Metaphors of learning and knowledge

in the Tunisian context

A case of re-categorization
Zouhair Maalej*
University of Tunis, Tunisia

This chapter offers a case study of an official document in view of investigating

metaphors of learning in the Tunisian educational system. In particular, it
seeks to capture the conceptual metaphors that govern the learner-knowledge
and learner-teacher relations, and to explore their entailments. The document
is an interesting case of online, conscious, and deliberate metaphoric recategorizationleast studied by Lakoff and Johnson (1999). The document
under study, consequently, re-shuffled the different categories of the learning
situation, re-defined the ensuing social implications of traditional sources
of knowledge and social expectations, re-organized the student-teacher
interactions, and re-shaped their underlying cultural models (Cienki, 1999;
Kvecses, 1999). The chapter closes with a critical metaphor analysis of the
output of this re-categorization and its socio-cultural implications.

Keywords: conceptual metaphor, re-categorization, learning, knowledge, educattion

Many studies of metaphor have established its heuristic and pedagogic value (Low,
1988; Martinez-Duenas, 1988; Bowers, 1992; Green, 1993; Petrie and Oshlag,
1993; Swan, 1993; Mayer, 1993; Sticht, 1993; Ponterotto, 1994; Lazar, 1996;
Deignan, Gabrys, and Solska, 1997; Cortazzi and Jin, 1999, etc.). However, metapphors of learning have comparatively gotten a short shrift (Thornbury, 1991; Bere* The author is grateful to Professor Erich Berendt for corrections and improvements he
suggested for a first draft of this paper. However, responsibility for the contents is incumbent
on the author alone.

206 Zouhair Maale

endt and Souma, 19978; Hiraga, 19978). The present contribution offers a datadriven case study to investigate the different facets of the learning equation in the
Tunisian educational system through an official document known as the Program
of Programs (2002). In particular, it seeks to capture the conceptual metaphors
(Lakoff and Johnson, 1980, 1999) governing the linguistic metaphors that concepttualize the learner-knowledge and learner-teacher relations, and to study their enttailments. Challenging the traditional views on education and offering a new concception of it in line with emergent globalization, the document offers an interesting
online, conscious, and deliberate re-categorization (Lakoff and Johnson, 1999) of
the components of the learning situation, re-shuffling the different categories of
the learning situation, re-defining the ensuing social implications for traditional
sources of knowledge and social expectations, re-organizing the student-teacher
interactions, and re-shaping the cultural models (Cienki, 1999; Kvecses, 1999)
associated with education. The chapter closes with a critical metaphor analysis of
the new domains used to conceptualize the new learning situation and their sociocultural implications.
In studies of metaphor, one important concern is the place metaphor occupies
in learning and teaching situations (Low, 1988; Martinez-Duenas, 1988; Bowers,
1992; Green, 1993; Petrie and Oshlag, 1993; Swan, 1993; Mayer, 1993; Sticht, 1993;
Lazar, 1996; Ponterotto, 1994; Deignan, Gabrys, and Solska, 1997, Cortazzi and
Jin, 1999, etc.). These have been called by Petrie and Oshlag (1993: 582) educattional metaphors if they are used by teachers and students to enhance learning. A
trend within education studies is the metaphoric models educators work by
(Thornbury, 1991; Hiraga, 19978; Cortazzi and Jin, 1999). For instance, Cortazzi
and Jin (1999: 159160) inferred from UK teachers narratives the following concceptual metaphors of learning: LEARNING IS A CLICK, LEARNING IS LIGHT,
LEARNING IS MOVEMENT, LEARNING IS A JIGSAW, etc. The present contribbution, however, is on the metaphors which the educational systems revolve
around. Such metaphors are, for instance, described and analyzed by Hiraga
(19978) for Japanese learning.
The paper is a data-driven case study, investigating the different facets of the
learning equation in the Tunisian educational system. In particular, the study seeks
to capture the conceptual metaphors (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980, 1999) governing
the linguistic metaphors that conceptualize learner-knowledge and learner-teacheer relations. The model that emerges from the data is basically an economic one
inspired and dictated by global corporations. The document is accessible in Arabiic and French versions online at www.edunet.tn, and consists of an official documment that has become known as the Program of Programs, which delineates the
guidelines that monitor the newly implemented (2002) reform of the Tunisian
educational system. Challenging the traditional views on education and offering a

Metaphors of learning and knowledge in the Tunisian context 207

new conception of it in line with emergent globalization, the document offers an

interesting online, conscious and deliberate, re-categorization (Lakoff and Johnsson, 1999) of the components of the learning situation, re-shuffling the different
categories of the learning situation, re-defining the ensuing social implications for
traditional sources of knowledge and social expectations, re-organizing the studdent-teacher interactions, and re-shaping the cultural models (Cienki, 1999;
Kvecses, 1999) associated with education.
The structure of the chapter is as follows. The first section offers an overview
of some of the basic tenets of the contemporary theory of metaphor. The second
section, which is the longest and most important one, describes and discusses the
conceptual metaphors governing the learning situation in the educational policy
as stipulated by the Program of Programs in Tunisia in its Arabic version. The
third section addresses the issue of re-categorization as a more conscious process
than categorization of the use of conceptual metaphors. The last section is devoted
to some of the likely educational and socio-cultural implications of this reform.
The contemporary theory of metaphor: Some basic tenets
Before studying the legal document for its linguistic and conceptual metaphors,
some immediately relevant aspects of the contemporary theory of metaphor are
pointed out. Within the cognitive paradigm, metaphor is constitutive of thought,
and pervades our conceptual system (Lakoff and Johnson, 1980: 3) by which we
think, reason, and act. Lakoff and Johnson (1980: 6) establish the pre-eminence of
conceptual metaphor over metaphoric expressions. Granting this preeminence of
conceptual metaphor, the linguistic expressions that have been placed in the Proggram of Programs are part of the conceptual metaphors in language policy plannners thought.
Speaking about the psychological reality of conceptual metaphor, Gibbs (1994:
117) claims that a rich set of entailments can be drawn from any metaphor. Some
of these entailments may be specifically intended by the speaker or author of the
metaphor. Other meanings might be unauthorized but still understood as being
reasonable. As a legal text, the Program of Programs document is binding by the
very entailments of its metaphors. This will be the focus of the next section.
Another relevant claim of the Contemporary Theory of Metaphor is the systemaatic highlighting and hiding that metaphor allows us to do (Lakoff and Johnson,
1980: 10). Since the nature of metaphor is precisely to hide, to operate only in terms
of a consistent set of metaphors is to hide many aspects of reality (Lakoff and Johnsson, 1980: 221). However, a way out from this is the fact that, as Lakoff and Johnson
(1980: 221) explain, successful functioning in our daily lives seems to require a

208 Zouhair Maale

constant shifting of metaphors diachronically in the conceptualization of experieence. This is captured in cognitive linguistics as construal (Langacker, 2002).
Metaphors of learning in the educational reform in Tunisia
The argument to be defended in this paper is the fact that the metaphors of learniing in Tunisia are undergoing a massive substitution, whereby new metaphors are
replacing existing ones. Such a substitution is initiated by global institutions such
as the World Bank (WB) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), which are
at least partially funding the reforms and want them to accord with their own percceptions. But before showing this, there is need to address the cultural background
that might act in favor or against the dictates of the WB and the IMF.
Cultural background
The educational system of Tunisia cannot be understood outside the Arab-Islamic
culture and its influence on the mind of native Tunisians. This influence is celebbrated by the sacredness of knowledge both in The Koran (
: qul hal yastawi l-laina ya3lamuna wal-laina la ya3lamuna: Say:
Are those equal, those who know and those who do not know?) and in the
Prophets teachings ( : ?uTlubu l-3ilma mina lmahdi?ilalaHdi: Pursue knowledge from the cradle to the coffin). Accordingly, in folk cultture the teacher is almost equated to a prophet ( : kaad lmu3allimu?an yakuna rasulan: the teacher could have been a prophet). This
veneration of knowledge is translated on the ground by parents investing time
and money in and devoting themselves to their childrens education, thus sacrificiing their leisure for the sake of their childrens concentration on education.
Since the advent of the Islamic era, Arabs have been venerating books in
general.Back in the reign of ( the Abbacids), caliph ( Harun arrashid) and his son and successor ( Al-ma?mun) created ( bayut lHikmati: literally, The House of Wisdom), a huge library in Baghdad counting
thousands of books and rare manuscripts that were made available to researchers.
The other function of this institution consisted in translating the books that were
thought to be seminal for Muslims and for humanity at large. One of the ancient
leading writers in Arabic literary and philosophical tradition, ( Al-jaaHiD),
wrote the following about books: A book is a container filled with knowledge, an
1. Sura xxxix, 8-10, in The Holy Koran (1938), translated by Abdullah Yusuf Ali (Damscus:
Dar Al-Mushaf), p. 1239.

Metaphors of learning and knowledge in the Tunisian context 209

envelope stuffed with wit, and a receptacle imbued with humor and seriousness.
If the Islamic dimension is added to the Arab one, the picture becomes more
complex, with the veneration of Holy Books such as the Torah or Old Testament,
which is called ( al-kitaab: literally, The Book), the Bible, and The Koran,
which is called ( kitaabu l-laah: literally, The Book of God). In particular,
the Koran is considered as the source of knowledge and a teaching tool about life.
Quite significantly, the first verse to have been inspired by angel Gabriel to the
Prophet in the Islamic faith is about the concept of reading, where Prophet Muhhammed was ordained to read (:?iqra?, i.e. read in the imperative), thus initiatiing for Muslims the preciousness of reading and books.
The Program of Programs (p. 2) under study opens by spelling out the mission
of education, which is taken from the Orientation Law for Instruction and School
Education (number 802002):
Chapter 1
Instruction is an absolute national priority, and education is compulsory from the
ages of six to sixteen. It is an essential right guaranteed for all Tunisians without
discrimination on accounts of sex, social origin, color, or religion. It is also a duty
incumbent on individuals and society.
Chapter 2
The learner is the center of the educational process (OL, Section 1, Heading 1)
Instruction as a priority has been the motto since independence in 1956, and
compulsory education has been made possible through free education to all. The
official discourse about the educational policy in Tunisia has constantly been exhhorting educationalists to keep up with progress in science and technology made
in the West. Budget-wise, making free education possible has required large sums
of money to be spent on the three cycles of education, although the system is findiing it more and more difficult to keep up with the rate of technological advances
made in this digital age. However, what is new in the foregoing quote is the central
place that the learner comes to occupy in the educational equation.
The following quote can serve as an epitome of the roles of education, learner,
and teacher in the learning situation in Tunisia:
2. Translation mine.
3. All quotes from the Program of Programs are my own translation. The linguistic metapphors, in particular, have been translated more or less literally in order to keep intact the dommains governing them in the Arabic text. In the English glosses, they are underlined.

210 Zouhair Maale

education does not consist in transferring knowledge and accumulating it, but
should be conceived of as openness on pedagogies that build the acquisition of
knowledge on whatever efforts the learner can spend. The teacher, however,
should play in all this the role of adviser, guide, supporter, eye-opener, organizer,
stimulator, follower, helper, and companion (pp. 1213).

The new Program of Programs rejects the traditional conception of learning as a

transfer of knowledge between the two traditional poles of learning, where the
teacher is the source of knowledge and the learner is its recipient. Instead, the
learning process is centered around the learner (learner-centered approach), who
approaches knowledge as a constructional endeavor. By extension, the learner beccomes a builder of knowledge. Accordingly, the teachers role shrinks in importtance by changing from a source of knowledge to a mediator at the service of the
learner and the learning task.
Knowledge/learning metaphors
Traditionally, the learner is conceptualized as A RECIPIENT OF KNOWLEDGE,
with the teacher as its SOURCE. According to this equation, knowledge is an OBJJECT transferred to the learner as in Reddys (1993) conduit metaphor. As an objject, knowledge can also be found in books, which are its depositories. Although
the learners role in the educational process has changed in Tunisia with the advent
of the communicative method of learning, it only did so theoretically. The learner
has remained, to use the CENTER-PERIPHERY image schema, at the periphery of
the learning operation, with the center of learning occupied by sources of knowlledge such as teachers and books. However, in the Program of Programs the roles
are inverted, with the learner occupying the CENTER and the sources/trustees of
knowledge occupying the PERIPHERY.
In the Program of Programs, this traditional CENTER-PERIPHERY configuraation of source and destination of teacher-learner knowledge relation is changing:
As a consequence of this constructional conception of learning, the learner is conssidered the main factor in building his own knowledge, which means that learniing will not be taken as a transfer of knowledge from teachers to learners but as a
full participation on the part of each learner in an educational path where he is the
most important creator and where the role of the teacher will be restricted to enccouragement, stimulation, accompaniment, guidance, help, and creation of a suitaable educational environment to build knowledge and develop it. To the teacher it
is incumbent to take the responsibility to supervise the way the knowledge is built
and to choose the best pedagogic interventions that would contribute to making
the learner responsible for his knowledge and helping him transfer it to his everryday life (p. 14).

Metaphors of learning and knowledge in the Tunisian context 211

This has displaced the educator from being the SOURCE in the SOURCE-PATHDESTINATION schema to a guide occupying a secondary place on the PATH of
knowledge, thus inverting roles between educator and learner, with the learner
becoming the SOURCE of knowledge on the PATH.
KNOWLEDGE / LEARNING AS BUILDING
In accordance with knowledge as a building endeavor incumbent on the learner,
one of the most important knowledge metaphors in the Program of Programs is
THE LEARNER IS A BUILDER as is clear in the following extract:
The competencies approach draws upon various sources, important among them
is constructivism, whose proponents are Vygotsky, Piaget, and others works. The
merit of this approach is that it is concerned particularly with the nature of knowlledge and the role of the learner in building it. It also focuses on intellectual, affecttive, and social paths that accompany the acquisition of knowledge and whatever
treatment and constant retrieval this knowledge requires, and what constant
structuring it invites for previously acquired knowledge (p. 8).

The use of building and structuring knowledge in the -ing form conceives of
the learner as an active participant in the learning process. By extension from THE
LEARNER IS A BUILDER, the conceptual metaphor of knowledge / learning is
KNOWLEDGE / LEARNING IS A BUILDING / CONSTRUCTION. Kvecses
(2002: 17) considers buildings and constructions among the most important and
productive cognitive domains that are used to structure abstract domains. He justiffies this experientially: human beings build houses and other structures for sheltter, work, storage, and so on. For that matter, both the static object of a house and
its parts and the act of building it serve as common metaphorical source dommains.
Dealing with the conceptual metaphor THEORIES ARE BUILDINGS, which
is similar to KNOWLEDGE IS A BUILDING / CONSTRUCTION here, Lakoff
and Johnson (1980: 52) noticed that the partial nature of the mapping gives rise to
used and unused parts of the source domain (SD) of building. The used parts
here are realized by the literal linguistic expressions of building and structuriing. According to Grady et al (1996) and Grady (1997), the explanation has to do
not with the fact that there are used and unused parts to the SD, but with the
fact that THEORIES ARE BUILDINGS is not the right conceptual metaphor for
the linguistic metaphors that it is said to govern. Grady et al.(1996) and Grady
(1997) pinpoint a couple of cognitive anomalies with this explanation: (i) the
poverty of the mapping, whereby most of the salient elements of our knowledge
about buildings are not found to be part of the mapping between theories and
buildings (e.g., windows, doors, walls, floors, occupants, etc.), and (ii) the lack of

212 Zouhair Maale

experiential basis for associating buildings with theories. Grady et al.(1996: 178)
rightly insist that the poverty of the mapping in the case of THEORIES ARE
BUILDINGS is not amenable to what is known as target-domain override, since
there is no logical contradiction in claiming that theories have windows. Grady
(1997) concludes that THEORIES ARE BUILDINGS is in fact an instance of a
more general/complex mapping between abstract structures and buildings. The
primary metaphors are PERSISTING IS REMAINING ERECT and LOGICAL
STRUCTURE IS PHYSICAL STRUCTURE, which combine to create the comppound metaphor (VIABLE) LOGICAL STRUCTURES ARE ERECT PHYSICAL
STRUCTURES or THEORIES ARE BUILDINGS.
Without in the least doubting the viability of Gradys distinction between primmary and compound metaphors, the problem with this explanation is that we need
psychological evidence that people think of these particular primary metaphors
when they come across metaphors like the role of the learner in building it
[knowledge]. Building knowledge seems to vaguely, if at all, recall PERSISTING IS
REMAINING ERECT, but does not seem to evoke LOGICAL STRUCTURE IS
PHYSICAL STRUCTURE. It is, to say the least, trivial to assume that as a builder
of knowledge (granting that this is PERSISTING) a learner needs to remain erect
(granting that this is REMAINING ERECT). Another objection has to do with
Gradys assumption that what is targeted in using buildings as a source domain is
their vertical dimension. Buildings are three-dimensional entities that can also
admit a horizontal dimension, whereby the spatial structure would also be salient.
Since in knowledge / learning neither horizontal nor vertical dimensions arise, it
simply means that these spatial dimensions are not relevant for KNOWLEDGE /
LEARNING AS A BUILDING. As will be shown later on in the paper, no source
domain should be expected to target all the components to be found in a target
domain (TD).
Responsibility for knowledge, as seen in the excerpt on page eight, clearly lies
with the learner. The different ways knowledge building takes place are spelled out
in the following excerpt:
All this will only take place in the learner if the teachers conception of knowledge
is based on construction and constant reconstruction since a phenomenon cannot
be built if it is not one of the elements of experience () If the teacher assumes
this method of building knowledge and modeling the required competencies to
realize it, s/he should concern her- / himself with the learners previous knowlledge, and try to consolidate it or further construct and complicate it, or even demmolish it completely (p. 12)

Building knowledge can be subject to varied strategies such as construction, consstant reconstruction, consolidation, complication, or even complete demolition.

Metaphors of learning and knowledge in the Tunisian context 213

Clearly, these are not all strategies followed in real building. However, the Program
of Programs finds it difficult to make all these strategies incumbent on the learner
as the latter is obviously in the process of learning and does not have the necessary
skills to work on their own knowledge. Hence, the role of the teacher to help /
guide the learner to consolidate it or further construct and complicate it, or even
demolish it completely.
According to Lakoff (1990: 48), mappings involve two types of correspondeences: ontological and epistemic. Ontological correspondences describe the same
entities both in the source and target domains. In short, these correspondences
offer two parallel scenarios including symmetrical entities across domains. In the
situation at hand, the learner is a builder, knowledge is the raw material, the teacheer is a helper, and the various knowledge processes are the construction steps.
Epistemic correspondences, however, take care of mapping knowledge about enttities in the source domain onto entities in the target domain. Such knowledge
mapping enables us to reason about the target domain as if it were the source dommain. Epistemic correspondences for the learning-as-a-building metaphor are
shown in Table 1 below:
Table 1. Epistemic correspondences for KNOWLEDGE / LEARNING IS BUILDING
Source Domain: building

Target Domain: learning

1. The builder is responsible for constructiing a building.

2. The builder needs raw materials to achieve
the construction of the building.
3. The builder needs tools to help him
achieve his task as accurately as possible.
4. The builder needs the help of others for
the construction to be achieved.
5. The builder may go through various consstruction steps such as constructing, recconstructing, consolidating, complicating,
demolishing, etc.

1. The learner is responsible for the acquisittion of knowledge.

2. The learner needs items of knowledge to
know about.
3. The learner needs his cognitive abilities to
achieve his knowledge.
4. The learner needs some help from a teacheer.
5. The learner may acquire knowledge
through various steps such as acquiring
new knowledge, modifying old knowlledge, consolidating old knowledge by upddating it, getting rid of old knowledge alttogether, etc.

KNOWLEDGE / LEARNING AS A BUILDING JOURNEY

Interestingly, knowledge is not just building but building which takes place as part
of a journey, yielding the conceptual metaphor KNOWLEDGE / LEARNING IS A
BUILDING JOURNEY as in the following extract:
Constructivism allots a central role to the learner on the path of knowledge acqquisition, and calls for taking into consideration the logic of competencies which

214 Zouhair Maale

cannot be reduced to the logic of knowledge. Learning requires the intervention

of the learners active knowledge so that learning results from an internal consstruction that the learner does. However, the teachers role in this operation is that
of the helping intermediary more than that of the knowledge trustee. According
to constructivism, learning is not a cumulative path that obtains from sequential
additions by the teacher, but is a renewed restructuring of previous knowledge
interspaced by breaks and affected by impediments that can only be overcome if
both learner and teacher have time to deal with them (p. 8).

The linguistic metaphors of path, impediments, overcome realize the concepttual metaphor KNOWLEDGE / LEARNING IS A JOURNEY. These linguistic
metaphors realizing the SOURCE-PATH-GOAL schema of the JOURNEY metapphor relate mainly to the PATH component as describing learning as a process
involving impediments that the learner has to overcome on the path of knowlledge for learning to be achieved. However, the linguistic metaphors of constructtion and restructuring realize the conceptual metaphor KNOWLEDGE /
LEARNING IS A BUILDING. A merger between the two creates the conceptual
metaphor KNOWLEDGE / LEARNING IS A BUILDING JOURNEY, which is
added to the epistemic correspondences of KNOWLEDGE / LEARNING IS A
BUILDING as in Table 2:
Table 2. Epistemic correspondences for KNOWLEDGE / LEARNING IS A BUILDING
JOURNEY
Source Domain: building journey

Target Domain: learning journey

1. The builder is responsible for constructing

a building.
2. The builder needs raw materials to work
with to achieve the construction of the
building.
3. The builder needs tools to help him
achieve his task as accurately as possible.
4. The builder needs the help of others for
the construction to be achieved.
5. The builder may go through various consstruction steps such as constructing, recconstructing, consolidating, complicating,
demolishing, etc.

1. The learner is responsible for the acquisittion of knowledge.

2. The learner needs items of knowledge to
know about.

6. The builder may experience impediments

in daily work such as rainy days, absence
of help, etc.

3. The learner needs his cognitive abilities to

achieve his knowledge.
4. The learner needs some help from a teacheer.
5. The learner may acquire knowledge
through various steps such as acquiring
new knowledge, modifying old knowlledge, consolidating old knowledge by upddating it, getting rid of old knowledge alttogether, etc.
6. The learner may experience impediments
in the learning process such as fatigue, diffficulty of the learning material, etc.

Metaphors of learning and knowledge in the Tunisian context 215

KNOWLEDGE / LEARNING AS A PROFITABLE BUILDING JOURNEY

According to the Program of Programs, knowledge is not only a combination of
building and journeying captured in the conceptual metaphor KNOWLEDGE /
LEARNING IS A BUILDING JOURNEY, but also KNOWLEDGE / LEARNING
AS A VALUABLE RESOURCE and KNOWLEDGE / LEARNING AS AN EFFICCIENT / PROFITABLE BUILDING, which combine into KNOWLEDGE /
LEARNING IS A(N) EFFICIENT / PROFITABLE BUILDING JOURNEY as transspires from the following excerpts:
Since the aim of learning is to help the learner build competencies of his/her own,
knowledge must be considered a resource aimed at these competencies. So there
is no excuse in teaching knowledge without thinking of the aim or profit behind
it. Knowledge acquires its meaning from its efficient use whenever needed withoout setting up boundaries between the moment it is acquired and the moment it
is used. Knowledge in this sense becomes a resource to which recourse is had to
overcome an obstacle, understand a state of affairs, or solve a problem. And the
learner does not adhere to learning that he does not know to be profitable (p. 9).

As transpires from the text above, from both ends of the educational process learniing is not engaged into by the teacher and the learner if there is no profit behind
it or if it is not profitable. It should be noted that the three domains of BUILDIING (build), JOURNEY (overcome an obstacle [on the path of knowledge]),
and ECONOMY (resource, profit, profitable) are co-extensive in this passage,
which testifies to their collaboration in the educational policy.
The most immediate profit aimed at has to do, among other things, with
solving problems or realizing a project:
The learner builds his knowledge by adapting it and adapting himself to it.
Knowledge for him has no meaning if it does not contribute to solving problems
that he comes across, or helping him in realizing a project that he planned. In
this sense, knowledge has no other meaning than building either individually or
within a group () With this knowledge that the learner builds by himself and
exploits in building his school resources, he can imagine, innovate, and excel ()
The life of the learner at school becomes an open project of building new knowleedge on the basis of spontaneous knowledge (p. 14).

As an economic asset, knowledge can be exploited for purposes having to do with

school resources, which are nothing but the problem-solving activities and project
realization.
Kvecses (2002: 18) explains the use of economic transactions as a cognitive
domain to structure abstract domains by the fact that people living in human
society have engaged in economic transactions of various kinds. As an economic
activity, knowledge is appreciated in the following ways:

216 Zouhair Maale

Evaluation from the perspective of objectives, for instance, concerns observable

and measurable results, and describes the end product that the learner performs
more than the ways the mind has taken to reach them (p. 10).

The learner knows that exchanging data is a crucial condition for efficient exploitation,
in that it enables him and the others to benefit from scientific results deriving from
this exploitation and helps him build new knowledge and competencies (p. 63).
Knowledge becomes an end product of a certain exploitation of building
resources, thus yielding the conceptual metaphor: KNOWLEDGE IS A VALUAABLE RESOURCE / COMMODITY.
The epistemic correspondences of the conceptual metaphor KNOWLEDGE /
LEARNING IS A(N) EFFICIENT / PROFITABLE BUILDING JOURNEY are
summed up in Table 3:
Table 3. Epistemic correspondences for LEARNING IS A PROFITABLE BUILDING
JOURNEY
Source Domain: building profitable journey

Target Domain: learning profitable journey

1. The builder is responsible for constructing

a building.
2. The builder needs raw materials to work
with to achieve the construction of the
building.
3. The builder needs tools to help him
achieve his task as accurately as possible.
4. The builder needs the help of others for
the construction to be achieved.
5. The builder may go through various consstruction steps such as constructing, recconstructing, consolidating, complicating,
demolishing, etc.

1. The learner is responsible for the acquisittion of knowledge.

2. The learner needs items of knowledge to
know about.
3. The learner needs his cognitive abilities to
achieve his knowledge.
4. The learner needs some help from a teacheer.
5. The learner may acquire knowledge
through various steps such as acquiring
new knowledge, modifying old knowledge,
consolidating old knowledge by updating
it, getting rid of old knowledge altogether,
etc.
6. The learner may experience impediments
in the learning process such as fatigue, diffficulty of the learning material, etc.
7. The learner follows efficient ways of dealiing with knowledge as a valuable tool and
profitable resource.
8. The learner only pursues knowledge that
s/he thinks is rewarding for her/him in the
short- and long-term.

6. The builder may experience impediments

in daily work such as rainy days, absence
of help, etc.
7. The builder follows economical ways of
dealing with raw materials and time as
valuable resources.
8. The builder only follows a course which is
profitable for his profession and well-beiing.

Metaphors of learning and knowledge in the Tunisian context 217

Metaphor and re-categorization

Lakoff (1987: 6) argues that without the ability to categorize, we could not functtion at all, either in the physical world or in our social and intellectual lives. Lakoff
(1987: 6) adds that most categorization is automatic and unconscious, and if we
become aware of it at all, it is only in problematic cases. Lakoff and Johnson (1999:
10) capture the unconscious nature of categorization under the concept of the
cognitive unconscious, which stipulates that most of our thought is unconsscious, not in the Freudian sense of being repressed, but in the sense that it operaates beneath the level of cognitive awareness, inaccessible to consciousness and
operating too quickly to be focused upon. The cognitive unconscious accounts for
95percent of all thought, which shapes and structures all conscious thought (Lakkoff and Johnson, 1999: 13).
Presumably, this makes provisions for conscious thought and conscious recategorization to operate, however small the scope for it is to do so frequently and
massively. Indeed, there is little talk about re-categorization in the cognitive lingguistic literature. Fauconnier and Turner (2002: 269) talk about a middle ground
between categorization and re-categorization, calling it category metamorphossis, which was studied as emerging in blends from existing categories. Such a
category metamorphosis involves examples such as same-sex marriage, computter virus, caffeine headache, nicotine fit, etc.
Lakoff and Johnson (1999: 18), on the other hand, argue that:
Though we learn new categories regularly, we cannot make massive changes in
our category systems through conscious acts of recategorization (though, through
experience in the world, our categories are subject to unconscious reshaping and
partial change). We do not, and cannot, have full conscious control over how we
categorize. Even when we think we are deliberately forming new categories, our
unconscious categories enter into our choice of possible conscious categories.

I agree that conscious massive changes in our category systems and full consscious control over how we categorize are to be discarded from consideration beccause that would be chaotic for individuals and communities. However, I tend to
disagree that our categories are only subject to unconscious reshaping and partial
change. The case at hand shows clearly a conscious supplanting of the contents of
the category of learning in Tunisia, not a simple reshaping and partial change.
Lakoff and Johnson (1980: 157) themselves, invoking private conversation
with Charlotte Linde, talk about new metaphors and how they can be imposed by
politicians, for instance. As some might know, matters of educational policy are
among the things that may be imposed in undemocratic countries by politicians
when such impositions suit their purposes. Thus, if new metaphors can be imp-

218 Zouhair Maale

posed, conscious categorization or re-categorization may be the case. For instance,

the war-on-terror metaphor initiated by the neoconservatives is an online metapphoric re-categorization of the West-East relations where an all out war is being
waged against forces that seem to challenge the USs re-categorization of most
Moslems as terrorists. Having molded Moslems in this category of terrorists justiffies all the actions that one would normally use to deal with actual terrorists. This
can be best captured in Lakoff and Johnsons (1980: 158) now well-known aphorrism: we define our reality in terms of metaphors and then proceed to act on the
basis of the metaphors. This is what the neoconservatives in the US and the people
responsible for education in Tunisia are actively doing; the neoconservatives are
waging an actual war of extinction on what they think are terrorists, including
those participating in internationally-recognized resistance in both Palestine and
Iraq. However, Tunisian officials are waging a metaphoric war on the traditional
model of education to supplant it by culturally making it extinct.
Granted its scarcity, re-categorization may sometimes be intentional and consscious and may operate massive changes to existing categorizations. For instance, it
is not the case that the re-categorization of the educational system in Tunisia as an
economic activity is unconscious or unintentional.Challenging the traditional
views on education, the Program of Programs under study emerges as a new concceptualization of the educational system in Tunisia in line with emergent globalizzation and various pressures from global institutions to make the educational systtem profitable. The Program of Programs, I would like to argue, offers an
interesting online, conscious, and deliberate re-categorization of the components
of the learning situation, re-defining them in building, journey, and economic
terms. This is certainly different from UK teachers experimenting with different
conceptual metaphors of learning such as LEARNING IS A CLICK, LEARNING
IS LIGHT, LEARNING IS MOVEMENT, LEARNING IS A JIGSAW, etc. (Cortazzi
and Jin (1999: 159160), and perhaps experimenting with others that they may
find more explanatory for what they actually do in teaching. It is also certainly diffferent from AN ESSAY IS A BUILDING, AN ESSAY IS A TRAIN, AN ESSAY IS
A MEAL, etc. that I improvised and experimented with pedagogically in my writiing classes. The situation at hand is different from what has been described as it
involves educational policy change that is being engineered through a massive recategorization of learning from one domain of experience and knowledge to anoother.
The reason that re-categorization is invoked in this context is that this situattion is unlike, for instance, that described by Hiraga (19978) for Japan. Japan is
an economic force in the world with a lot of know-how and expertise; Tunisia is a
small developing country that has just emerged from colonization and is still
fumbling for an economic stand. Hiraga (19978: 7) showed that there are basic

Metaphors of learning and knowledge in the Tunisian context 219

Japanese metaphors for learning (LEARNING IS A JOURNEY, LEARNING IS

IMITATING THE MODEL, THE TEACHER IS A FATHER), but these metapphors have not been supplanted by new ones. When other metaphors were createed under pressure from modernization and competition (EDUCATION IS WAR),
they simply were added to the traditional ones, thus enlarging the set of metapphors within the Japanese model of learning. As it stands, Japans interests are beiing shaped by its own internal initiatives in an evolving global situation where it
aspires to occupy a respectable place.
In the Tunisian context, the situation is different. Tunisia does not have Japans
assets. Under pressure from external forces to the Tunisian society, the educationaal system is conceptually witnessing a re-categorization of the learning metaphors,
whereby the newly introduced metaphors (THE LEARNER IS A BUILDER,
KNOWLEDGE / LEARNING IS A CONSTRUCTION, KNOWLEDGE / LEARNIING IS A VALUABLE RESOURCE, KNOWLEDGE / LEARNING IS A BUILDIING JOURNEY, LEARNING IS A PROFITABLE BUILDING JOURNEY) are acttually progressively supplanting the traditional model of learning represented by
KNOWING / LEARNING IS THE TRANSFER OF KNOWLEDGE BETWEEN A
SOURCE AND A DESTINATION. Judging by the source domains, the differencees between the old and the new conceptualizations are huge, whose educational
and socio-cultural repercussions will be studied in the following sub-section.
Educational and socio-cultural implications
I have so far studied the newly introduced changes to the cultural model of learniing and education in Tunisia. I believe that such changes as encoded in the re-cateegorizations of the learning situation may have far-reaching socio-cultural changees. Fairclough (1992: 1) echoes what Lakoff and Johnson have to say about the
relation between metaphor (as an epitome of change) and reality (as a state of afffairs in the world):
Today individuals working in a variety of disciplines are coming to recognize the
ways in which changes in language use are linked to wider social and cultural
processes, and hence are coming to appreciate the importance of using language
analysis as a method for studying social change.

The reason for studying the conceptual metaphors constituting the model of
learning in Tunisia has to do with getting to the social changes that the change in
the model would occasion. But, of course, not all changes in language use are metaaphoric. However, since metaphor emerges as one of the most influential (Versschueren, 1999: 178) categorizing devices because it is not just a matter of lang-

220 Zouhair Maale

guage use but, more importantly, a matter of thought (Lakoff and Johnson, 1980,
1999), it does have a great import for social change as Fairclough rightly points
out for changes in language use and socio-cultural changes. But how does this
change of policy come to have socio-cultural consequences?
The answer to this question can be sought in the relation between conceptual
metaphors and cultural models. Kvecses (1999: 167), for instance, posed the
problem as follows: Do metaphors constitute abstract concepts (as structured by
cultural models) or do they simply reflect them? His answer is that the metapphors constitute the cultural models (Kvecses, 1999: 185). If it is true that culttural models frame experience, supplying interpretations of that experience and
inferences about it, and goals for action (Quinn and Holland, 1987: 6), therefore
any changes in the metaphors that constitute cultural models, as Kvecses put it,
would operate changes to the cultural models themselves, however slight or huge
those changes might be. Further evidence for this link between conceptual metapphor and cultural models comes from Cienki (1999: 199), who showed that concceptual metaphors and cultural models are interrelated, whereby metaphors functtion as profiles and cultural models as bases. In other words, cultural models seem
to exert pressure on the flow of conceptual metaphors.
Since, as demonstrated earlier, as a matter of policy the Program of Programs
aims at consciously re-categorizing the Tunisian cultural learning model, the concceptual metaphors that have been discussed do not function in a vacuum. Indeed,
they are meant to internally manipulate the very cultural model that is inhabited by
the conceptual metaphors constituting the traditional educational system. This situaation occasions an online manipulation/update of existing metaphors and their corrresponding cultural model. In this sense, contrary to what Cienki posits because
of the online re-categorization of the learning cultural model it is not the cultural
model of learning that is filtering the metaphors that our information processing
system may find incompatible with those it has internalized in memory, but it is the
metaphors that are re-molding the cultural model internally by supplanting the exiisting conceptual metaphors constituting the traditional model of learning.
The repercussions of this re-categorization are of two kinds: positive and negaative. The replacement of the transfer model of learning by the building model is
positive in that it assigns a more active role to a self-reliant learner that of a
builder. The positive impact of this re-categorization can be seen in the series of
entailments of the conceptual metaphor LEARNER AS A BUILDER. However,
the economic model of learning newly introduced is more likely to have far-reachiing negative consequences both educationally and socio-culturally. Educationally,
the risk is that in talking about profitable knowledge the Program of Programs
would have disastrous consequences on general knowledge both among the educcators and the young. As a law, the Program of Programs has the force of encoura-

Metaphors of learning and knowledge in the Tunisian context 221

aging more immediate knowledge to the purposes of both educators and learners.
However, by far the greatest risk is the criteria to be used in the selection of profitaable knowledge. It is simply not clear right now on what basis any given type of
knowledge will be judged as profitable or unprofitable. Socio-culturally, since the
conception of education is now based on an economic model, the free education
that Tunisia has been boasting about would likely be threatened.
The redistribution of roles within the learning equation between learners and
teachers, who are not considered a source of knowledge by the Program of Proggrams, will have important consequences on the learner-teacher relations in the
classroom. If the respect the teachers enjoy owes much to their knowledge, deppriving them of this role will be felt in the relationships between both. In particullar, this change is very likely to have serious consequences for discipline and motivvation in secondary education, which will leave little room for learning from an
educator from whom learners have little to learn. Perhaps the brighter side of this
has to do with the pressure that the new international situation (in particular, with
the Internet as increasingly a source of knowledge) has been exerting on both eduucators and learners for a more universal, qualitative kind of knowledge. An educcator that does not connect to the Internet may feel inferior, information-wise, to
the learners and be embarrassed.
Conclusion
The present study has tried to show that an online, conscious re-categorization of
existing metaphoric categories, although limited in scope, time and circumstance,
is possible. The concept of learning in Tunisia has been shown to be undergoing a
massive supplanting process consisting in the replacement of the existing concepttual metaphors in the cultural model of learning by new, politically-imposed
ones. Such supplanting has been shown to occasion negative educational and soccio-cultural consequences, which will very likely have an impact on reshaping socciety and manipulating the indigenous culture both positively and negatively.
Before closing this paper, it is interesting to explain why inconsistent metapphors have been collaborating in the description of the new educational cultural
model. As has been pointed out earlier, different domains are co-extensive in the
texts studied (i.e. the building co-existing with the journey, the building co-existiing with the economic, etc.). It seems that no single conceptual metaphor can
render account of all the aspects of the new re-categorizations and cultural model
of learning in Tunisia. Lakoff and Johnson (1999: 78) argue that typically, absstract concepts are defined by multiple conceptual metaphors, which are often incconsistent with each other. And Lakoff and Johnson (1980: 221) explain this co-

222 Zouhair Maale

occurrence of inconsistent source domains to structure one single domain as

follows:
To operate only in terms of a consistent set of metaphors is to hide many asppects of reality. Successful functioning in our daily lives seems to require a consstant shifting of metaphors. The use of many metaphors that are inconsistent with
one another seems necessary for us if we are to comprehend the details of our
daily existence. The rationale for this inconsistency has, therefore, to do with one
of the most important properties of conceptual metaphor that of hiding and
highlighting. It seems that, as a consequence of this, what one metaphor hides is
highlighted by another in order for a more comprehensive view of a given concept
to be accomplished. The Program of Programs seems to have started from one inittial conceptual metaphor of BUILDING, which was then fleshed out with metapphors like JOURNEY and ECONOMY. The result has emerged as a mixture of the
seemingly inconsistent metaphor of LEARNING IS AN ECONOMIC BUILDING
JOURNEY.
In order for research on categorization and its relation to re-categorization to
be tackled, in-depth study is needed to show (i) whether re-categorization can be
shown to be more widespread and frequent than Lakoff and Johnson postulated,
(ii) what (socio-cultural) contexts are more receptive to such cognitive reshaping
and remodeling of existing cultural models, (iii) whether the re-categorization of
abstract concepts is as unconscious as that of categorization as to be unable to occcasion massive changes to the contents of existing models as postulated by Lakoff
and Johnson, and (iv) how and whether the planned re-structuring is actually reaalized in the language-cultural domain.
References
Berendt, E. & Y. Souma (19978). Using cultural values as a measure of intercultural sensitivity.
Intercultural Communication Studies, 7(2), 63105.
Bowers, R. (1992). Memories, metaphors, maxims, and myths: Language learning and cultural
awareness. ELT Journal, 46(1), 2938.
Cienki, A. (1999). Metaphors and cultural models as profiles and bases. In R. W. Gibbs & G. J.
Steen (Eds.), Metaphor in cognitive linguistics (pp. 189203). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Cortazzi, M. & L. Jin (1999). Bridges to learning: Metaphors of teaching, learning and language.
In L. Cameron & G. Low (Eds.), Researching and applying metaphor (pp. 149176). Cambbridge: Cambridge University Press.
Deignan, A., D. Gabrys & A. Solska (1997). Teaching English metaphors using cross-linguistic
awareness-raising activities. ELT Journal, 51(4), 352360.
Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Fauconnier, G. & M. Turner (2002). The way we think: Conceptual blending and the minds hiddden complexities. New York: Basic Books.

Metaphors of learning and knowledge in the Tunisian context 223

Gibbs, R. W. (1994). The poetics of mind: Figurative thought, language, and understanding. Cambbridge: Cambridge University Press.
Grady, J. (1997). THEORIES ARE BUILDINGS revisited. Cognitive Linguistics, 8(4), 267290.
Grady, J., S. Taub & P. Morgan (1996). Primitive and compound metaphors. In A. E. Goldberg
(Ed.), Conceptual structure, discourse and language (pp. 177187). Stanford: CSLI Publicattions.
Green, T. F. (1993). Learning without metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (secoond edition, pp. 610620). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hiraga, M. K. (19978). Japanese metaphors for learning. Intercultural Communication Studies,
7(2), 722.
Kvecses, Z. (1999). Metaphor: Does it constitute or reflect cultural models? In R. W. Gibbs &
G. J. Steen (Eds.), Metaphor in cognitive linguistics (pp. 167188). Amsterdam: John Benjjamins.
Kvecses, Z. (2002). Metaphor: A practical introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind.
Chicago IL: The University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G. (1990). The Invariance Hypothesis: Is abstract reason based on image-schemas. Cognnitive Linguistics, 1(1), 3974.
Lakoff, G. & M. Johnson (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago IL: The University of Chicago
Press.
Lakoff, G. & M. Johnson (1999). Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to
western thought. New York: Basic Books.
Langacker, R. W. (2002). Concept, image, and symbol: The cognitive basis of grammar (second
edition). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Lazar, G. (1996). Using figurative language to expand students vocabulary. ELT Journal, 50(1),
4351.
Low, G. D. (1988). On teaching metaphor. Applied Linguistics, 9(2), 125147.
Martinez-Duenas, J. L. (1988). Teaching linguistics via literature: Metaphor, a case in point.
Parlance, 1(2), 138143.
Mayer, R. E. (1993). The instructive metaphor: Metaphoric aids to students understanding of
science. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (second edition, pp. 561578). Cambbridge: Cambridge University Press.
Petrie, H. G. & R.S. Oshlag (1993). Metaphor and learning. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and
thought (second edition, pp. 579609). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ponterotto, D. (1994). Metaphors we can learn by. English Teaching Forum, 32(3), 27.
Quinn, N. & D. Holland (1987). Culture and cognition. In D. Holland & N. Quinn (Eds.), Culttural models in language and thought (pp. 340). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Reddy, M. J. (1993). The conduit metaphor: A case of frame conflict in our language about langguage. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 164201). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Sticht, T. G. (1993). Educational uses of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought
(second edition, pp. 621632). London/New York: Cambridge University Press.
Swan, J. (1993). Metaphor in action: The observation schedule in a reflective approach to teacheer education. ELT Journal, 47(3), 242249.
Thornbury, S. (1991). Metaphors we work by: EFL and its metaphors. ELT Journal,, 45(3), 193
200.
Verschueren, J. (1999). Understanding pragmatics. London: Arnold.