Using Metaphor and Metonymy in Writing Classes through Dialogic Interaction
محورهای موضوعی : نشریه زبان و ترجمه
Nasrin Jenabagha
1
(
English Department, Qaemshahr Branch, Islamic Azad University, Qaemshahr, Iran
)
Shaban Najafi Karimi
2
(
English Department, Qaemshahr Branch, Islamic Azad University, Qaemshahr, Iran
)
امیر Marzban
3
(
English Department, Qaemshahr Branch, Islamic Azad University, Qaemshahr, Iran
)
کلید واژه: Writing, metaphor, figurative language, metonymy, Dialogic interaction,
چکیده مقاله :
Regarding the significance of writing in English language learning and the importance of figurative language in writing, the present paper sought to determine whether using metaphoric language can have any positive effects on writing improvement through dialogic interactions. A total of 60 female intermediate learners from a university in Gorgan, Iran, were selected through convenience sampling. The participants were divided into three groups each one consisting of 20 learners. The Quick Oxford Placement Test and Writing Test developed by the authors of the current study were used to collect data. First, the data normality of the K-S test was run. Second, an ANOVA was run to see whether there would be any difference between the three groups in terms of their writing improvement at the pretest level. Then the same ANOVA was run between the posttests of these three groups. This study showed that metaphor and metonymy through dialogic interactions had significant effects on the participations’ writing. The present research suggests the practice of more dialogical interactions and calls for using group work and figurative language in writing training programs.
این مقاله با توجه به اهمیت نوشتن در یادگیری انگلیسی و زبان مجازی امروز ، به دنبال این است که آیا استفاده از زبان استعاره می تواند از طریق تعاملات گفتاری تأثیرات مثبتی در بهبود نوشتن داشته باشد. در کل 60 دانشجوی دختر در سطح مهارت متوسط از دانشگاهی در گرگان ، ایران ، از طریق نمونه گیری آسان انتخاب شدند. شرکت کنندگان به سه گروه تقسیم شدند که هر گروه شامل 20 زبان آموز بود. برای جمع آوری داده هااز آزمون جمع آوری سریع آکسفورد و آزمون نوشتن که توسط نویسندگان مقاله حاضر تهیه شد، استفاده شد. ابتدا نرمال بودن داده های آزمون K-S اجرا شد. دوم ، ANOVA اجرا شد تا مشخص شود آیا از نظر بهبود نوشتاری در پیش آزمون تفاوتی بین سه گروه وجود دارد. سپس همان ANOVA برای پس آزمونهای این سه گروه اجرا شد. این مطالعه نشان داد که استعاره و مترادف از طریق تعاملات گفتاری تأثیر قابل توجهی درمهارت نوشتن شرکت کننده ها دارد. در مجموع ، به عنوان مفاهیم آموزشی ، این مقاله معلمان EFL را برای تمرین تعاملات گفتاری بیشتر و نیاز به استفاده از کار گروهی و زبان مجازی در نوشتن برنامه های آموزشی که در دوره های زبان خارجی استفاده نشده است ، تشویق می کند.
Alexander, R. (2008). Culture, dialogue, and learning: Notes on an emerging pedagogy. In N.Mercer & S. Hodgkinson (Eds.), Exploring talking school (pp. 91–114). Los Angeles: Sage.
Botha, E. (2009). Why metaphor matters in education. South African of Education, 29(2), 431-444.
Buhrke, L., Henkels, L., Klene, J. & Fister, H. (2002). Improving fourth-grade students’ writing skills and attitudes. M.A. Action Research Project. Saint Xavier University and Skylight Professional Development Field-Based Master’s Programs.
Bullough, R.V., Gitlin, A. (1995). Becoming a student of teaching: Methodologies for exploring self and school context. New York: Garland Publishers.
Choi, J., Tatar, B., & Kim, J. (2014). Dialogic Interactions in the English-Mediated Classroom: A Case Study of a Social Science Class for Engineering Students in Korea. Asian Social Science, 10(16), 123-145.
Cohen, A. D. & Cavalcanti, M. C. (1990). Feedback on compositions: teacher and student verbal reports. In Kroll, B. (Ed.) (1990). Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom, (pp.155-177). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cortazzi, M., Jin, L. (1999). Bridges to learning: Metaphors of teaching, learning, and language. In L. Cameron, & G. Low (Eds.), Researching and applying metaphor (pp. 149-176). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
El-Koumy, Abdel-Salam. (1991). Comparing the effectiveness of three strategies for teaching composition: Guided, free and guided-Free. Unpublished P.H.D. thesis. Faculty of Education, Menoufia University.
Ellis, R. (1998). The metaphorical constructions of second language learners. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the-American Association for Applied Linguistics, Seattle, WA.
Farjami, H. (2012). English Learners’ Metaphors and Images of Vocabulary Learning. Sheikhbahaee EFL Journal, 1(2), 75-84.
Ghane Shirazi, M., & Talebizadeh, M. R. (2013). Developing Intermediate EFL Learners’ Metaphorical Competence through Exposure. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 3(1), 135-141.
Grabe, W. & R. Kaplan. (1996). Theory and Practice of Writing. An Applied Linguistic Perspective. London: Longman.
Guan, J. (2009). The cognitive nature of metonymy and its implications for English vocabulary teaching. English Language Teaching, 2(4), 179-188.
Hyland, K. (2003). Genre-based pedagogies: A social response to the process. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12(1), 17-29.
Kramsch, C., (2003). Metaphor and the subjective construction of beliefs. In: Kalaja, P. & Barcelos, A. M. F. (Eds.). Beliefs about SLA: New Research Approaches. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Kövecses, Z. (2003). Language figurative thought and cross-cultural comparison. Metaphor and Symbol, 18(4), 311-320.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to western thought. New York: Basic Books.
Lakoff, G., Turner, M. (1989). More than Cool Reason. A field Guide to Poetic Metaphor. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Littlemore, J. (2009). Applying cognitive linguistics to second language learning and teaching. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Littlemore, J., Arizono, M., & May, A. (2016). The interpretation of metonymy by Japanese learners of English. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 14(1), 51-72.
Matsuda, P. K. (2003). Second language writing in twentieth-century: A situated historical perspective. In Kroll, B. (ed.). Exploring the dynamics of second language writing. (pp.15-34). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Muhammed, A. A. (2015). Paragraph Writing Challenges Faced by University EFL Learners. International Journal on Studies in English Language and Literature (IJSELL), 3(8), 23-27.
Nacey, S. (2013). Metaphors in learner English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Nystrand, M. (2013). Foreword. In Inspiring Dialogue: Talking to learn in the English classroom (pp. ix-xi). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Oxford, R. L., Tomlinson, S., Barcelos, A., Harrington, C., Roberta, Z., Saleh, L. A., Longhini, A. (1998). Clashing metaphors about classroom teachers: Toward a systematic typology for the language teaching field. System, 26(1), 3-50.
Sakui, K., Gaies, S. (2003). A case study: Beliefs and metaphors of a Japanese teacher of English. In: Kalaja, P. & Barcelos, A. M. F. (Eds.). Beliefs about SLA: New Research Approaches. Dordecht, Netherlands: Kluwer, 153-170.
Sharadgah, T. A. (2013). Writing in an Internet-Based Environment: Improving EFL Students’ Writing Performance through Text-Based Chat. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 3(14), 258-269.
Shokouhi, H., & Isazadeh, M. (2009). The Effect of Teaching Conceptual and Image Metaphors to EFL Learners. The Open Applied Linguistics Journal, 2(3), 22-31.
Silva, T. (1993). Toward an understanding of the distinct nature of second language writing: The ESL research and its implications. TESOL Quarterly, 27(1), 657 – 677.
Ting, M., & Qian, Y. (2010). A case study of peer feedback in a Chinese EFL writing classroom. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics, 33(4), 87-99.
