Delayed Test and the
SRT
5.6 Data analysis
5.6.1 Scoring of MFPT
5.6.2 Coding and Scoring of MIT
5.6.3 Coding and Scoring of MPT
5.6.4 Coding of SRT Data
5.7 Results
5.7.1 Results for Research Hypotheses Testing
5.7.2 Results for Metaphor Processing Strategies
5.8 Summary
Chapter 6 The COM Hypothesis Account of the Development of L2
Metaphorical Competence
6.1 The Effect of Metaphor Type on the Development of L2
Metaphorical Competence
6.2 The Effect of Learning Condition on the Development of L2
Metaphorical Competence
6.2.1 The Effect of Learning Condition on the Abstraction of
Metaphoric Categories
6.2.2 The Effect of Learning Condition on the Transfer of the
Abstracted Metaphoric Categories
6.3 The COM Hypothesis as a Theoretical Framework for the
Development of L2 Metaphorical Competence:A Revisit
6.4 Implications for Foreign Language Pedagogy
6.5 Directions for Future Research
References
Appendices
Appendix 1 Familiarity Rating Test
Appendix 2 Familiarity Ratings for the 115 Metaphors
Appendix 3 Metaphor Classification Test for the 81 Metaphors
Appendix 4 Results of Metaphor Classification Test for the 81
Metaphors
Appendix 5 Exposure Materials for the VT Group
Appendix 6 Metaphor Form Preference Test
Appendix 7 Manipulation Materials for the SR GroupSimilarity
Rating Task
Appendix 8 Manipulation Materials for the SD GroupSimilarity
Discrimination Task
Appendix 9 Verbal Accounts of Thought Processes by Each Participant
Group in the Stimulated Recall Task with Cues of Parsing
Strategies
后记
List of Tables
Table 5-1 Target Metaphors with Familiarity Ratings and Agreement
Percentages
Table 5-2 Grounds for the 24 Target Metaphors
Table 5-3 Grounds for the 8 Hybrid Metaphors That Capture Both
Mappings
Table 5-4 Example Experimental Stimuli for the VT Group
Table 5-5 Examples of Comparison and Categorization Cues
Table 5-6 A Summary of Five Kinds of Domain
ComparisonGentner,1989:206
Table 5-7 Means and Standard Deviations of Four Participant Groups''
Metaphor Form Preference on Three Metaphor Types Before and After
Experimental Treatment
Table 5-8 Two-way ANOVAMixed Designfor Metaphor Form Preference
as a Function of Learning Condition and Metaphor Type
Table 5-9 Means and Standard Deviations of Categorization Cues by
Four Participant Groups on Three Metaphor Types Before and After
Experimental Treatment
Table 5-10 Two-way ANOVAMixed Designfor Use of Categorization
Cues as a Function of Learning Condition and Metaphor Type
Table 5-11 Means and Standard Deviations of Correctly Supplied
Target Terms by Four Participant Groups on Three Types of Metaphor
with Accuracy Rates%
Table 5-12 Means and Standard Deviations of Original Target Terms
by Four Participant Groups for Three Types of Metaphor on Two
Occasions
Table 5-13 Two-way ANOVAMixed Designfor Production of Original
Target Terms as a Function of Learning Condition and Metaphor
Type
Table 5-14 Frequency Distribution of Strategy Use by Four
Participant Groups When Interpreting Three Types of MetaphorSingle
Parsing
Table 5-15 Frequency Distribution of Strategy Use by Four
Participant Groups When Interpreting Three Types of
MetaphorMultiple Parsing
List of Figures
Figure 3-1 A Feature-matching Interpretation of the Metaphor Dew is
a veil
Figure 3-2 A Categorization Interpretation of the Metaphor My job
is a jail
Figure 3-3a Cross Categorization of Lawyer and Shark
Figure 3-3b Cross Categorization of Lawyer and Shark
Figure 3-4 Overview of the Algorithm Used by the Structuremapping
Engine
Figure 3-5 A Structure-mapping Interpretation of the Metaphor Men
are wolves
Figure 3-6 A Structure-mapping Interpretation of the Metaphor
Socrates is a midwife
Figure 3-7 The Career of Metaphor
Figure 3-8 The Career of Metaphor:From Novel to Conventional
Metaphor
Figure 4-1 Similarity Space,Showing Different Kinds of Matches in
Terms of the Degree of Relational Versus Object-Description
Overlap
Figure 5-1 The Investigative Procedures to Trace L2 Learners''
Development of MC
Figure 5-2 A Schematic View of the Data Collection Procedures for
the Study
Figure 5-3 Metaphor Interpretation Processes
內容試閱：
brGeneral Introduction
br1.1Metaphorical Competence?A Neglected Dimension in
Second Language Pedagogy
brThe past three decades witness a metaphormania. In their
seminal book Metaphor We Live By, Lakoff and Johnson 1980 claim
that metaphor is pervasive not just in language, but in thought and
action as well, and that human conceptual system is “fundamentally
metaphoric in nature” p. 3. Indeed, metaphors permeate the
language to the extent that much of our thinking is metaphorical.
For instance, Pollio, Barlow, Fine, and Polio 1977 estimated that
the average English speakers created over 3,000 metaphors per week,
or
br1.80 novel and 4.08 conventional or dead metaphors per
minute of speech, revealing that metaphor has governed the form and
content of ordinary communication and social interaction. Gresser,
Long and Mio 1989, cited in Bowdle, 1998: 2 also found that
speakers used approximately one unique metaphor for every 25 words.
Winner 1982, cited in Danesi, 1994: 456 points out that if
“people were limited to strictly literal language, communication
would be severely curtailed, if not terminated”. Thus，metaphor has
been recognized as an essential tool in language, thought, and
communication Steen, 2008: 214, an indispensable ingredient of
language acquisition Rumelhart, 1979, and a major source of
conceptual change and learning Gentner Bowdle, 2001; Gentner
Wolff, 2000. Influenced by Lakoff and Johnson’s
revolutionary work, the 1980s saw a
brAdvanced Chinese EFL Learners’ Development of
Metaphorical…
br
brmushrooming of literature on metaphor and “the interest
in the study of its structure, mechanism, function, effect, and
cognitive nature have sic grown rapidly in a broad range of
disciplines: linguistics, anthropology, philosophy, psychology,
education, science, as well as literary criticism and rhetoric”
Yu, 1998: 1.
brHowever, compared with the craze for metaphor research in
disciplines such as linguistics, philosophy, psychology, studies on
metaphor in the field of second language acquisition SLA during
the past decades have not received due attention. As early as the
late 1970s, Gardner and Winner 1978 proposed the theoretical
construct of metaphoric competence in their article entitled “The
development of metaphoric competence: Implications for humanistic
disciplines”. It was not until almost a decade later that SLA
researchers such as Danesi 1986, cf. Danesi, 1992 and Low 1988
recognize that MC is of equal importance in L2 proficiency. In his
article entitled “The development of metaphorical competence: A
neglected dimension in second language pedagogy”, Danesi calls for
concerns on the value of developing MC in L2 pedagogy. Low 1988
also argues that metaphor should be given a more important place in
language teaching. Both scholars consider metaphor as a topic of
considerable relevance to SLA and suggest that it should be given a
more important place in language teaching than it had been in the
past. However, even with these scholars’ enthusiastic attempts to
advocate the instilment of MC in L2 learners, Cameron and Low
1999 observed another decade later that metaphor “seems largely
to have passed applied linguistics by” p. xii.
brIn recent years, the notion of MC has also received
increasing attention among Chinese scholars. However, systematic
research on how Chinese L2 learners acquire their MC is limited and
the route of the development of MC is yet to be known. This might
be due to the fact that, on the one hand, there are still
confusions on the definitions
br
brChapter 1 General Introduction
bror characterization of MC, and, on the other hand, there
has not been a ready-made theory or framework to track the
development of this competence in first language L1 or L2
research up to date. Hence, it is the aim of the present book to
explore, firstly, a theoretical model or framework to describe L2
learners’ development of MC, and secondly, how advanced Chinese
learners of English develop their MC in a context of EFL. Since the
scope of metaphor is broad, the above aims are to be achieved
through an in-depth investigation into the learners’ acquisition of
one type of metaphor, namely, English novel nominal metaphors.
Before proceeding further, however, it is necessary to define some
basic terms relevant to the study of MC.
br
br1.2 Defining and Classifying Metaphor
brThe subject of metaphor has been the focus of much
thought and research since Aristotle. There exists, however, an
enormous confusion in the field of metaphor research as regards the
definition of this construct. According to Aristotle Aristotle,
Poetics, 21, cited in Harris Taylor, 1997: 19, “metaphor
consists in giving the thing a name that belongs to something
else”. Similarly, to Burke 1945, cited in Cameron, 19992001: 3,
“metaphor is a device for seeing something in terms of something
else”. Miller 1979: 226 regards metaphor as “a comparison
statement with parts left out”. Barlow et al. cited in Ortony,
Reynods Arter, 1978: 922 define metaphor as “an implied
comparison between two things of unlike nature that have something
in common”. In Vosniadou’s 1987: 871 view, a metaphor is a
meaningful statement that communicates something about a concept by
comparing it or juxtaposing it to a similar concept from a
different conventional category. Fraser 1979: 176 considers a
metaphor as “an instance of the nonliteral use of language in which
the intended propositional content must be determined by the
construction of an analogy”. Modern cognitive linguists Lakoff and
Johnson 1980: 117
brAdvanced Chinese EFL Learners’ Development of
Metaphorical…
br
brregard metaphors as “the mapping relations between two
independent conceptual domains: the source domain and the target
domain”, and they understand the essence of metaphor as
“understanding and experiencing one kind of thing in terms of
another” p. 5.
brA lack of unanimity can be observed from the above
definitions, which is quite natural, as each researcher looks at
this complex phenomenon from his own angle. In consequence, for one
researcher, e.g., one who approaches metaphor from a linguistic
perspective, it may be narrowly referred to as a statement
consisting of two linguistic entities belonging to different
semantic fields. For another, e.g., one who adopts the modern
cognitive paradigm, all language phenomena may be regarded as
metaphorical in the broadest sense of the word. For instance,
Lakoff and Johnson’s definition is all-inclusive, amassing
metonymy, synecdoche, irony, idiom, and proverb under the name of
metaphor, as these tropes reflect mapping relations between
different domains. This multiplicity of definition clearly suggests
that metaphor is by nature a diverse phenomenon, which can be
further illustrated by the following examples instantiated in
different parts of speech, linguistic units or other figures of
speech:
brNoun: The professor is a snake. Danesi, 2000: 54
brVerb: Her son’s death hit her hard.
brAdjective: That idea is transparent.
brAdverb: Seat thyself sultanically among the moons of
Saturn. Shu, 2000: 65
brPreposition: The couple has been through hard
times.
brSentence: I woke up on my fortieth birthday and it dawned
on me: I’m not getting any younger. King, 2008: 17
brIdiom: You should lay your cards on the table with Ralph.
Tell him
brChapter 1 General Introduction
br
brexactly how you feel about him. King, 2008: 92
brProverb: You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t
make him drink.
brMetonymy: The White House remained silent on this
issue.
brRegarding the classification of metaphor, it varies with
the criteria or perspectives adopted. More specifically, based on
the degree of conventionality, metaphors can be dichotomized into
conventional metaphors and new metaphors Lakoff Johnson,
1980 or frozen metaphors and novel metaphors Littlemore, 2001c1
. The former refer to those metaphors that “structure the ordinary
conceptual system of our culture, which is reflected in our
everyday language” Lakoff Johnson, 1980: 139, while the
latter, to those that are “outside our conceptual system…that are
imaginative and creative” ibid.. Conventional or frozen metaphors
are established among a certain group of speakers or well
entrenched in the minds of the speakers in a certain community such
that they are now a part of everyday language indeed, many have
become lexicalized and found their way into dictionaries. New or
novel metaphors, on the other hand, are those that have just come
into existence or those that have not been established or
entrenched, although they may have existed for some time. They have
been the main concern of traditional rhetoric studies, often
appearing in literary works, particularly poems, serving to achieve
rhetorical effects. Research has found that there is also
psychological difference between these two types of metaphor: once
novel metaphors have become conventionalized, they are processed
differently from novel metaphors, namely, “frozen interpretations
are more likely to be retrieved than constructed” Reyna, 1996:
40.
brAccording to which elements are explicit and which are
implicit
br――――――――
br1 The former are also labeled dead, inactive, dormant,
sleeping, adequated, powerless, petrified,
brfossilized, bleached, worn out, or fixed, while the
latter, alive, active, strong, potent, powerful cf.
brSvanlund, 2007: 48.
brAdvanced Chinese EFL Learners’ Development of
Metaphorical…
br
brin surface structure, Miller 1979: 230-233 proposes a
tripartite classification of metaphor: nominal metaphors,
predicative metaphors, and sentential metaphors, as illustrated
respectively by the following three examples.
br1
br The lion is the king of beasts.
br
br2
br The rich perform leisure.
br
br3
br John has lost his marbles.
br
br
brAccording to Miller, when a nominal concept is expressed
by a noun phrase that is used metaphorically, it is a nominal
metaphor; when a predicative concept is expressed by a predicate
phrase i.e., verb, verb phrase, or predicate adjective that is
used metaphorically, it is a predicative metaphor; and when the
entire concept must be inferred from the text or context, it is a
sentential metaphor. This typology suggests that there are
psychological differences among the three types Reyna, 1996 and
that these three types differ in interpretive difficulty Reyna,
1986.
brA typical type of nominal metaphor is in its copular
form, namely, Noun 1 is Noun 2, as illustrated in the following
example:
br4 A man is a wolf.
brThis type of nominal metaphors is conceptualized as a
mapping or comparison of disparate nouns. Richards’s 1936, cited
in Siltanen 1990: 4 terminology for the parts of a metaphor
reflects this conceptualization: a tenor, the first noun, or A
term; b vehicle, the second noun, or B term, c tension,
dissimilarities between tenor and vehicle; and d grounds,
similarities between tenor and vehicle. The A term is also
sometimes labeled as “topic” or “target”, while the B term is
sometimes called the “source” or “base”.
brAs the most basic form of metaphors Black, 1962, cited
by Katz, Paivio, Marschark Clark, 1988, nominal metaphors
are “broad in
br
br
br
購物車/收銀台(0) | 在線留言板
| 付款方式
| 聯絡我們
| 運費計算
| 幫助中心 |
加入書簽
HOME
新書上架
