Why might learners experience problems using metaphor?

The results from the studies above seem to call into question Danesi’s (1992) assertion that learners tend to avoid using the metaphorical senses of words. Taken as a whole, the studies seem to indicate that learners do use metaphors, but they use them in different ways, fail to develop metaphors to their full potential, or use them erroneously.

Littlemore (2009) proposes two possible explanations for this, the first being that the metaphorical language in their input is somehow less salient to them, so they do not notice it, the second being that while they comprehend the metaphorical senses, they lack the confidence to use them correctly. The way that metaphorical mappings vary across languages is also likely to pose problems for learners, as ‘each language has its own metaphorical and figurative system which is not compatible with the metaphorical system of another language’ (Kecskes, 2000: 147). For example, while English speakers

‘make money’, Russians ‘work for money’ and Hungarians ‘look for money’ (Kecskes, 2000: 147). The very conceptual domains underlying the metaphorical representations can also differ. Many metaphorical idiomatic phrases in English are taken from the domain of sailing, for example, while French discourse often makes use of figurative idioms from the source domain of food (Boers et al., 2004). Conceptual representations of emotion can also differ across languages. Research into different languages’

construal of anger, for example, has suggested that although English, Chinese, Japanese and Hungarian all conceptualise anger as a ‘substance’ inside a ‘container’ (the human body), the ways in which this basic representation are elaborated differ. In Japanese, for example, the stomach or bowels are the conventional ‘container’ for anger, which is represented as a ‘hot fluid’ similarly to English (and Hungarian) (Kövecses, 2000, Lakoff and Johnson, 1980). However, Japanese metaphorical expressions of anger do not have

26

to involve the ‘hot fluid’ dimension, leading to such expressions as hara ga tatsu, literally

‘stomach to stand up’, meaning ‘to get angry’ (Kövecses, 2000: 163). In Chinese, anger is based on the cultural idea of qi, energy, which is represented as a fluid or gas flowing around the body. Anger is conceptualised as having excess qi, leading to phrases such as qi yong ru shan, ‘one’s qi wells up like a mountain’, or yuji zai xiong de nuqi zhongyu baofa le, ‘the pent up anger qi in one’s breast finally explodes’ (Kövecses, 2000: 163). Qi is not regarded as having a particular temperature, unlike the liquid in English, Japanese or Hungarian. However, its build-up produces pressure in the body, which can lead to an ‘explosion’; when the individual has calmed down, they are referred to as ping xin jing qi, ‘having a level heart and quiet qi,’ (Kövecses, 2000: 164), meaning that the pressure has been released and the qi is flowing normally again. While these differences may seem minor, they represent different cultural representations of anger which could very well lead to difficulty on the part of learners of English to use ‘native-like’ English expressions, as these expressions would be manifestations of a representational schema different to that of the learner. In terms of comprehension, certainly, learners of English have been shown to be more likely to be able to correctly identify the meaning of English idioms that use a source domain that is also more salient in their native language (Boers and Demecheleer, 2001).

Even in cases where a conceptual metaphor is shared between languages, however, the linguistic instantiations of that metaphor may differ. English and Polish both share the conceptual metaphor IDEAS ARE FOOD, for example, but it gives rise to different expressions in the two languages. While an English speaker may use the phrase ‘half-baked’ to describe an idea that has not been well thought-out, for instance, a Polish

27

speaker may use niedojrzałe, ‘unripe’ (Deignan et al., 1997: 354). Different languages may also metaphorically extend word meanings in different ways; while English speakers may ‘grill’ people for information, Polish speakers use maglować, or ‘mangle’. While this may be intelligible to an English speaker, the conventional metaphoric meaning of ‘to mangle’ expresses the idea of ‘not speaking or writing clearly’, so its use in the context of interrogation is likely to be marked (Deignan et al., 1997:354).

In terms of production, then, learners seem to retain the conceptual systems of their native language, which leads them to be able to produce ‘native-like’ texts when the ways of structuring concepts in the target and source language coincide, but not when there is a difference (Danesi, 1992). The ability to accurately use the conceptual structures of the target language is referred to as conceptual fluency, and has been advanced as a reason why student writing can demonstrate a high level of verbal fluency, or grammatical and lexical knowledge, but still seem to inadequately convey the concepts they are seeking to address (Danesi, 1992: 490). Research on language learners’ writing has further indicated that ‘Errors that are the most disruptive of comprehension are conceptual (meaning-based), rather than strictly “form-based”

(phonological, syntactic, etc.) or communicative (interactive and strategic)’ (Danesi, 2008: 232), which further indicates the importance of learners’ ability to use metaphor.

Learners may also avoid using metaphor due to their own individual differences.

Knowledge of the ways in which the target culture conceptualises the world figuratively is clearly a vital aspect of language learning, but pragmatic knowledge is developed by choice (Kecskes, 2000). Research into students’ use of situation-bound utterances suggests that learners have ‘favourite’ expressions which they will use more than others,

28

despite knowing a variety (Kecskes, 2000). Use of metaphor from the target language is therefore also tied to issues of identity. Taking insights from research into English as a Lingua Franca (ELF), for example, speakers frequently ‘assert and communicate their own identities,’ using language ‘creatively and “subversively” rather than mimicking native speakers of English’ (Seidlhofer, 2009: 239). Furthermore, language learners are not always concerned with ‘calling up elements of a foreign language as they were learnt at school and pressing them into service as “correctly” as possible in a quasi-display of successful, i.e. “error-free”, “learner language”’ (Seidlhofer, 2009: 242). Instead, their focus is on expressing meaning in a fashion that is appropriate to the communicative context and the interpersonal dynamics. While Seidlhofer is mainly focusing on spoken language, her work does encourage researchers in all areas of second language development to think about exactly what constitutes ‘competence’ and ‘development’

in second language production. She argues that it is incorrect to assume that learners of English are always learning to conform to established norms, and that therefore errors are deviations from those norms (Seidlhofer, 2008). She maintains that these so-called

‘norms’ are ever-changing, and as people use language in different ways to meet their own needs, so the language itself is altered. We are thus presented with somewhat of a dilemma; the use of metaphorical language proceeding from a conceptual representation particular to the target language may be a matter of learner choice (Kecskes, 2000) as well as one of knowledge or confidence in doing so (Littlemore, 2009).

This choice may reflect a learner’s desire to distance themselves from the target culture as represented by its language, and to retain their own identity (Seidlhofer, 2009), even when this could lead to misunderstanding (Danesi, 2008). Research into competence in the use of metaphor, therefore, should proceed with this in mind.

29

Cognitive style may also play a role in a learner’s ability in or predilection towards using metaphor. Field dependence-independence (FDI) is a cognitive style that impacts upon an individual’s mode of processing, ‘especially in situations characterized by ambiguity or cognitive conflict’, both features of figurative language (Johnson and Rosano, 1993:

160). Field-dependent individuals tend to rely on external information, while field-independent individuals tend to function ‘in relative autonomy’ from external sources (Johnson and Rosano, 1993: 160). A correlation was found between fluency in producing interpretations of metaphor and field-dependent cognitive style in adult ESL learners (Johnson and Rosano, 1993). Similar evidence for the relationship between cognitive style and approaches to metaphor was found when using Riding and Cheema’s (1991) analytic/holistic and verbalizer/imager continua (Boers and Littlemore, 2000). In short, when asked to solve a problem, a more ‘analytic’ individual will focus on the problem’s constituent parts while a more ‘holistic’ individual will focus more on the whole picture. In terms of the verbalizer/imager continuum, verbalizers think more in words, whereas imagers prefer to think in pictures. When participants were asked to explain three common conceptual metaphors, ‘holistic’ participants were significantly more likely to refer to elements that were not strictly part of the source domain, but instead were related to their conceptualisation of the target domain. For example, for the ECONOMIC COMPETITION IS RACING metaphor, one participant explained that economic competition was described in terms of racing because ‘it is a merciless jungle where only the fittest survive’ (Boers and Littlemore, 2000: 182). In terms of the verbalizer/imager continuum, ‘imager’ participants were significantly more likely to explain the conceptual metaphors by referring to metonymy grounded stereotypical images, i.e. ‘Economic competition is like racing because business people are always in a

30

hurry to get to new customers first’ (Boers and Littlemore, 2000: 181). While these studies focus exclusively on comprehension, it seems reasonable to assume that individual learners’ cognitive styles would also have an impact on their aptitude and eagerness to use metaphor.