CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

This chapter reviews the related literature in the broad area of Cognitive Linguistics, Conceptual
Metaphors, vocabulary learning and reading comprehension. The structure is as follows; the
examination of cognitive linguistics and its relationship to metaphor and vocabulary learning;
next, the most prevalent aspects of cognitive linguistics and its relationship to English language
learning; followed by specific aspects of the above mentioned areas and finally the manner in
which metaphors are utilized in language learning and teaching.

2.1 INTRODUCTION
Metaphor usage occurs very widely and is a dominant feature of everyday language as well as
academic language. As seen from the traditional view, metaphor is treated as a special language
which deviates from linguistic norms and is primarily considered as merely decorative and
ornamental. However, metaphor according to cognitive linguistic view is not exclusively
decorative or ornamental. Cognitive linguistic departs from the traditional view of metaphor in a
much broader sense namely: metaphor is not a special language which deviates from linguistic
norms, metaphor is not merely decorative and ornamental, metaphor is the representation of
human thoughts, and metaphor varies and is versatile in its textual manifestations in a variety of
texts and genres. The next section discusses cognitive linguistics and its relationship with
metaphor.

2.2 COGNITIVE LINGUISTIC THEORY (CLT)

CLT views language as part of cognitive systems comprised of perception, emotions,

categorization, abstraction process and reasoning (Dirven & Verspoor, 2004). In this view, the
cognitive process is manifested through language used: spoken and written. Rudzka-Ostyn
(2003) points out that human beings use their cognition to understand and construe the world
around them. In fact, language allows us to impose order on the world by categorizing or
grouping its phenomena into categories or concepts (Rudzka-Ostyn, 2003: 20). Human needs
language to describe and label the phenomena around them. In other words, it is language that
interconnects the cognitive abilities and the world around. Tyler (2008: 7) summarizes the
particulars of this process and mentions that language is a reflection of general cognitive
process. Based on this cognitive view, Lakoff and Johnson (1980) theorize that the language
that humans use to communicate is largely metaphorical.
According to CLT, metaphor plays major roles in the way human think, speak and live. In
other words, the world is seen through metaphors. Metaphors act as tools to construe the way the
world is seen and to carry out abstract reasoning. In understanding abstract events, metaphors are
used to associate abstracts objects, situations and events with their concrete counterparts
(Juchem-Grundmann, 2009).
Teaching strategies inspired by Cognitive Linguistics (CL) aim at a deeper understanding
as a basis for increasing language proficiency and it offers a better understanding of the nature of
language and vocabulary learning. CL also has a huge potential in helping to improve the
efficiency and effectiveness of a vocabulary within a second language for the implementation of
teaching and learning (Robinson & Ellis, 2008; De Knop & De Rycker, 2008; Boers &
Lindstromberg, 2008; Juchem-Grundmann, 2009).

Kalyuga and Kalyuga (2008) point out that the human cognitive system includes several
basic components that are essential in the learning processes: sensory memory, working memory
and long-term memory. Working memory plays a major role in short-term knowledge retention
Baddely (1999) and is limited in capacity and duration when dealing with unfamiliar
information. Long term memory stores information in the form of organizing knowledge
structures within a specific domain. Learned information stored in long term memory is
unlimited in capacity and duration (Kalyuga & Kalyuga, 2008). Organized information stored in
the long term memory could reduce the amount of mental effort required to learn vocabulary
(Nation, 2001). Available knowledge structures in long-term memory also provide guidance
during cognitive processes such as problem-solving or language comprehension. Information
that is stored in an organized domain help learners retrieve information effortlessly and helps
them attain recall in a cognitively efficient manner (Kintsch, 1998).
In the area of vocabulary learning, the concept of the learning burden of word is defined
as the amount of mental effort required to learn the new word (Nation, 2001). However, learning
burden is heavily influenced by prior knowledge and familiarity with related similar patterns
(e.g. similar sounds, spellings, grammatical patterns and a similar collocation in the first
language). Learning burden could be potentially reduced by drawing the learners attention to
systematic patterns, analogies and a connection between the first and second languages (Laufer,
1998; Nation, 2001). Combining multiple elements of information in an organized domain in the
working memory and the long term memory allow learners to avoid processing overwhelming
amounts of information and to eliminate the potential for working memory overload.
Kalyuga and Kalyuga (2008) call for the need of specific approaches to reduce potential
cognitive overload and associate learning burdens among language learners. The specific

approaches are needed since vocabulary learning is a cognitively demanding process and
involves a very high level of working-memory. Juchem-Grundmann (2009) summarizes four
well-defined didactic approaches that have been developed in the history of language teaching.
Figure 1.1 below refers to the four didactic approaches in the history of language teaching.

Methodology of foreign
language teaching and
learning
Learnercentered/autonomyfocused approaches

Instructioncentered/teacher
-centered approaches

Grammar
translation
method

Audiolingual
Method

Behaviorism

Audiovisual
method

Constructivis
m

Cognitivism

Figure 1.1: Foreign Language Teaching Methodology (adapted from Juchem-Grundmann, 2009)

Juchem-Grundmann (2009) categorizes foreign language teaching methodologies into

two broad categories. On the one hand, the instructor or teacher-centered approaches and on the
other the learner-centered or autonomy-method focused approaches. The traditional Grammar
Translation Method arose from early language instruction which is known through the regular
Latin courses. Behaviorism, initiated by Skinner (1957), sees learning in terms of habit formation
and therefore teaching as conditioning. Frequently introduced as separate methods, the audio-

lingual as well as the audio visual method are subsumed under the theoretical framework of
Behaviorism as they follow the same process of imitation and reinforcing repetition and only
differ in stimulus (Juchem-Grundmann, 2009). In general, both classical approaches are
characterized by a clear focus on the teacher as the learning initiator in charge and the prestructured material he or she distributes.
On the contrary, as the main focus of the present study, Cognitivism under the broader
theory of Constructivism focuses on learning and views the learners as the main agents of this
process. In brief, the aforementioned traditional theories draw attention to teaching whereas the
more modern theories highlight learning. Cognitivist learning strategies concentrate on
knowledge and language processing in ensuring comprehension while constructivist strategies
devote attention to the process of construing knowledge. However, both approaches aim at the
same goal: learner autonomy. Cognitivist theory aims at gaining detailed insights in the cognitive
learning processes and develops learning strategies to optimize storage; the latter also focuses
upon the access and retrieval of knowledge. Constructivist theory actually builds on learner
autonomy because knowledge is solely construed through human interaction with the concrete
events (empirical) around them (Juchem-Grundmann, 2009).
Under constructivism, CLT brings about the implementation of the Conceptual Metaphor
Theory developed by Lakoff and Johnson (1980). The two have shown that many metaphorical
expressions such as your claims are indefensible, he attacked every weak point in my
argument exist in the English language. They argue that these expressions are not simply ways
of talking about one thing in terms of another, but evidence that people also think about one
thing in terms of another (Semino, 2008). The metaphorical expressions given earlier also reflect
conventional patterns of thought, known as conceptual metaphors (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980).

2.3 CONCEPTUAL METAPHOR THEORY

The etymological origin of the word metaphor in this study is in line with the Cognitive
Linguistic approach. The term metaphor originates from the Greek word meta meaning;
with/after, expressing change, above or over, and pherien meaning; bring across, to carry, or to
bear (Charteris-Black, 2000; Lazar, 1996; Kopp & Eckstein, 2004; Klein, 1971). Therefore
metaphor means to carry meaning from one thing, or place to another thing, or place. Aristotle
(1979) as cited in Kelley-Laine (2003) describes metaphors as giving something a name that
belongs to something else. Metaphors create a likeness, or an analogy between two things
(Slavik, 1999).
In other words, metaphors involve the carrying across or transferring of meanings
from one concept (the source domain) to another (the target domain). Thus, the use of metaphors
often results in comparisons being made between two essentially dissimilar things, by identifying
one with the other. For example, in the metaphor my love is like a rose, a comparison is made
between love (the target domain) and a rose (the source domain), where the concrete qualities of
the rose, such as beauty, fragrance and softness are carried over to the abstract notion of love.
Cognitive linguistics makes use of the technical term domain. Metaphors transfer something
from one domain to another domain. According to Evans (2007: 12), a domain constitutes a
coherent knowledge structure possessing, in principle, any level of complexity of organization.
Conceptual metaphor has two main domains namely the source domain and the target domain. In
short, the term metaphor identifies systematic transfer from one domain (the source domain) to
another domain (target domain). The source domain is the conceptual domain from which
metaphorical expression is drawn to understand another conceptual domain (the target domain).

The source domain is a concrete concept, based on sensory experience for example money,
seeing, journey and war. Whereas, the target domain is a domain through which learners try to
understand the use of a source domain. The target domain is an abstract concept for example,
love, ideas, argument and life. Therefore, in the conceptual metaphor LOVE IS JOURNEY;
LOVE is the target domain and JOURNEY is the source domain. In other words, the known or
concrete domain is transferred to understand the abstract domain. The source and target domains
of metaphorical transfer are referred to as conceptual domains that are defined as relatively
complex knowledge structures which relate to coherent aspects of experience (Evans, 2007). In
making sense of metaphor, interlocutors understand and experience one domain in terms of
another, which is what Lakoff and Johnson (2003) call the essence of metaphor.
The Conceptual Metaphor Theory (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980) questions and challenges the
traditional linguistic views which were held by philosophers such as Aristotle (1979).
Traditionally, metaphor is viewed as a matter of words rather than thoughts or actions. In literary
contexts, metaphor is regarded as used for effect or for ornament and contrasts with literal
language. For most people, metaphor is above the ordinary. They believe that the function of
metaphor is a device of poetic imagination and rhetoric (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980). Lakoff and
Johnsons main assertion is that metaphorical thought is normal and ubiquitous in our mental
life, both conscious and unconscious and metaphors are a natural phenomenon and as such are
pervasive in everyday language. In fact, the crucial addition to Lakoff and Johnsons claims is
that metaphor is not just in language but in thought and action. In other words, the integration of
the two domains namely the source domain and the target domain takes place. Source domain is
used to make the more abstract target domain tangible and comprehensible (Lakoff, 2006). In
fact, metaphor is the major mechanism through which we understand abstract concepts and

perform abstract reasoning (Lakoff, 2006). In similar vein, metaphor helps in understanding
unfamiliar phenomena in terms of phenomena we are familiar with (Semino, 2008).
At the conceptual level, a metaphor is the relationship between two concepts, one of
which functions as the source and the other as the target. For example, in ARGUMENT IS WAR,
ARGUMENT is the target domain while WAR is the source domain. The linguistic level is
motivated by the conceptual metaphors and represents the realization on words. It appears in the
forms of everyday written and spoken languages. Thus, a variety of metaphorical expressions are
developed from the conceptual metaphor ARGUMENT IS WAR, such as Your claims are
indefensible, He attacked every weak point in my argument, and I demolished his argument
(Lakoff & Johnson, 2003). Conceptual metaphor is denoted in upper case letter (ARGUMENT
IS WAR), while linguistic metaphor is denoted in lower case letter (he attacked every weak point
in my argument, your claims are indefensible).
According to Grundmann (2009) considerable researches have been carried out on
various discourses for metaphorical language under the tenet of Cognitive Linguistics; e.g.,
spoken discourse (Cameroon & Deignan, 2003), educational discourse (Cameron, 2003),
university lectures (Littlemore, 2001), political discourse (Goatly, 2007; Musolff, 2000),
economic discourse (Boers, 1997; Boers & Demecheleer, 1997; Bretones-Callejaz, 2002;
Charteris-Black & Ennis, 2001; Charteris-Black & Musolff, 2003; Henderson, 1982; Herrera &
White, 2000; Koller, 2004; Smith, 1995; White, 2003; White & Herrera, 2002), advertising
(Forceville, 1996) and religious discourse (Balaban, 1997).
Apart from the statement that metaphors are ubiquitous and used unconsciously, the most
significant findings in Lakoff and Johnsons (1980) work is that metaphors are not a mere matter
of language but a matter of thought (Juchem-Grundmann, 2009). The discipline of Cognitive

linguistics views language as part of a cognitive system which comprises perception, emotions,
categorization, abstraction process, and reasoning (Dirven & Verspoor, 2004: 8). In this view,
language becomes the observable output of invisible input of cognitive process. Hence,
Conceptual Metaphor theory exemplifies that the metaphors in the native language influence the
way people think, speak and ultimately the way people live, serving as a tool to categorize the
way the world is seen and to carry out abstract reasoning (Grundmann, 2009). Metaphors assist
human cognition to understand abstract events by associating it with physical world (concrete
events).

The Conceptual Metaphor (Lakoff & Johnson, 2003) is illustrated in the diagram below:

Conceptual Metaphor
(in the mind)

Target domain

Source domain

(Abstract concept)

(Concrete concept)

TIME

TIME IS MONEY

ARGUMENT

ARGUMENT IS WAR

MONEY
WAR

Linguistic Metaphor
(verbal, written)

1.
2.
3.
4.

Youre wasting my time

How do you spend your time?
I demolished his argument
He attacked every weak point in my argument

Figure 2.1: Conceptual Metaphor (Lakoff & Johnson, 2003)

2.4 METAPHOR IN SPECIALIZED GENRES

Metaphor is a common feature of texts in a wide range of specialization (Lindstromberg, 1991;
Henderson, 1994; Smith, 1995; Charteris-Black, 2000; Grundmann, 2009; Semino, 2008;
Krenmayar, 2010). Some metaphorical words are so common that learners and teachers may not
even be aware that some words they encounter in specialized texts are actually metaphorical.
Semino (2008) gives a specific term for metaphors that appear so commonly that they are not
realized as metaphor. She calls those common metaphors as conventional metaphor which are

often used and understood without being conscious of their metaphoricity. Smith (1995) talks
specifically about conventional metaphors in relation to economics discourse. He says:
A number of what were originally metaphors have become conventionalized in the
language of economics, and can now better be considered as technical terms than
living metaphors. Such terms as equilibrium, float, inflation, leakage, boom,
liquidity and slump are now so familiar in the jargon of the subject that their
metaphorical etymology is not immediately obvious (p.4)
Some evidence of conventional metaphors in specialized genres can be seen in the
architectural language used to describe theory-making in general. When discussing theories,
authors or writers of the specialized texts often see theories as building. For example, linguists or
economists, when discussing their theories, talk about models, or constructs; these require a
structure in which their component elements are bonded or cemented together; this is to prevent
the theories from being shaky or crumbling and at a later stage, they may need buttressing.
Similarly, when teachers advise students on developing their ideas, they require them to write a
plan and to provide evidence to support their point of view. This is to guard against their work
lacking foundations and their arguments falling down.
Cameron (2003) has found that metaphorical words involving nouns accounted lesser
than metaphorical words involving verbs. Metaphorical words involving adverbs, adjectives,
prepositions were found to be infrequent. Skorczynska (2001) has found out that metaphorical
words involving verbs were frequent in business periodicals but less frequent in scientific
journals. Noun metaphors were frequently used in scientific journals than in business periodicals.
Shoukouhi and Isazadeh (2009) suggest that, not only an awareness to metaphor is important in
language learning, an awareness to metaphorical word class (nominal, verbal, adjectival,
adverbial and prepositional) is also equally significant to learners.

Low (1999) enlists word class metaphor with respect to the conceptual metaphor AN
ESSAY IS A PERSON. For example: the views of this paper have not been communicated to the
subjects involved (Nominal metaphor), the essay first of all sets out to define the term
bureaucracy and traces its development from the late 16th century (Verbal metaphor), An
optimistic and an aggressive paper (Adjectival metaphor), The paper happily, if selectively,
examines the opposite argument, however (Adverbial metaphor), the essay first of all sets out to
define the term bureaucracy and traces its development from the late 16th century (prepositional
metaphor).
The existence of conventional metaphors in specialized texts needs to be deliberately
taken into consideration in language learning. Vocabulary lessons geared towards teaching these
metaphors could assist in the understanding of specialized vocabulary. An understanding of
content specific vocabulary can provide learners with the knowledge that will enhance their
understanding of academic texts and their stylistic awareness. Semino (2008) points out that
metaphors are varied in their textual appearance, versatile in their functions and central to many
different types of communication. The functions of metaphors are not exclusive to literature but
vary considerably depending on the genres. The next section discusses the function of metaphor
in greater details.

2.5 THE FUNCTION OF METAPHOR

Metaphor plays a major role in human life. Since the primordial man exists on earth, humans
have used metaphor to make sense of their world particularly of what is abstract around them.
Kristiansen (2006) outlines some functions of metaphor in human life. According to her,
metaphors are the main tools of conceptualization by which human thought manages to explore

and conceptually structure the experiential world of man. Indeed metaphors serve a number of
different cognitive functions. The most essential one is their ability to make a new or abstract
domain accessible through metaphorical concrete domain (Allbritton, 1995). As explained
earlier, structure and vocabulary from the source domain are transferred to the target domain to
provide a framework for understanding a new domain. According to Juchem-Grundmann (2009),
due to this quality of metaphor, its use has become increasingly popular in scientific discourse,
amongst specialists in the field and also in explaining scientific interrelation to laypeople or
students to facilitate access to the field and improve understanding (Littlemore, 2001; Low,
2008). In reference to the role of metaphors in scientific discourse and learning science, Low
(2008) gives the following summary:
Using analogies is an essential aspect of academic expertise, whether one is
discovering things or creating theories they allow the teacher to communicate
with learners who have not mastered a theory..; they allow learners to visualize
abstract concepts; they motivate learners..; they allow the teacher to tailor
teaching to individual needs and levels of understanding (p.45)
Indeed, metaphors provide insights into an unknown domain by the mere use of familiar
words and phrases, and in this way initiate and guide mapping processes. Using well-defined and
commonly known vocabulary and knowledge structures, scientists are thus able to make their
research available to laypeople. Teachers are able to break down complex structures in accessible
and digestible knowledge available to learners. Cameroon (2003) claims that the ability to map
from one domain to another seems to be a basic human feature.
Cameroon (2003) explicitly extends the potential of metaphors in educational discourse
to them functioning as a critical challenge of ones own understanding of target domain by
applying source domain structures, which might reveal knowledge gaps that either call for the
acquisition of more information to fill these gaps or for a restructuring with a different metaphor.

Metaphors assist the problem-solving process which is usually based on individual examples, by
providing analogies to make up for abstract principles needed. The function of metaphors in
educational discourse opens a whole new field of research. Cameron (2003) further claims that
metaphors could help facilitate reading comprehension and enhance retention.
The advantage of metaphorical over non-metaphorical structures is their visual
component. Indeed, explaining target structures by mapping familiar knowledge from different
source domains, metaphor actually draw pictures. The reader or listener is guided to understand
something in terms of something else, and in order to do so, the knowledge of source domain
needs to be activated to process the metaphorical information (Low, 2008). The freshly generated
knowledge is thus coded verbally and visually which makes it easier to retrieve from memory
and thus easier to remember. Paivios (1986) Dual Coding theory suggests that dual coding ease
in retrieval and remembrance through parallel verbal and visual processing of knowledge.
Juchem-Grundmann (2009) in his study formulated ten theoretical implications for
practical metaphor teaching:
1. Metaphors are ubiquitous in everyday communication; they are being used
consciously as well as unconsciously. Therefore, metaphors cannot be considered the
'icing on the cake' that may be learned last. Language learners need to be made aware
of metaphorical language usage and learn to make use of metaphors themselves as
soon as possible. That is, metaphors need to find their way into the language teaching
curriculum.
2. Metaphors are not arbitrary but they can be traced from their source domain.
Therefore, language teaching should provide insights into different experiential
grounding of metaphors in order to foster understanding.

3. Metaphors do not come singly; they are linguistic instantiations of coherent concepts.
Therefore, language learners need to be made familiar with conceptual metaphors or
should be qualified to pinpoint the overarching concept themselves, trace the
individual mappings and successfully decode them in order to be able to eventually
draw creatively on metaphorical concepts.
4. Metaphors are a phenomenon of thought and not merely of language and as such they
have a physical neuronal basis (Lakoff, 2008). The acquisition of metaphors does not
require the storage of the entire source domain together with the target domain. In
fact, the only necessary establishment is that of new neural connections from the
source to the target domain, in particular, those which save mental space (Lakoff &
Johnson, 2003). Therefore, language learners need to be encouraged to reassign, and
in this way link, existing vocabulary by comparing source and target domain
structures.
5. Metaphors are figurative, that is they draw mental pictures in assigning the source
domain vocabulary to the target domain. Metaphor teaching should use visual
materials to make the underlying mappings explicit to language users.
6. Metaphors make abstract domains accessible. Thus, they are the cognitive tool that
imparts scientific knowledge to the public and are most frequently used in academic
discourse. Therefore, language learners, especially business English students, who
are most likely to encounter abstract discourse, need to be able to decode linguistic
metaphors.
7. Metaphors highlight and at the same time hide certain aspects of target domains by
choosing particular source domains and then utilizing only parts of the source

domains for understanding. Therefore, language learners need to be sensitized to this

construction of ambivalent reality and guided perception.
8. Metaphors vary in degree of conventionality and are thus most likely processed
differently. Elaboration on metaphor may enhance and improve storage and retrieval
of vocabulary learning.
9. Metaphors are highly culture-specific. Therefore, language learners need to learn
about the cultural underpinnings of individual concepts used in the target language.
Even metaphors that are biologically grounded in the organization of the human
organism may lead to intercultural misunderstandings as they are not always
universal.
10. Metaphors differ from language to language. Therefore, the foreign language
classroom needs to include a contrastive approach to study metaphor.
The implications of metaphor teaching in the classroom proposed by Grundman (2009)
show that metaphor plays significant roles in vocabulary learning and can be exploited in the
ESL and ESP classrooms. Four significant implications should be given priority with regard to
metaphor in ESL and ESP classrooms:
1. Metaphors are ubiquitous in everyday communication, therefore it should be
exploited in the classroom because metaphors can evoke phenomena that are likely to
be familiar to learners from their everyday experiences.
2. Metaphors are not arbitrary but can be traced from their source domain.
3. Elaboration on metaphor can enhance and improve storage and retrieval of
vocabulary.
4. Metaphors can help explain abstract concepts to be more vivid and concrete.

2.6 COGNITIVE LINGUISTICS AND VOCABULARY LEARNING

Wilkins (1974) points out that without grammar very little can be conveyed, but without
vocabulary nothing can be conveyed. This best saying about the importance of vocabulary
learning has been welcomed by teachers and learners for many years. Zhao (2003) proposes
three principles based on cognitive linguistics to direct the teaching of vocabulary, that is, the
study of categorization, prototype and metaphor.
1. Categorization
Categorization is

the classification of things

in the cognitive process.

Correspondingly, the process that the subject interacts with the objects and classifies
is a process of categorizing. On this basis, human can conceptualize and make sense
of the world around them. More importantly, categories and categorizations exist
everywhere and are ways we perceive the world, otherwise we cannot know it in an
appropriate way (Glass & Holyoak, 1986; Zhao, 2003). Experience tells people that
one object can at the same time belong to some multi-categories. For example, a
husky (part wolf, part dog) can be listed under the categories of animals, dogs,
puppy, dogs, etc. and constitutes the different levels of categories. In CL, human
minds gets to know things at the middle level, on which they know objects most
easily, and the categories in this level is thus called basic level category. Vocabulary
that comes into existence on the basis of the basic categories goes to basic level
vocabulary. A great emphasis should be given to the acquisition and instruction of
basic vocabularies because basic lexicon is the basis for teaching other vocabulary
categories. Linguistic categorization is the major focus of CL, because cognitive

linguistics is not a single theory of language, but rather a cluster of theoretically and
methodologically compatible approaches (Zhao, 2000).
2. Prototype
Rosch (1988) carried out experiments of the category BIRD. She identified that to be
a bird, it should share 13 common attributes, which involve (a) laying eggs, (b)
having a beak (c) having two wings and two legs (d) having feathers (e) being able to
fly (f) being small and lightweight g) chirps/sings (h) legs are thin/short (i) has long
neck (j) has decorative feathers (k) has exotic colours (Ungerer & Schmid, 2001).
She found that ROBIN shares the most attributes that resemble with other family
members, which she classified as the prototype of the category BIRD. All the family
members have similar features with the prototype. Prototype can be deduced from
categorization experiments where some members of a category first come to mind in
association experiments and are recognized more quickly as category members in
verification tasks. If one takes these members as prototypes of the respective
categories, this leads to definition like best example of category, salient example,
clearest cases of category membership, most representatives of things included in a
class (Rosch, 1988; Lakoff, 1986; Brown, 1990). Thus, the prototype of this theory
can be applied to the understanding of polysemy of words. In other words, among the
bundles of meaning of a certain vocabulary, there must be a core meaning that can be
served as prototype of the others. Or all the other meanings are based on the
extension or radiation of this prototypical meaning. For instance, the core meaning
for the word down is of motion from a higher level to a lower level (the
prototype). Then, following this prototype, there are expressions like he feels a bit

down today or she is in the high spirit. As a result, the different meanings given in
a dictionary is relatively limited and humans can in effect use the prototype and
extend to many other meanings. In the teaching of English vocabulary, the teacher
should try to make her students aware that the meaning of a word is not fixed and
unchanged, but when using human cognitive imagination, there are some more
correlated categories based on the prototypical meaning. Accordingly, core words are
devised. Therefore, they are likely to be more useful than non-core words. Core
words are typically those words used when defining other words. This approach can
save students from blindly memorizing each meaning listed in the dictionary. Instead
they are encouraged to learn vocabulary in a more scientific way by making full use
of prototypical sense of the given semantic meaning.

3. Conceptual metaphor
Lakoff and Johnson (1980) note that the conceptual system that humans thought and
behavior rely on is metaphoric in nature. In the same sense, metaphor is an important
way of language change and development. The most important feature of metaphor is
that its relatedness between things and categories. For example, the word leg can be
used to refer to legs of human beings, legs of a chair, a bed, a table and so on which
basically means the support of things. Vocabulary teaching and learning is a cycle
of semantization and internalization, which is closely linked to and to a large extent
dependent on the way a word is presented. To reduce students learning load and
make sure that students can enlarge their vocabulary quickly and efficiently, a
cognitive approach that is based on characterization, prototype and conceptual

metaphor is a worthwhile attempt for learners to try out in both elementary and
intermediate level of English Learning.

2.7 VOCABULARY LEARNING AND METAPHOR AWARENESS

Metaphorical words or expressions do not just exist in academic reading text, it exists in
everyday life. Reddy (1979) states that English, particularly ordinary everyday English is largely
metaphorical. Low (1988) discusses that metaphors are so pervasive and argues that students
need to develop metaphoric competence which according to him refers to awareness of words
or expressions as metaphors, and strategies for comprehending and creating metaphors.
In linguistic studies, metaphor awareness and linguistic awareness are interrelated.
According to Carter (2003), linguistic awareness refers to the language learners deepened
understanding of the linguistic form and function of the target language while metaphor
awareness refers to the language learners enhanced awareness of metaphor and its function in
language. In other words, metaphor awareness means that learners are aware and conscious of
the metaphorical sense of words as they encounter them in their reading. A language learner with
metaphor awareness is one who can identify metaphor in various forms, such as nominal
metaphor, verbal metaphor and adverbial metaphor, after realizing the fact that metaphor exists
in all languages and gaining knowledge of the formation of metaphor.
Having had metaphor awareness has enabled them to extend the non-metaphorical
meaning of words to metaphorical meaning. Schmidt (1995) addresses the notion of
consciousness in the area of attention and language learning and says that consciousness or
awareness is necessary for language learning to take place. Schmidt acknowledges the role of
consciousness in language learning and argues that awareness is necessary in vocabulary

learning. Learners select specific parts of the input they are exposed to which then become
available for further processing.
Boers (2004) points out that enhanced metaphoric awareness involve:
1) Recognition of metaphor as a common ingredient of everyday language
2)

Recognition of the metaphoric themes (conceptual metaphors or source domains)

behind many figurative expressions

3) Recognition of non-arbitrary nature of many figurative expressions

4) Recognition of possible cross-cultural differences in metaphoric themes
5) Recognition of cross-linguistic variety in the linguistic instantiations of those
metaphoric themes
There is a parallel between Boers (2004) enhanced metaphoric awareness and
Grundmanns (2009) implications on metaphor teaching where both of them reach common
ground that metaphor is a common ingredient of everyday language, metaphor is non-arbitrary
but can be stimulated and metaphor can concretize abstract concept, thus making the explanation
more vivid and concrete. The fact that metaphor allows human to think and talk about one
domain of experience in terms of another can be exploited in order to help students understand
new, unfamiliar phenomena in terms of phenomena they are familiar with. Metaphor can,
therefore, help to make topics clearer, more accessible, and easier to imagine and remember. This
is particularly important when learners are introduced to phenomena that are not just new to
them, but also complex and inaccessible to ordinary perception. Metaphor also has the potential
in helping learners to remember information, make inferences, answer questions and solve
problems.

Studies on metaphor awareness and vocabulary improvement are numerous. A recent

study on metaphor awareness by Kalyuga & Kalyuga (2008) states that awareness of literal
meaning or core meaning of metaphors or conceptual metaphors and grouping of various words
and expressions in a metaphorical chunk may improve the process of vocabulary acquisition.
Since words that appear in language as a result of the extension of metaphorical meaning
resemble other etymologically-related words, this method may help learners in establishing
mental associations and speed up learning, especially if students already know words to which
the new vocabulary is related. Boers (2000) claims that various figurative expressions can often
be traced back to a common metaphoric theme or source domain. He concludes that a lexical
organization along such metaphoric themes or source domain can facilitate retention of
unfamiliar figurative expressions. He also states that an enhanced metaphoric awareness on the
part of language learners can be beneficial to their specialized reading.
Charteris-Black (2000) says that metaphors provide insights into particular ways of
thinking, both in general terms and in relation to the development of semi-technical registers. He
asserts that vocabulary teaching to ESP economics students based on lexis that reflects important
underlying metaphors of the subjects can help improve the comprehension of economic
terminology.
Another positive aspect of metaphor awareness application is that it may encourage
students to figure out idiomatic expressions without the teachers assistance; and therefore help
foster the development of learning independence and problem-solving skills (Kalyuga &
Kalyuga, 2008). Moreover, the understanding of common metaphorical extensions in vocabulary
may facilitate students understanding of cross cultural differences in metaphor usage and help to
avoid errors caused by the mother tongue (Boers, 2003; Kovecses, 2002).

Nation (2000) suggests that one useful strategy in learning polysemous words might be to
define a word in terms of a concept which is utilized in all senses; such a strategy reduces the
number of words to be learned. Thus, every occurrence of the word will act as a repetition of that
word, rather than as a different one; and will therefore build on previous learning. Similar to
Nation (2000), Verspoor and Lowie (2003) suggest that the effects of the guessing method for
polysemous words can be made more effective and more efficient if the student is given the core
sense of a target word and is consequently encouraged to make meaningful links between this
sense and the other senses of a target word. The meaning will be processed at a deeper level
(Craik & Lockhart, 1972).
According to Brown and Perry (1991), a considerable amount of research has taken place
since the late 1970s concerning vocabulary learning strategies. Emphases have mainly been on
four strategies namely keyword (Pressly et al., 1982), contextual (Sternberg, 1987, Krashen,
1985; Mondria & Wit-de Boer, 1991; Laufer & Hulstjin, 2001; Cain, 2007; Pulido, 2007),
semantic processing (Beck, Meckeown & Omanson, 1987) and awareness of the conceptual
metaphor (Nation, 2000; Verspoor & Lowie, 2003; Boers, 2004; Charteris- Black & Ennis, 2001;
Csabi, 2004; Deignan, Gabrys & Solska, 1997; Herrera & White, 2000; Kondaiah, 2004;
Cameron & Low, 1999; Cameron, 1999; Kovecses & Szabo, 1996; Lazar, 1996; Kalyuga &
Kalyuga, 2008).
Brown and Perry (1991) mention that keyword method has received most attention and
has been shown to be superior to contextual and no-strategy conditions. Sternberg (1987) claims
that even though most vocabulary is learned from context, it does not necessarily mean that
teaching specific vocabulary using context is the most effective or even relatively effective way

of teaching that vocabulary. The fourth strategy, that is teaching vocabulary through raising
metaphor awareness, is just beginning to receive attention in applied linguistics.
Kalyuga and Kalyuga (2008) state that in recent years, studies in applied linguistics have
been successfully adapted to facilitate foreign language vocabulary acquisition. In particular,
steps have been taken to find out how metaphor awareness can increase the speed of vocabulary
learning. These studies have demonstrated that knowledge of conceptual metaphors has a
positive effect on a students ability to acquire polysemantic words and idiomatic expressions.
Boers (2000a) in his experiments to measure the potential benefits of organizing
figurative expressions according to their underlying metaphoric themes concluded that a lexical
organization along such metaphoric themes or source domains can facilitate retention of
unfamiliar figurative expressions. In his other study Boer (2000b) investigated whether students
can cope better with specialized reading of economics if their metaphoric awareness is enhanced.
One of the ways to raise learners metaphoric awareness is to draw their attention to the source
domain or to the origin of unfamiliar figurative expressions as they encounter in their specialized
reading. He concludes that an enhanced metaphoric awareness may help students to recognize
the inference patterns associated with given figurative expression and thus remember unfamiliar
figurative pattern.
Henderson (1986) also proposes to raise students awareness of the role of metaphors in
theory construction and question formulation in economics as a social science. Helping
economics students to recognize the metaphors behind commonly accepted economics models
and encouraging them to adopt alternative metaphorical perspective may foster a questioning
attitude. By questioning attitude, he means that the inquisitive mind that learners have that is
manifested in their habit of asking questions. Kalyuga and Kalyuga (2008) investigated how an

awareness of conceptual metaphor and grouping of various words and expressions in a

metaphorical chunk according to shared metaphorical themes may improve the process of
vocabulary acquisition. They concluded that the presentation of vocabulary in chunks united by
the same metaphorical themes could create a mental link and enhance learning by reducing a
potential cognitive overload and associated learning burden. This method also may help learners
in establishing mental associations and speed up learning, especially if students already know
words to which new vocabulary is related.
Charteris-Black (2000) suggests that conceptual metaphor can be made useful for
vocabulary teaching in ESP Economics. He claims that familiarity with the metaphors through
which impersonal and abstract processes are conceptualized seems a valuable addition to
content-based ESP approaches. Learning a semi-technical register requires teaching the subject
specific meanings of vocabulary and this provides the L2 learner with insight into the conceptual
domain of their subject. Ortony (1993) summarizes three ways in which metaphor facilitates
learning namely compactness, vividness and inexpressibility. Compactness involves the transfer
from well-known to less well-known domains, vividness allows a more memorable learning
experience due to the greater imagery, and inexpressibility shows that metaphors work by
encoding certain aspects of peoples experience which seems to be impossible to encode.
Together these three elements provide a strong basis for the claim that learning can be enhanced
through the use of metaphors.
Deignan et al. (1997) suggest that since metaphor is recognized as pervasive in language,
more attention should be given to the teaching of strategy for comprehending and generating
metaphors in L2. The researchers investigated the extent to which a small set of metaphorical
expressions have equivalents across two languages (English and Polish), and whether

metaphorical expressions might create difficulties for students. They suggested that raising
metaphor awareness through discussion and comparison of metaphors in L1 and L2 is a useful
approach to helping learners understand and appropriately produce metaphors.
Lazar (1996) suggests three implications of using metaphors for language learning
namely understanding metaphorical language involves a process of inference, metaphorical
language ranges from the conventional to the original and metaphorical meanings are culturally
determined. Vocabulary learning through metaphor awareness can be achieved through two
means namely i) an explicit reference to the literal sense or origin ii) grouping figurative
expressions under their source domains. The first means will be the main focus of the present
study. Furthermore, the study also aims to explore the density of metaphorical words in the
specialized texts and to find out the effects of metaphor awareness on the improvement of
vocabulary learning and reading comprehension.
2.8 VOCABULARY LEARNING AND CONTEXTUAL GUESSING
Vocabulary learning through context helps learners learn specific strategies for acquiring words
(Oxford & Scarcella, 1994: 231). Oxford (1986) advances the point that discrete learning
democratizes the learning process by transferring more responsibility to students. Moreover
Honeyfield (1977) points out that it is important to provide learners with strategies for inferring
the meaning of unknown vocabulary from the context in which it occurs rather than having
learners simply memorize long lists of words that makes the learning process slow and tedious.
They should also be taught and encouraged to look for contextual clues to guess the meaning and
function of an unknown word.
Nation (1990) argues that because of the large number of low frequency words and
because of their infrequent occurrence and narrow range, it is best to teach learners strategies for

dealing with these words rather than to teach the words themselves. He further adds that a large
proportion of the unknown words (at least 80 percent) can be successfully dealt with in this way.
Similarly, Sternberg (1987) claims that most vocabulary is learned from context. Some
researchers (Clarke & Nation, 1980; Liu & Nation, 1985) discuss factors that affect guessing
vocabulary in context. According to them techniques and type of clues can provide information
to help learners in guessing. According to Steinberg (1978), grammar, punctuation, definition,
contrast, connectives, reference words, word analysis, and the learners experience and common
sense could help learners in guessing the unfamiliar words in texts. Similar studies on metaphor
awareness and on contextual guessing and vocabulary improvement have been carried out.
According to Cain (2007) although context will not always reveal word meanings, the presence
of written context to learn the meaning of new words and to elaborate the meaning of less
familiar words are crucial. Other studies in vocabulary learning strategy highlight the importance
of inferring meanings of words from context (e.g., Ittzes, 1991; Nagy, 1997; Schouten-van
Parreren, 1992; Cain, 2007; Mondria & Boer, 1991; Pulido, 2007). These studies usually show
that words must be offered in rich contexts to provide the learners with cues to learn new words.
One way of using a context effectively is to ask the learner to guess explicitly the meaning of a
word within its context. Advocates of the guessing method (e.g., Dupuy & Krashen, 1993;
Schouten-van Parreren, 1992) argue that inference leads to better retention of vocabulary than
learning words in isolation because increased mental effort should have a positive effect on
retention. Schouten-van Parreren (1992) states that the inference of the meaning of words is
conducive to retention. She further explains that in the process of guessing, the reader makes
associations between the context and his own personal knowledge (both linguistic knowledge

and knowledge of the world) and also guessing results in a strong affective involvement on the
part of the guesser, especially if the guessing is followed by the verification of the meaning.
Sternberg (1987: 20) claims that the greatest part of our own vocabulary has been
acquired as a result of encountering words in a certain context or situation, from which we have
inferred the meaning. Schouten-van Parreren (1992) has found that guessing of new words from
the context yielded better results in a composition test in which words had to be used actively
than when words were semanticized by means of pictures or through synonyms. Carpay (1975)
carried out a series of experiments in which students of psychology were required to learn
Russian using texts. The results showed that through the inference of meanings from the context,
words could indeed be learnt receptively. Li (2002) carried out an experiment in which welleducated subjects had to guess the meaning of unknown foreign words with the aid of a sentence
context. It was found that of the words that were guessed with the aid of a good cue in the
reading condition, 74 percent were known in the (receptive) retention test.
To summarize, the empirical research on the hypothesis that guessing is conducive to
retention has so far provided inconclusive evidence of the superiority of this method with respect
to others. It can be concluded that contextual guessing, on its own, is not sufficient in helping
learners to enhance their vocabulary. Metaphor awareness method should be incorporated as one
of the alternative methods in vocabulary learning and reading comprehension.

2.9 READING COMPREHENSION

The present study provides a view of the reading comprehension from the perspective of Schema
Theory. Schema theory is a theory of how knowledge is acquired, processed and retrieved.
Schema theory is based on the belief that every act of comprehension involves ones knowledge

of the world (Anderson et al., 1977, cited in Carrell & Eisterhold, 1983). Schemata reflect the
experiences, conceptual understanding, attitudes, values, skills, and strategies one brings to a text
situation (Vacca & Vacca, 1999).
Research on the theory of schema has had great impact on understanding reading
comprehension in first and second language (Carrell & Eisterhold, 1983; Vacca & Vacca, 1999).
It made clear the case that understanding the role of schema in the reading process provides
insights into why students may fail to comprehend text material. Students are in a better position
to comprehend their assigned reading when they are familiar with the topic of the text they are
reading, aware of the discourse level and structural make-up of the genre of the text, and skillful
in decoding features needed to recognize words and recognize how they fit together in a
sentence. Carrell (1988) points out that students apparent reading problems may be problems of
insufficient background knowledge. However, as further pointed out by the same author, students
might have sufficient schemata, yet unable to comprehend the text if such schemata are not
appropriately activated.
According to Brown (2001) with regards to reading, a text does not by itself carry
meaning. The reader brings information, knowledge, emotion and culture that is schemata to
the printed words. Clark and Silberstein (1977) indicate that research has shown that reading is
only incidentally visual. More information is contributed by the reader than by the print on the
page. An understanding of a text depends on how much schema one as readers, possess while
reading. Consequently, readers failure or confusion in making sense of a text is caused by the
lack of appropriate schemata that can easily fit with the content of the text. This lack of
appropriate schemata can be either formal or content-based. Brown (2000) defines these two as

follows: content schemata includes what one knows about people, the world, culture and the
universe, while formal schemata consists of ones knowledge about discourse structure.
Research in the area of schema theory and reading comprehension conclude that the
closer the match between the readers schema and the text, the more comprehension occur
(Brown, 2000). Comprehension of any kind depends on knowledge that is relating what people
do not know to what they know. In other words, peoples understanding of a text depends on how
much related schemata they as readers posses while reading. Consequently, failure of L1 or L2
readers to make sense of a text could be caused by the lack of an appropriate schema that can
easily fit within the content of the text. This missing of an appropriate schema can be content,
formal or linguistic.
According to Carrell (1981), the text must activate in the reader, all of the appropriate
cognitive schemata in order to comprehend. When reading a story with a familiar theme,
especially one from the native culture, L2 readers might more easily activate the appropriate
background concepts and hence more efficiently process the text. Not only is it important for the
reader to have background knowledge to read more efficiently, but that knowledge also needs to
be activated.

2.10 THE ROLE OF METAPHOR IN READING COMPREHENSION

From the perspective of cognitive linguistics, metaphor offers significant values in reading
comprehension especially in specialized texts. This is because it has a special role in organizing
conceptual knowledge through the interaction of two domains: source domain and target domain.
Allbrighton and McKoon (1995) call the structure that maps source domain onto the target
domain metaphor-based schema. In their research, Allbritton and McKoon claim that metaphor

can aid in the comprehension of new information. They further claim that in our
characterization of metaphor-based schemas, we have assumed that they are part of the world
knowledge that readers bring to the process of text comprehension (p.613). An example of this
is the use of metaphorical expressions in situations where the topic of the discourse is scientific,
complex and highly abstract. Concrete source domains are then often metaphorically employed
to explain scientific, abstract and difficult processes or events to make them easier to understand.
Studies that deal with this aspect of metaphor predominantly focus on genres such as academic
discourse, popular scientific prose, and educational discourse, both written and spoken.
Mayer (1993) discusses metaphor and students understanding of science and

how

metaphor awareness can aid in the understanding of abstract scientific topics. He suggests that
the instructive nature of metaphors, which set up analogies between the topic and the metaphor,
is important in students understanding of the topic. More recently, Nuez (2008) showed that in
technical books and articles about mathematics, highly conventional spatial source domains such
as MOTION, ROTATION and OBJECTS IN BOUNDED SPACE were used to talk about
complex, abstract mathematical issues such as limits and continuity functions. In addition, some
of the gestures made in university-level classes that Nuez analysed depicted the same ideas;
lecturers used their hands to make rotating and spatial movements while explaining the abstract
issues. As Nuez suggests, these gestures reflect the idea that these concepts were also
psychologically real for the persons using them.
Darian (2000) studied the role of metaphor in the explanation and teaching of science,
and its function in scientific texts. According to him, metaphorical expressions are common in
biology texts. For example, the word factory in a sentence like Imagine the many millions of

chloroplasts in just one lettuce leaf, each a tiny factory for producing sugars and starches (p.
171).
Cameron (2003) found that groups of metaphors, or clusters, tended to appear close
together in explanations of difficult concepts, illustrated by a stretch of talk in which a teacher
explains the phenomenon of volcanic lava. Concrete metaphorical expressions such as treacle,
runny butter and a bit like wax were used by the teacher intentionally and close together to refer
to the working of volcanic lava, and were preceded and followed by stretches of talk in which
only a few and highly conventional metaphors occurred.
Tomohiro and Takashi (2000) claimed that there was a significant effect of metaphor
awareness on reading comprehension. Metaphors that existed in texts helped readers acquire
information because many important concepts were abstract and metaphors were needed to grasp
them. According to Reynolds and Schwartz (1983), the memorability of passages is increased
when the concluding statement is metaphorical rather than literal.
In relation to the explanatory function of metaphors in science-related discourse, there is
another function of metaphor in educational discourse, in written text books as well as spoken
classroom interaction, which has to do with the topic or classroom management. Low (2005:
137) suggested that for at least one of the texts used in his study, the author made use of
metaphor to summarize, disengage and evaluate a topic immediately prior to changing the topic.
The metaphorical expressions there seemed not only used to explain the difficult topic, but also
to summarize it more clearly. For spoken classroom interaction, Cameron and Low (2004: 360)
showed that metaphors can have similar framing functions; they were used in an organisational
manner, concerned with the design of the classroom and to negotiate with students about what
was going to happen in the lesson or task.

However, research on the roles of metaphor in text comprehension are still scarce in
Malaysia. One study was found on the effects of conceptual mapping on reading comprehension.
Rasaya and Elangkeeran (2005) in their experimental study on the effects of concept mapping as
a cognitive strategy in reading comprehension among UiTM students in Terengganu found that
the use of appropriate cognitive strategies could promote reading comprehension skills and also
help in nurturing learners to be autonomous.

2.11 COGNITIVE LINGUISTICS AND METAPHOR TEACHING

CL highlights the main function of language as a tool of conceptualization (Radden & Dirven,
2007, p.17). Language is seen as a concrete evident or output of our cognitive process (input).
CL views language as a major means to manifest human cognitive process. In other words, the
cognitive process is realized through language used: spoken or written language (Rudzka-Ostyn,
2003). Furthermore, CL asserts that language is part of a cognitive system which comprises
perception, emotion, categorization, abstraction process and reasoning (Dirven & Verspoor,
2004, p.9). Within the framework of CL, language is considered as an integral part of the
cognition system. Tyler (2008) summarizes that language is a reflection of general cognitive
process p.12.
Juchem-Grundmann (2009) outlines the three basic principles of explicit language
teaching in the classroom namely (1) explicitly activating already acquired knowledge to make
sense of the newly learned knowledge (2) showing possible links between the existing and new
knowledge structure (3) encouraging the embedding of a new information into the existing web
of knowledge. Metaphors lend themselves to teaching in the framework of the cognitive
linguistic paradigm for several reasons (Grundmann, 2009) namely i) Metaphors are grounded in

human socio-cultural experience, ii) Metaphors enable abstract events to be understood by means
of understanding concrete events, iii) Metaphors are means to construct or reconstruct concrete
knowledge structures in abstract domains.
Boers (2000) reported a study on conceptual metaphor in specialized reading. The study
focused on whether metaphor awareness made a difference in the students ability to decode and
interpret the metaphorical words used in the expressions. In this experiment, two groups (N=85)
were presented with a reading text. A vocabulary list which also incorporated explanations for
the five metaphorical expressions had been explicitly put into the text for the purpose of the
study. The control group was provided with a glossary list that gave explanations based on the
context of economics. The experimental group was given the explanation based on the source
domain. After having read the text, the students were tested on their comprehension by means of
statements concerning the text content, which they had to agree or disagree with. The result of
the study showed that the experimental group outperformed the control group in decoding and
interpreting the inference in the texts. These findings provide empirical evidence for two aspects
in favor of raising metaphor awareness namely that the students were able to successfully make
the transfer from non metaphorical meaning to metaphorical meaning. Secondly, metaphor
awareness might improve the ability to understand texts in detail (Boer, 2000). Three days after
the reading comprehension was given, Boers administered a follow-up gap-filling test with
which he researched the effect of unfamiliar vocabulary in the source domain context had on the
retention of the five targeted items. He concluded that the subjects in the experimental group
turned out to be more likely to reproduce at least one of the targeted metaphorical expressions. In
other words, the metaphor awareness, which had supposedly been increased by presenting the

vocabulary with the source domain explanation, might have significantly contributed to retention
of vocabulary.
Deignan, Gabry and Solska (1997) reported an experiment with 143 Polish students of
English who had been asked to translate 68 English sentences into Polish. Students were
informed not to do word by word translation but they were asked to do translation based on the
whole meaning into Polish.

The experiment did not aim to compare the different result of

students after certain intervention but it addressed the issue of contrastive research as a necessity
for gaining metaphor awareness. As a result of the study, four different types of cross-cultural
metaphor variations used in the students translation were identified that required different
degrees of contrastive research and metaphor awareness: (1) same conceptual metaphors and
equivalent linguistic expressions (2) same conceptual metaphors but different linguistic
expressions (3) different conceptual metaphors (4) words similar in literal meanings but different
in metaphorical meanings (Deignan et al., 1997).
On the basis of these four variations, Deignan et al. (1997) developed the awareness
raising activities. The first task provided the students with a Polish text and its English
translation in which the linguistic metaphors were enhanced in bold print. Students were simply
asked to read the text and discus the highlighted expressions. In the second task, the students
were provided with a set of six English sentences and source domain concepts (plants), they were
asked to underline all words and phrases in the sentences to do with the source domain, define
these words in the given context by consulting a dictionary and finally instructed to think about
the concept of plant in their native tongue and whether the linguistic metaphors used in the
English sentences could also be used in a Polish translation. The third task again provided
students with six isolated English sentences. In this task the students were instructed to underline

words for the same target concept, namely increase and decrease of economical key data
such as prices, inflation or unemployment. Furthermore they were supposed to use a dictionary
to find the literal meaning of the expressions and instructed to find the differences to the
metaphorical context used in the examples sentences. This study provided insights on how to
possibly deal with metaphors and draw attention to linguistic metaphors in the foreign language
classroom. Most importantly, the main focus of Deignans study was to give the explicit
guidance back to the literal meaning, the source domain and the comparison of the different
meanings. Deignan et al. (1997) concluded that students found it easier to learn English
metaphors if their awareness on metaphor were raised and they were asked to compare the use of
metaphor in English and their mother tongue.
Boers (2000) studied the benefits of metaphor awareness rising for productive language
output with 73 French students of Business English. Provided with a list of vocabulary for up
and downward movements and given 10 minutes to study the vocabulary items, students were
presented with graphs depicting the growth of economic key data and asked to write a short
essay describing the graphs. Although this general experimental set up was the same for both
groups (experimental and control), the handout with the sample lexis varied in the last sentence
of the instruction. The sample lexis in the experimental group focused on explicitly drawing
students attention to the source domain of the targeted words, while the sample lexis in the
control group was focused on the speed of development or change. The analysis of the students
texts showed that the experimental group significantly outperformed the control group in
productive usage of the targeted linguistic metaphors. In this study, Boers expanded the task
from a mere receptive and analytical task to a productive and creative task. Indeed, in this study

linguistic metaphors were explicitly taught to expand productive vocabulary and provide
students with a tool to become more precise.
Inspired by the earlier results, Boers (2000) carried out another experiment that explicitly
taught linguistic metaphors. This was done by grouping them under the source domain headings.
118 Flemish secondary school pupils, subdivided into two groups, read a sample text dealing
with emotions and received additional vocabulary notes. They were supposed to study for 10
minutes. Again, the additional vocabulary notes in the experimental group were sorted under the
heading of source domains (e.g. anger welled up inside of me was grouped under anger as hot
fluid in a container). The vocabulary utilized for the control groups were grouped along
different pragmatic or functional lines (e.g. anger welled up inside of me was grouped under
to describe anger as a process). Most importantly there were no written explanations or
translations given, the vocabulary was only presented in groups. After the reading and
subsequent study of vocabulary, the students were engaged in a guided discussion about anger
and conflicts. There, they had the chance to make use of and try out their newly acquired
vocabulary which was finally tested in a closed test. In this experiment, the students were
explicitly encouraged to give alternative possibilities for the different gaps in order to offer more
opportunities to make use of the targeted vocabulary. The output analysis of the targeted
vocabulary compared between the two groups revealed significant differences in the scores. The
experimental group was found to outperform the control group. Boers concluded that a basic
awareness of the source domain behind the vocabulary could facilitate retention.
Berendi (2005) conducted a similar experiment to Boers (2000) concerning the language
material used as well as the teaching and testing procedure. In this study, students were
confronted with a text filled with linguistic metaphors of anger and additional vocabulary notes

that listed all targeted items but were asked to first read then translate the items. Afterwards, they
were given some time to memorize the vocabulary and finally had to do a cloze test with the
encouragement to list all alternatives for the individual gaps. Vocabulary for the control group
was listed in order of appearance and for the experimental group the source domain was
highlighted. Unlike Boers, Berendi differentiated four different groups. Apart from the regular
control group (Group 1), Berendi distinguished three experimental groups that received different
degrees of information on their handouts. The metaphor group (Group 2) received the vocabulary
sorted by source domain. The metaphor finder group (Group 3) received the vocabulary similar
to the control group sorted in order of appearance but was told about the four metaphoric themes
prevalent in the text, and was instructed to identify these and group the vocabulary respectively
(to give an example two of the four conceptual metaphors were already given). The last, the
image group (Group 4), also received the vocabulary list in order of appearance but was
additionally provided with illustrative drawings and further instructed to match the examples
with the drawing. In addition to the four different sets of materials, Berendi also varied the
degree of instructions. In the metaphor group, she started with a general discussion of idioms,
activated students pre-knowledge, triggered their attitude towards idioms and explicitly
introduced the idea of underlying metaphoric motivation followed by a discussion of the
conceptual metaphor ANGER IS HOT FLUID IN A CONTAINER. The metaphor-finder group
also started with a general discussion of idioms but did not go into details with the underlying
metaphoric concepts. After the varied starters, the reading and the working with the vocabulary,
all four groups had to translate the targeted items, which functioned as a analysis toll referred to
as the comprehension of the figurative meanings check. Analyzing the quality of the
translation, Berendi found out that the rate of misunderstanding was significantly lower in the

metaphor group than in the control group. This provided evidence for the hypothesis that
knowledge about the underlying conceptual metaphor facilitated understanding. The
comprehension findings for the metaphor-finder group and the image group drew a different
picture, which made Berendi concluded that only the explicit awareness raising was effective,
the implicit attempt at the activation of metaphorical competence in the form of images and
encouraging the self-reliant recognition of common sources without prior instruction was not
(Berendi, 2005, p.15). Berendi concluded that the introduction to the conceptual framework in
the introduction made all the difference as it encouraged students to realize the connection
between source and target right from the start and to use these when decoding the expressions.
Consequently, as far as comprehension is concerned, Berendi clearly argued in favor of explicit
teaching, that is making metaphorical mappings the topic of teaching.
Similar to Berendi (2005), Li (2002) reported on a program of explicit metaphor
instruction trying out different methods of teaching. He conducted a series of experiments with
394 Chinese learners of English. The study involved testing for effective conceptual metaphor
knowledge on vocabulary recall. Explicit guided class-room discussions, explicit application of
conceptual mappings, and the use of visuals for mnemonic support constituted the experimental
conditions. Li did not focus on familiarizing students with linguistic metaphors by introducing
the conceptual metaphor. However, he used simple semantic sets as experimental condition. In
this experiment, phrases were grouped under super ordinate terms, such as anger, insanity or
revelation. In his experiment, Li intended to show that positive effects were mainly due to
conceptual metaphor and not because of reasonable grouping. The other experimental condition
explicitly addressed imaging in questioning the students what image they had in mind when
processing the linguistic metaphors and what the implications were. This way, Li hoped to

initiate visual processing. In other words, all three conditions made more or less use of concepts,
only the degree of cognitive activation differed. In the experiments, the conceptual metaphorgroup significantly outperformed the other groups in the post-test (Li, 2002). Lis experiment
tackling linguistic metaphors of different degrees of complexity, that is from simple linguistic
metaphors to multi-word idioms, suggested that a conceptual metaphor approach fostered
meaning recall but did not significantly influence the recall of form as the results for the most
complex category showed.
Another interesting study similar to the ones discussed earlier is by Caballero-Rodriguez
(2003). In this study, Caballero-Rodriguez investigated the teaching of metaphors to architects.
Focusing on the analysis of specialized architecture discourse for the use of metaphors,
Caballero-Rodriguez did not present an empirical study of teaching metaphors but rather
suggested how to approach teaching on the basis of this experience. However, she highlighted
some useful insights to the present study. According to her, explicit presentation and explanation
of conceptual metaphors would be helpful for vocabulary learning. The success of metaphor
teaching demands the active role of the learners in accomplishing both comprehension and
production tasks (Caballero-Rodriquez, 2003).
Hong-Mei (2010) in her recent study, suggests some insights on how metaphor awareness
could be utilized in the English language classroom:
1. Teachers should make their students aware of the ubiquity and significance of
metaphors in their daily life. They should be made to understand the nature of
conceptual metaphors, the differences between metaphoric expressions and
conceptual metaphors in general and realize the significance of conceptual metaphors
in language learning.

2. Teachers can use conceptual metaphors to explain the existence of some word
formations. According to Lakoff and Johnson (2009), the way the world is perceived
is largely metaphorical and all concepts are structured on the basis of one experience.
The experience is interactions between human and the physical environment or other
people within their culture.
3. Metaphors can be used to explain the reasonableness of the collocation of words. The
structure of one concept can be used to form another concept. Therefore, many
aspects of a word can be used to talk about another concept. For example, Time
flows, current of history are derived from the same conceptual metaphor TIME IS
RIVER. A variety of words originally used to talk about river can naturally be used to
talk about time.
Radden (1997) points out, the idea of combining the teaching of linguistic metaphors
with insights into their cognitive stimulation results in insightful learning that is more successful
than schematic rote learning. Indeed, elaborating on metaphoric motivation means asking the
basic question of how humans, and in foreign language teaching, native speakers of the
language, perceive and accordingly construe the world and in which way this is shown in
language. Metaphoric motivation is mainly based in the underlying conceptual metaphors.
Therefore, these concepts in their coherent structure, that is different mappings between source
and target domain, should be made explicit in the foreign language classroom. Concepts become
the organizing principle for vocabulary in order to create semantic webs that provide learners
with vocabulary for at least two domains: the source and target domain. Vocabulary would not be
learned twice in different contexts but simply reassigned, that is explicitly linked to another
domain (Juchem-Grundmann & Krennmayar, 2009). The motivation of linguistic metaphors can

be derived from the conceptual metaphor ACTIVE IS UP, INACTIVE IS DOWN and
HEALTHY IS UP in simple statements the company set up a new business or the company had
to close down a factory. By introducing the conceptual metaphor

ACTIVE IS UP, INACTIVE

IS DOWN and HEALTHY IS UP, students are not only enabled to recognize the metaphorical
usage of language in to set up and to close down, but they also understand the choice of the
particle. When they understand the conceptual metaphors, the old traditional habit of memorizing
words in parrot-like fashion is substituted by the deeper understanding thus result in long term
retention. Teachers should provide linguistic input or device exercises to activate familiar
vocabulary of the same concept and in this way encourage linkage between the newly
encountered metaphorical expressions and other already familiar linguistic instantiations. With
insights into the conceptual motivation of metaphors, students will not only be able to decode
several verbal expressions and understand their choices, but they will also be able to usefully
organize the newly acquired expressions. Thus, acquiring concepts becomes the guiding tool
towards learning as well as towards organizing this learning (Juchem-Grundmann, 2009).
Littlemore (2009) claims that insights into the motivation of metaphors mainly serve
language comprehension (p.13). What is in general claimed to assist language comprehension,
namely teaching the decoding of metaphorical language by referring to the underlying concepts
is implied to be expandable to language production. Insights into conceptual grounding paint a
bigger picture namely the connection of whole concepts, and may thus facilitate language
production as much as language comprehension (Juchem-Grundmann, 2009; Caballero, 2003).
Exploiting conceptual metaphor for language production should be the next step in
language teaching. Juchem-Grundmann (2009) suggests two strategies that need to be
discriminated in language production namely making use of existing linguistic metaphors and

extending metaphorical language within common conceptual frameworks. Boers (2004) states
that metaphor provides learners with a tool to extend the meaning of simple and concrete words
utilized to denote more complex and abstract concepts; concepts for which they have not yet
acquired precise terms. Thus, students should apply previously acquired vocabulary to new
domains in order to discern the unfamiliar.
The following are guidelines for metaphor teaching in English language classroom
(Juchem-Grundmann, 2009).
1. Examine course book texts for linguistic metaphors. If necessary, design new or edit
existing texts in order to systematically make use of linguistic metaphors and thus
lend themselves more easily to teaching conceptual metaphors.
2. Organize vocabulary learning along conceptual metaphors.
3. Draw attention to type and function of metaphors.
4. Conduct etymological and diachronic research for linguistic metaphors.
5. Elaborate on cognitive motivation of metaphors.
Most importantly, teachers should give an emphasis on teaching the concepts instead of
teaching the expressions because concepts ease understanding, improve storage and retrieval and
enable a creative application.

2.12 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

The approach to metaphors in this study is based on Cognitive Linguistic Theory, henceforth
(CLT) under the broader Constructivism theory. The constructivist approach looks at metaphors
as being instrumental in constructing reality and is considered a phenomena of both language and
thought. This approach has produced numerous theories concerning metaphor description,

processing and production over the last two decades (Kittay, 1987; Lakoff, 1987; Turner, 1987;
Johnson, 1988; Steen, 1994; Gibbs, 1994). CLT views language as part of the cognitive system
which comprises perception, emotions, categorizations, abstraction process and reasoning
(Dirven & Verspoor, 2004). In this view, cognitive process is manifested through language used:
spoken and written. CLT exemplifies that metaphor plays a major role in the way human think,
the way human speak, and the way human live. Constructivism views metaphor as a tool to
construct reality, while CL under constructivism extends its view on metaphor as seeing one
thing in terms of another or seeing abstract reality in terms of concrete reality (Nation, 2000;
Verspoor & Lowie, 2003; Boers, 2004; Charteris-Black & Ennis, 2001; Csabi, 2004; Deignan,
Gabrys & Solska, 1997; Herrera & White, 2000; Kondaiah, 2004; Cameron & Low, 1999;
Cameron, 1999; Kovecses & Szabo, 1996; Lazar, 1996; Kalyuga & Kalyuga, 2008).
The cognitive approach to metaphors was largely initiated by Lakoff and Johnson (1980).
Lakoff and Johnson claim the metaphor is not only a poetic device, but it is also pervasive
throughout everyday language. The ubiquity of metaphor structures not only govern how human
talk, but also how they think and act. In this approach, the assumption that conventional
language is essentially literal is seen as false; rather the essence of metaphors is seen as how one
mental domain is conceptualized in terms of another (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980). Primacy is thus
given to metaphors as a way of thinking about one idea in terms of another. For example;
1. He has a wealth of ideas

2. I see what youre saying

According to Lakoff and Johnson (1980) wealth and see are the instantiations of the
underlying conceptual metaphors. In this case, ideas are conceptualized as money and see is
conceptualized as understanding as opposed to their entailed/literal meanings. A conceptual
metaphor hence, is a unidirectional linking of two different concepts, where some of the

attributes of one thing (money) are transferred to another (ideas). In this study, two important
terms of conceptual metaphors and linguistic metaphors will be used widely. A conceptual
metaphor refers to the thought or concept and is denoted by capital letters, for example, IDEAS
ARE MONEY and UNDERSTANDING IS SEEING (these two are metaphoric because they
refer to the concepts or thoughts of underlying meanings). Linguistic metaphors, on the other
hand, are the realization of conceptual metaphors and refer to words, phrases, or sentences
occurring in spoken language, or written texts (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980). The description of a
metaphor in the present study is based on Lakoff and Johnsons (1980) comprehensive view of
metaphors as conceptual and linguistic. Figure 2.2 illustrates the theoretical framework and the
outcome of the present study.

The Summary of the thesis is illustrated in the diagram below:

CONSTRUCTIVISM

Cognitive Linguistics (CL)

Conceptual Metaphor (Lakoff &

Johnson, 1980)

Source Domain

Target Domain

Linguistic Metaphor

Textual Analysis and Metaphor

Awareness

Enhancement of vocabulary

Enhancement of reading
comprehension

Figure 2.2: Theoretical Framework