The paper deals with different types of figurative language and the question of why and how these should be taught in second language teaching. In order to prove that figurative language is essential in communication and therefore needs to receive more attention in schools, I start by analysing and comparing the concepts of metaphors, idioms and proverbs.
Many scholars have discussed metaphors and so as to outline the most important aspects, I refer to Lakoff, Johnson, Ortony and Langlotz amongst others. Those aspects will include the differences between novel and conventional metaphors, the different functions that metaphors fulfil and the phenomenon of mixed metaphors.
When discussing idioms I focus on their relationship to metaphorical language, the aspect of frozenness and their functions as well as other topics. Here, scholars like Swinney, Skandara and Götz are quoted and their propositions towards idiomatic language are analysed.
To end the first part of the paper I discuss the relationship of proverbs to metaphors and idioms and base this part on Norrick in order to focus on didactic content and the issue of distinguishing between a proverb's literal and figurative meaning.
After having given the survey of those concepts, I turn to the part of explaining why it is so important to teach figurative language and I do that by drawing on Ortony's theses of compactness, inexpressibility and vividness. Furthermore, Katz's theory of metaphor as politeness is examined and also Liu's view on idioms as containing cultural references.
To end this theoretical paper with an idea of how to use the information practically, the last section deals with the question of how figurative language is best taught. The methods presented are based on a preceding part of background information on how the comprehension process of figurative language works and what the prerequisites are for being able to learn that part of a foreign language. This last part of the paper is mainly based on Ortony, Gentner, Liu and Ur.
Eventually, I conclude the paper by summing up the findings and evaluating their relevance for teaching figurative language in second language learning in schools.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Survey
2.1. Metaphors
2.1.1 Mapping of Metaphors
2.1.2 Metaphors as Experiences
2.1.3 Creation of Similarities
2.1.4 Metaphors vs. Similes
2.1.5 Novel vs. Conventional Metaphors
2.1.6 Dead vs. Alive Metaphors
2.1.7 Emotive Function
2.1.8 Expressing Humour
2.2. Idioms
2.2.1 Simply Phrasal Metaphors?
2.2.2 Types of Idioms
2.2.3 Functions of Idioms
2.2.4 Frozenness
2.2.5 Defining Idioms
2.3. Proverbs
2.3.1 Didactic Content
2.3.2 Fixedness
3. Why Teach Figurative Language?
3.1 Ortony’s Theses
3.2 Politeness
3.3 Social Competence
3.4. Didactic Content
3.4.1 Cultural Values
3.4.2 Understanding Literature
3.5 Near-native Speech
4. How to Teach Figurative Language
4.1. Background Information
4.1.1 Storage
4.1.2 Comprehension Process
4.1.3 Prerequisites
4.1.4 What to Teach
4.2. Teaching Strategies
4.2.1 Metaphors
4.2.2 Idioms
4.2.3 Proverbs
5. Conclusion
Research Objectives and Key Topics
The primary objective of this work is to demonstrate that figurative language is essential for effective communication and therefore requires more focused attention in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) instruction, rather than being dismissed as a secondary concern.
- Characteristics of metaphors, idioms, and proverbs
- Reasons for teaching figurative language (compactness, inexpressibility, vividness)
- The role of figurative language in politeness and social competence
- Methods and strategies for integrating figurative language into the classroom
- Development of cultural awareness through figurative expressions
Excerpt from the Book
2.1.3 Creation of Similarities
An argument opposing Lakoff’s thesis “that metaphors do not draw on existing similarities, but rather create similarities” (qtd. in Gentner et al. 2001: 206) is that a target can have several source domains and therefore multiple conceptual metaphors. Gentner et al. give the examples of LOVE IS A JOURNEY, LOVE IS A DISEASE and LOVE IS A FIRE (2001: 207). If the source domains of those conceptual metaphors influenced the concept of love, then it would have to change every time that a new conceptual metaphor is established. This would also imply that conceptual metaphors are created arbitrarily instead of by reason, logic or some sort of semblance between source and target domain. The subsequent question to ask is: How is it possible to determine whether the similarities we perceive between source and target domain have been there before the connection was established, or whether they came up through the invention of the metaphor? It is not possible to prove either of the claims, but as indicated in 2.1.2 with the example of the ARGUMENT IS WAR conceptual metaphor, I disagree with the claim that metaphors create meaning. It seems more likely that people notice more or less obvious similarities between domains and therefore link them by metaphor, rather than linking them randomly and creating the similarities by doing so. In the cases where metaphors developed through similes this question is more easily answered, as similes are defined as comparing existing similarities.
Chapter Summaries
1. Introduction: Outlines the scope of figurative language and the necessity of incorporating it into foreign language education.
2. Survey: Provides definitions and characteristics of metaphors, idioms, and proverbs based on linguistic theory.
3. Why Teach Figurative Language?: Explores the pedagogical justifications for teaching figurative language, focusing on communicative efficiency, social competence, and cultural understanding.
4. How to Teach Figurative Language: Examines cognitive aspects of learning and provides practical, classroom-tested teaching strategies.
5. Conclusion: Summarizes the key findings and reiterates the recommendation for integrating figurative elements into foreign language lessons.
Keywords
Figurative language, Metaphor, Idiom, Proverb, Foreign language teaching, EFL, Conceptual metaphor, Compactness thesis, Inexpressibility, Vividness, Politeness, Social competence, Cultural values, Language learner, Teaching strategies
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the fundamental goal of this paper?
The paper aims to refute the claim that figurative language is unimportant in basic communication and to demonstrate that it is, in fact, essential for reaching high-level communicative proficiency and cultural understanding in a foreign language.
What are the core topics covered?
The work covers definitions and analyses of metaphors, idioms, and proverbs, the theoretical reasons for including these in teaching, and practical classroom strategies to implement them.
What is the primary research question?
The main question is why and how figurative language should be integrated into English as a Foreign Language (EFL) instruction.
Which theoretical frameworks are used?
The work draws upon various linguistics scholars, most notably Ortony’s theses (compactness, inexpressibility, vividness), Lakoff and Johnson’s work on conceptual metaphors, and Makkai’s idiom classifications.
What does the main body discuss?
The main body is divided into a theoretical survey, reasons for teaching figurative language, and a practical section detailing specific teaching strategies for metaphors, idioms, and proverbs.
Which keywords define this work?
Key terms include figurative language, metaphor, idiom, proverb, teaching strategies, social competence, and language proficiency.
Why does the author distinguish between "live" and "dead" metaphors?
The author discusses this to clarify how different levels of conventionalization affect how learners process and understand figurative language in real-world contexts.
What is the significance of the "politeness" argument in teaching?
The author argues that figurative language allows for indirect speech, which is often more polite; teaching this helps learners achieve social competence by avoiding overly blunt or inappropriate expressions.
- Quote paper
- Lisa Jensen (Author), 2010, Aspects of Figurative Language, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.hausarbeiten.de/document/181179
