What are the relative strengths and weaknesses of the available theoretical models relating to Conceptual Metaphor Theory (CMT) in the context of Second Language Acquisition (SLA)? Is new empirical research needed as their approaches are only considered as a theoretical construct that other users may not get it as a verification of hypotheses to validate? Would researchers be able to add further prospective models fitting into specific methodologies within the given conceptual frameworks by evaluating first-rate criteria-referenced tools of very definite views on CMT? I would appreciate it if you could answer these questions of paramount importance in the Second Language Acquisition setting. In doing so, I thank you for your valuable participation in this survey.
To start with, this research, for example, may provide us with a useful starting point for rigorous philosophical, empirical, and experimental research that are all-essential in developing Conceptual Metaphor Theory (CMT), while more theory-driven hypothesis testing, relying on corpora and experimental settings, is strongly needed (Fusaroli and Morgagni, 2013). Yet metaphors may not only be special communicative devices, but a fundamental part of everyday cognition in the form of 'conceptual metaphors' (Gibbs and Gibbs Jr, 2017). As indicated by these authors, then, an enormous body of empirical evidence from cognitive linguistics and related disciplines has emerged detailing how conceptual metaphors underlie significant aspects of language, thought, cultural and expressive action.
Bibliographical references
Fusaroli, R., & Morgagni, S. (2013). Conceptual metaphor theory: Thirty years after. Cognitive Semiotics, 5(1-2), 1-13. Available online: https://pure.au.dk/ws/files/56399444/issue_5.1_2_final.pdf. [Accessed December 2, 2018].
Gibbs, R. W., & Gibbs Jr, R. W. (2017). Metaphor Wars. Cambridge University Press. Available online: https://books.google.es/books?hl=en&lr=&id=f9miDgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR9&dq=Gibbs+Jr,+R.+W.+(2017).+Metaphor+Wars:+Conceptual+Metaphors+in+Human+Life.+Cambridge+University+Press.&ots=RRcPBtRhku&sig=fAg44f-2f9iFjbgn_DRKMq3zPDc&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false. [Accessed December 2, 2018].
The question and the expected discussion thread are a nice opportunity for me to learn about this interesting topic.
Regards
There emerged quite recently from cognitive linguistics a lot of research on the conceptual theory of metaphor in the context SLA, both directly and indirectly related. The directly related research is corpus-based and led by Littlemore & Low (2006) and other associates and collaborators, and concerns uptake of English metaphors by SLA learners. The indirect research, both corpus-driven and based, deals with the role of metaphor in the evaluation of students, teachers, and the learning process by learners and educators, which impacts the learning process. Such a trend is led by Oxford et al (1998), Jin & Cortazzi (2008), Nikitina & Furuoka (2008), Wan, Low, & Li (2011), Alghbban, Ben Salamh, & Maalej (2015), Alghbban & Maalej (2016) and many others. There is a lot more going on; for a brief review you may want to have a look at Alghbban, Ben Salamh, & Maalej (2015) in the Applied Linguistics journal.
Dear Zouheir Maalej and Aristidis Matsoukis:
Thank you so much for your appreciation and valuable feedback! Surely, that each one of us has in our knowledge areas a case study on which we can work regarding some cases of science misperceptions. Hence, as far as the Educational approaches are concerned, metaphor as strategic and communicative competence acquires special relevance in the Second Language Acquisition setting [hereinafter referred to as (SLA)]. Thus, to clarify the status of the issue, previous existing literature on this subject from other authors will be reviewed from a critical analysis perspective. In doing so, I believe that such an analysis may provide us with a useful starting point for further research whereby using either a survey or focus groups could bring in key data to support the validity and reliability of these theories to develop the target conceptual framework; particularly as regards SLA.
To start with, Mac Cormac (1985) presents an original and unified cognitive theory of metaphor using philosophical arguments, which draw upon evidence from psychological experiments and theories. Mac Cormac notes these implications of this theory for meaning and truth with specific attention to metaphor as a speech act, the iconic meaning of metaphor, and the development of a four-valued system of truth. Numerous examples of metaphor from poetry and science are presented and analyzed to support Mac Cormac's theory. "A Cognitive Theory of Metaphor takes up three levels of explanation--metaphor as expressed in surface language, the semantics of metaphor, and metaphor as a cognitive process--and unifies these by interpreting metaphor as an evolutionary knowledge process in which metaphors mediate between minds and culture. Mac Cormac considers, and rejects, the radical theory that all use of language is metaphorical; however, this argument also recognizes that the "theory of metaphor may itself be metaphorical. Mac Cormac (1985) first considers the computational metaphor often adopted by cognitive psychology as an example of metaphor requiring analysis. In contrast to three well-known philosophical theories of metaphor - the tension theory, the controversial theory, and the grammatical deviance theory - it develops a semantically anomaly theory of metaphor based on a quasi-mathematical hierarchy of words. In developing the theory, Mac Cormac makes much-needed connections between theories of metaphor and more orthodox analytic philosophy of meaning, including discussions of speech acts and the logic of fuzzy sets. This semantically theory of explanation is then shown to be compatible with contemporary psychological theories of memory.
As can be seen, we might infer that from such a perspective, the grammar as structured according to general cognitive principles, as another author, Lemmens (2017), states, we could start dealing with very good postures between the immanent conception of language as beauty and form from the pragmatic interpretation of texts. Precisely because of the importance, they attach to cognitive semantics and the construction of grammar. For example as is the case of metaphor and metonymy.
Progressing in the exposed sense, Littlemore and Low (2006) papers’ contributions to the science of language as well as to the field of Applied Linguistics are of great relevance, because, as they state, “metaphoric competence has an important role to play in all areas of communicative competence.” In this way, it might help us, for example, understand in a better manner that both conceptual and linguistic metaphor play a decisive role in the SLA framework, because learners may have to make metaphorical connections between ideas on a regular basis. Consequently, such reasoning might lead us the way to significantly theoretical approaches for students to cope communicatively and acquire metaphorical competence. In view of that, taking as reference the contributions of Littlemore and Low (2006: 9), we could draw on the assumption of metaphorical competence, when the above-mentioned authors argue that it covers all aspects of communicative competence:
[…] metaphor plays varying but important roles in all the cells of the model: namely, illocutionary competence, textual competence, grammatical competence, and strategic competence as well as sociolinguistic competence […]
In keeping with the earlier statements, Fusaroli and Morgagni (2013) provide a short primer to Conceptual Metaphor Theory (CMT), followed by critical discussion of the three broad areas covered by the articles: (a) social and cultural dimensions of embodied human experience, (b) the many time scales at play in cognitive processes, and (c) empirical and experimental challenges to CMT. As stated, then, by Fusaroli and Morgagni (2013), these areas strongly emphasize the vitality of the CMT enterprise, the need for increased epistemological debate, and – crucially – the need for a more empirically informed, dynamic view of metaphorical projections, as embedded in larger social and cognitive processes. As indicated by these authors, this issue of the Journal of Cognitive Semiotics presents a constructive, critical assessment of Conceptual Metaphor Theory (CMT) thirty years after its first introduction. Many characterizations and polemical caricatures of CMT portray it as a reductionist approach: an armchair preconception that language and conceptual formations in general are (just) the expression of more primitive and fixed pre-linguistic experiential structures, which are due to having a body in a physical environment. The papers here sketch a more nuanced view of CMT: i) experiential structures depend on culturally and socially embodied processes; ii) experiential structures are resources for conceptualization, locally deployed in flexible ways, with the potential of evolving over time; iii) rigorous philosophical, empirical, and experimental research are all essential in developing CMT, while more theory-driven hypothesis testing, relying on corpora and experimental settings, is strongly needed.
Delving more into this subject, Gibbs and Gibbs Jr (2017) examine key issues relating to how conceptual metaphors underlie significant aspects of language, thought, cultural, and expressive action. In accordance with Gibbs and Gibbs Jr (2017), the study of metaphor is now firmly established as a central topic within cognitive science and the humanities. They highlight that we marvel at the creative dexterity of gifted speakers and writers for their special talents in both thinking about certain ideas in new ways, and communicating these thoughts in vivid, poetic forms. Yet metaphors may not only be special communicative devices, but a fundamental part of everyday cognition in the form of 'conceptual metaphors'. As indicated by these authors, an enormous body of empirical evidence from cognitive linguistics and related disciplines has emerged detailing how conceptual metaphors underlie significant aspects of language, thought, cultural and expressive action. Despite its influence and popularity, there have been major criticisms of conceptual metaphor. Subsequently, they offer an evaluation of the arguments and empirical evidence for and against conceptual metaphors, much of which scholars on both sides of the wars fail to properly acknowledge. Therefore, Gibbs and Gibbs Jr (2017):
- Present a complete hearing of the empirical evidence on conceptual metaphors;
- Discuss the criticisms of conceptual metaphor;
- Propose how to move research forward on the role that conceptual metaphors play in human life.
A good case study in the SLA setting; particularly, in the Spanish Language Teaching as foreign language, would be Gongora poetry, which entails a very incisive and insightful analytical exposition on innovative methods in such a context. It really serves the needs for improving teachers’ educational practice, thus emphasizing on teaching methods from an integrated perspective. Consistent with Jones (1966), no Spanish poet is grater or more rewarding, but few are as difficult for the beginner. His style is a habit of mind: radically metaphorical, elliptical, witty, highly sensuous, transmuting the world of the sense into a world of the spirit. However, Gongora’s poetry serves very useful purposes for students of Spanish as a foreign language to acquire the cultural, discursive, pragmatic, linguistic, and literary competences. Likewise, as stated earlier, we can start dealing with very good postures between the immanent conceptions of language as beauty and form from the pragmatic interpretation of texts, precisely because of the importance they attach to cognitive semantics, to the construction of grammar, and to the situation in which they take place. In the same way, I believe that it might help us, for example, understand in a better manner that both conceptual and linguistic metaphor play a decisive role in the context of SLA, because learners may have to make metaphoric connections between ideas on a regular basis.
More to the point, I believe that Cervantes, Gongora, and Shakespeare are considered as three of the most important authors in Universal Literature, and whose great works “are shining brightly in a cloudless sky". They are the national writers par excellence of Spain and England, since thanks to them, we understand the role that literature plays in building up national identities and cultures.
Bibliographical references
- Fusaroli, R., & Morgagni, S. (2013). Conceptual metaphor theory: Thirty years after. Cognitive Semiotics, 5(1-2), 1-13. Available online: https://pure.au.dk/ws/files/56399444/issue_5.1_2_final.pdf. [Accessed December 2, 2018].
- Gibbs, R. W., & Gibbs Jr, R. W. (2017). Metaphor Wars. Cambridge University Press. Available online: https://books.google.es/books?hl=en&lr=&id=f9miDgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR9&dq=Gibbs+Jr,+R.+W.+(2017).+Metaphor+Wars:+Conceptual+Metaphors+in+Human+Life.+Cambridge+University+Press.&ots=RRcPBtRhku&sig=fAg44f-2f9iFjbgn_DRKMq3zPDc&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false. [Accessed December 2, 2018].
- Jones, R.O. (1966). Poems of Gongora. Cambridge University Press.
- Lemmens, M. (2017). A Cognitive, Usage-Based View on Lexical Pragmatics: Response to Hall. In Semantics and pragmatics: Drawing a line (pp. 101-114). Springer, Cham. Available online: https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-01511843/document. [Accessed December 2, 2018].
- Littlemore, J., & Low, G. (2006). Metaphoric competence, second language learning, and communicative language ability. Applied linguistics, 27(2), 268-294. Available online: http://eprints.bham.ac.uk/70/1/Littlemore_-_Metaphoric_competence-_L.pdf. [Accessed December 2, 2018].
- Mac Cormac, E. R. (1985). A cognitive theory of metaphor. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Available online: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Cognitive-Theory-Metaphor-Bradford-book/dp/0262132125. [Accessed December 2, 2018].
Warm greetings and kind regards,
Javier.
I would like to thank all most sincerely for answering this most tricky issue in the Second Language Acquisition (SLA) setting, since there remain nowadays many unanswered questions about how conceptual metaphors underlie significant aspects of language, thought, cultural and expressive action. Although empirical evidence from cognitive linguistics and related disciplines has emerged currently from this field, I believe that there is still scant research for this view. Particularly, this empirical evidence provides us with a very innovative, epistemological, and theoretical framework regarding Conceptual Metaphor Theory (CMT); however, it does not provide a framework for further research, which explores new approaches within existing frameworks of practice and thinking to put to work in the classroom setting.
Warm greetings and kind regards,
Javier.
As far as empirical and experimental investigation is concerned, Kövecses (2017) undertakes highly focused research on this field of study, which represents an important landmark in the field of Applied Linguistics, The lexical vs. the corpus-based method in the study of metaphors. In doing so, this author does foreground and compare the lexical approach with the corpus-linguistic one by using the emotion concept of Surprise for the purpose of comparison. In this sense, I believe that this methodology entails the strongest and greatest value-laden empirical evidence and analysis levels to support that the two methods complement each other, albeit with some differences, as he points out:
“It makes sense to suggest that we can achieve best results in finding metaphors for SURPRISE if we use the lexical and corpus-linguistic approaches together. This is a solution in the spirit of Kövecses (2011). The use of the lexical approach can overcome some of the weaknesses of the corpus-linguistic one: it can provide us with a schematic prototype of the category, it can give us a number of synonyms that may function as metaphors, it can identify idiomatic expressions that do not contain the term surprise, and it can help us reveal major concept-specific, as well as some schematic metaphors of SURPRISE. On the other hand, with the help of the corpus-linguistic approach we can identify the schematic (and to some extent, also the concept specific) metaphors of SURPRISE, the entire range of conventionalized and non-conventionalized metaphorical expressions, and both the types and tokens of the figurative expressions associated with SURPRISE.”
In view of that, I believe that other several interesting methods dealing with figurative language may be related to his original approach:
1) Willis (1990) emphasizes the importance of an effective lexical approach insofar as “communicative methodology is holistic in that it relies on the ability of learners to abstract from the language to which they are exposed, in order to recreate a picture of the target language. Virtually all coursebooks rely on a linguistic syllabus, which presents the learner with a series of linguistic items.”
2) Mac Cormac (1985) presents an original and unified “cognitive theory of metaphor using philosophical arguments, which draw upon evidence from psychological experiments and theories. In developing the theory, Mac Cormac makes much-needed connections between theories of metaphor and more orthodox analytic philosophy of meaning, including discussions of speech acts and the logic of fuzzy sets. This semantically theory of explanation is then shown to be compatible with contemporary psychological theories of memory.”
3) Gibbs (2017) examines key issues relating to “how conceptual metaphors underlie significant aspects of language, thought, cultural, and expressive action. The study of metaphor is now firmly established as a central topic within cognitive science and the humanities. We marvel at the creative dexterity of gifted speakers and writers for their special talents in both thinking about certain ideas in new ways, and communicating these thoughts in vivid, poetic forms. Yet metaphors may not only be special communicative devices, but a fundamental part of everyday cognition in the form of conceptual metaphors. “
Bibliographical references
- Gibbs Jr, R. W. (2017). Metaphor Wars: Conceptual Metaphors in Human Life. Cambridge University Press.
- Kövecses, Z. (2017). The lexical vs. the corpus-based method in the study of metaphors. Project: A new book on conceptual metaphor theory. Source of work cited:(https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322274869_The_lexical_vs_the_corpus-based_method_in_the_study_of_metaphors)
- Mac Cormac, E. R. (1985). A cognitive theory of metaphor. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
- Willis, D. (1990). The lexical syllabus: a new approach to language teaching. Collins ELT.
Dear Dr. José Luis García Vigil:
Thank you so much for your valuable and featured feedback that deals with this tricky issue, as you emphasize that “in the research methodology of Conceptual Metaphor Theory, it is required to resort to scientific facts validated internally and externally, which would be based on the so-called "Theoretical, Scientific and Conceptual Framework" or "Scientific Background" to support a hypothesis in response to a scientific problem posed in an interrogative manner.” Well, to start with, such a “Scientific Background”, as you rightly an cogently state, for example, may provide us with a useful starting point for rigorous philosophical, empirical, and experimental research that are all-essential in developing Conceptual Metaphor Theory (CMT), while more theory-driven hypothesis testing, relying on corpora and experimental settings, is strongly needed (Fusaroli and Morgagni, 2013). For this to be achieved, I believe that we would need a well-defined and specific research question like this one, which is more likely to help guide us in making decisions about this study design and subsequently to determine what data would be collected and analyzed to accomplishing validated hypotheses in the Second Language Acquisition setting.
Progressing in the exposed sense, Mac Cormac (1985) presents an original and unified cognitive theory of metaphor by using philosophical arguments, which draw upon evidence from psychological experiments and theories. Mac Cormac notes these implications of this theory for meaning and truth with specific attention to metaphor as a speech act, the iconic meaning of metaphor, and the development of a four-valued system of truth. Numerous examples of metaphor from poetry and science are presented and analyzed to support Mac Cormac's theory. "A Cognitive Theory of Metaphor takes up three levels of explanation--metaphor as expressed in surface language, the semantics of metaphor, and metaphor as a cognitive process--and unifies these by interpreting metaphor as an evolutionary knowledge process in which metaphors mediate between minds and culture. Mac Cormac considers, and rejects, the radical theory that all use of language is metaphorical; however, this argument also recognizes that the theory of metaphor may itself be metaphorical.” Mac Cormac (1985) first considers the computational metaphor often adopted by cognitive psychology as an example of metaphor requiring analysis. In contrast to three well-known philosophical theories of metaphor - the tension theory, the controversial theory, and the grammatical deviance theory - it develops a semantically anomaly theory of metaphor based on a quasi-mathematical hierarchy of words. In developing the theory, Mac Cormac makes much-needed connections between theories of metaphor and more orthodox analytic philosophy of meaning, including discussions of speech acts and the logic of fuzzy sets. This semantically theory of explanation is then shown to be compatible with contemporary psychological theories of memory.
More to the point, consistent with Gibbs (2017), an enormous body of empirical evidence from cognitive linguistics and related disciplines has emerged detailing how conceptual metaphors underlie significant aspects of language, thought, cultural and expressive action.
Bibliographical references
- Fusaroli, R., & Morgagni, S. (2013). Conceptual metaphor theory: Thirty years after. Cognitive Semiotics, 5(1-2), 1-13. Available online: https://pure.au.dk/ws/files/56399444/issue_5.1_2_final.pdf. [Accessed December 02, 2018].
- Gibbs Jr, R. W. (2017). Metaphor Wars. Cambridge University Press.
- Mac Cormac, E. R. (1985). A cognitive theory of metaphor. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Available online: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Cognitive-Theory-Metaphor-Bradford-book/dp/0262132125. [Accessed December 2, 2018].
Philadelphia, PA
Dear all,
Readers of this thread may find the following question of interest:
https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_language_and_how_is_the_term_language_defined_in_linguistics_and_philosophy_of_language3
Please have a look.
H.G. Callaway
