The Effect of Differences in the General Proficiency of Iranian EFL Students on their Metaphorical Competence
محورهای موضوعی : Research in English Language PedagogyZahra Rezaei 1 , Aliakbar Jafarpour 2
1 - Department of English, Khorasgan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Isfahan, Iran
2 - Shahrekord State University
کلید واژه: metaphor, language proficiency, Metaphorical Competence, EFL learners,
چکیده مقاله :
This study was an effort towards examining the relationship between Iranian EFL learners’ language proficiency and their metaphorical competence. The were 120 Iranian EFL learners studying at SADR English Language Center within the 19-25 age range. The EFL learners’ English proficiency from Elementary to Advanced which was determined by the OPT. Afterwards, the students were administered a researcher-made test assessing their metaphorical competence. The test consisted of ten concepts with each concept containing metaphors together with their Persian equivalents written in English. Having scores in hand, the researcher was able to see whether there were any significant relationships between the students’ language proficiency and their metaphorical competence. The researcher used the SPSS software package to calculate degree of correlation between participants’ language proficiency and their metaphorical competence. Using the Pearson Correlation Coefficient formula researcher used the statistical procedure of one-way ANOVA to determine the relationship between learners’ metaphorical competence and their language proficiency. The findings revealed that the more proficient the EFL learners in English language, the more metaphorically competent they would be.
Abernethy, D. A. (2002). The power of metaphors for explaining cultural difference sigroups. Eastern group Psychotherapy society,220.
Hall Haley, M. & Austin, T. (2007).Content-based second language: An interactive
approach to teaching & learning. Chinese edition, Boston, MA; Allyn & Bacon.
Austin, T. (2010). Teaching and learning foreign languages at school level in the U.S. to become multi-lingual. - Project for Activating Education and Research in Aichi Prefectural University.
Barker, P. (1996). Psychotherapeutic metaphors: Guide to theory and practice. Bristol, PA: Brunner/Mazel.
Boroditsky, L. & Ramscar, M. (2002). The roles of body and mind in abstract thought. Psychological Science 13, 185–189.
Butterworth, B. & Beattie, G. (1978). Gesture and silence as indicators of planning in speech. In R.N. Campbell, & P.T. Smith (Eds.), Recent Advances in the Psychology of Language: Formal and Experimental Approaches. New York: Plenum, 347-360.
Cienki, A.(1998). Metaphoric gestures and some of their relations to verbal metaphoric counterparts. In Jean-Pierre Koenig (ed.), Discourse and Cognition: Bridging the Gap. Stanford CA: CSLI Publications, 189-205.
Czander, W. (1993). The psychodynamics of work and organizations: Theory and application. New York: Guilford Press.
Dancygier, B & Sweetser, E. (1996). Conditionals, discourse and alternative spaces. In Goldberg, Adele (ed.), Conceptual Structure, Discourse and Language. Stanford: CSLI Publications, 83-98.
Gibbs, R. W. Jr. (1994). The poetics of mind. In
Katz (1998) Figurative Language and Thought. Oxford: OUP
Johnson, J., & Rosano, T. (1993): Relation of cognitive style to metaphor interpretation and second language proficiency, in: Applied Psycholinguistics, 14, 159-175.
Kendon, A. (1995). Gestures as illocutionary and discourse structure markers in outherni conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 23-3: 247-279. Kondaiah, K.(2009).Metaphorical systems and their implications to teaching English as a foreign language.
Lakoff, G. (1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor in A. Ortony (ed.): Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 202-251. Lakoff, G., & Johnson,
M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.
McNeill, D. (1992). Hand and Mind: What gestures reveal about thought. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Penn, P. (2001). Chronic Illness: Irvana, Lg and
Writing: Breaking the silence. Family process, 40 (1), 33-52.
Rizzuto, A. (2001). Metaphors of a bodily mind. Journal of the American psycho analytic association, 49(2), 535-568.
Soriano, C. ( 2005). The Conceptualization of anger in English and Spanish: a cognitive approach. Doctoral Thesis, University of Murcia.
Sweetser, Eve. (1998). Regular metaphoricity in gesture: Bodily-based models of speech interaction. In Actes du VXIe Congrès International des Linguistes (CIL16) (CD ROM). New York: Elsevier.
Webb, R. (1996). Linguistic features of metaphoric gestures. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Rochester.
Trosborg, A. (1985): Metaphoric productions and preferences in second language learners, in: Parpotté, W. Dirven, R. (Eds.): The Ubiquity of Metaphor. Metaphor in Language and Thought, Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 525-557.
