Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl


2009 | 1 | 213-226

Article title

Metafora jako technika badawcza w glottodydaktyce

Title variants

Metaphor as a research technique in glottodidactics

Languages of publication



The overall aim of the present article is to evaluate the potential of conceptual metaphors as reliable research tools to be applied in glottodidactics. The main premise adopted is the cognitive principle of inseparability between conceptual mechanisms on the one hand, and the richness of human experience on the other. Consequently, man and his language are viewed through the prism of multifarious and multi-layered encounters involving individual as well social aspects (see T. Siek-Piskozub i A. Strugielska 2007, 2008, 2008a and A. Strugielska i T. Siek-Piskozub 2008). This, in turn, is closely intertwined with the main tenets of ecophilosophy, which highlights interdependencies between biological, social and mental occurrences and language studies. The interdisciplinary character of linguistic research has been evidenced, among others, in publications by Ronald Langacker and George Lakoff. Undoubtedly, the theory of conceptual metaphor has offered a particularly promising testing ground for applied linguistics. The question, however, remains which of the many versions of Conceptual Metaphor Theory should, if at all, be transferred to usage-oriented studies. Therefore, the more specifi c aim of the current paper is to postulate that the classic version of metaphor theories, most frequently exploited by applied linguists (see, for instance, L. Cameron 2003), is not the most valid model. Instead, we propose that metaphor should reflect the dynamics and multicontextuality of human experience. Consequently, there is a need for a more syncretic and systematic bottom-up approach, which does not necessarily validate the results of the dominant deductive theories. Instead, our approach offers a qualitative presentation of data situated within a multitude of relevant contexts.






Physical description




  • Uniwersytet Mikołaja Kopernika
  • Uniwersytet im. Adama Mickiewicza


  • AITCHISON J. (1987) Words in the Mind: An Introduction to the Mental Lexicon, Oxford. BACHTIN M. M. (1981) The Dialogic Imagination, Austin, TX.
  • BLACK M. (1962) Models and Metaphors: Studies in Language and Philosophy, Ithaca.
  • BLACK M. (1993) More about Metaphor, w: ORTONY A. (red.) Metaphor and Thought, New York, s. 19 – 41.
  • BURGOON M., HUNSAKER F., DAWSON E. (1994) Human Communication, New York.. CAMERON L. 2003. Metaphor in Educational Discourse, London.
  • CAMERON L., LOW G. (1999) Researching and Applying Metaphor, Cambridge.
  • CORTAZZI, M., JIN L. (1999) Bridges to Learning: Metaphors of Teaching, Learning and Language, w: CAMERON, L., LOW G. (red.) Researching and Applying Metaphor, Cambridge, s. 149– 176.
  • DEIGNAN, A. (2005) Metaphor and Corpus Linguistics, Amsterdam.
  • DAKOWSKA, M. (2005) Teaching English as a Foreign Language: A Guide for Professionals, Warszawa.
  • DOMINIEK S., RICE S. (1995) Network Analysis of Prepositional Meaning: Mirroring whose Mind - the Linguist’s or the Language User’s?, „Cognitive Linguistics”, t. 6/1, s. 89 – 130.
  • FAUCONNIER, G., TURNER M. (1998) Conceptual Integration Networks, „Cognitive Science”, t.22/2, s.133–187.
  • FAUCONNIER, G., TURNER M. (2002) The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and The Mind’s. Hidden Complexities, New York.
  • FESTINGER, L. (1957) A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance, Stanford CA. FRANCUZ G. (1999) O nową integrację wychowania, Kraków.
  • GIBBS R. (1994) The Poetics of Mind, Cambridge.
  • GLUCKSBERG S. (2001) Understanding Figurative Language: From Metaphor to Idioms, Oxford. GLYNN D. (2002) Love and Anger: The Grammatical Structure of Conceptual Metaphors, „Style”, t. 36, s. 541 – 559.
  • GRADY J. (2005) Primary Metaphors as Inputs to Conceptual Integration, „Journal of Pragmatics”, t. 37, s. 1595–1614.
  • GREEN D. W. i in. (red.) (1996) Cognitive Science. Introduction, Oxford.
  • GRUCZA F. (1976) Lingwistyczne uwarunkowania glottodydaktyki, w: GRUCZA F (red.) Glottodydaktyka a lingwistyka, Warszawa, s. 7 – 25.
  • GRUCZA F. (1997) Język ludzki a wyrażenia językowe, wiedza a informacja, mózg a umysł ludzki, w: GRUCZA F., DAKOWSKA M. (red.) Podejścia kognitywne w lingwistyce, translatoryce i głottodydaktyce, Warszawa, s. 7 – 21.
  • GUERRERO M. C. M. De, VILLAMIL O. S. (2002) Metaphorical Conceptualizations of ESL Teaching and Learning, „Language Teaching Research”, t. 6/2, s. 95–120.
  • JENSEN E. (1998) Teaching with the Brain in Mind, Alexandria, VA.
  • JENSEN E. (2005) (wyd. II rozszerzone i poprawione). Teaching with the Brain in Mind. Alexandria, VA.
  • JONES R. (1983) Physics as Metaphor, London.
  • KEYSAR B., GLUCKSBERG S. (1993) Metaphor and communication. „Poetics Today”, t. 13/ 633, s. 658.
  • KOMOROWSKA H. (1982) Metody badań empirycznych w glottodydaktyce. Warszawa. KÖVECSES Z. (1986) Metaphors of Anger, Pride and Love: A Lexical Approach to the Structure of Concepts, Amsterdam, Philadelphia.
  • KÖVECSES Z. (2000) Metaphor and Emotion, Cambridge. KÖVECSES Z. (2002) Metaphor: A Practical Introduction, Oxford.
  • LAKOFF G. (1987) Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago.
  • LAKOFF G. (1993) The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor, w: ORTONY A. (red.), Metaphor and Thought, New York, s. 202 – 251.
  • LAKOFF G., JOHNSON M. (1980) Metaphors We Live By. Chicago, London.
  • LANGACKER R. W. (1987) Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Theoretical Prerequisites, Stan- ford, CA.
  • MAHON J. E. (1999) Getting Your Sources Right, w: CAMERON L., LOWE G. (red.), Researching and Applying Metaphor, Cambridge, s. 69 – 80.
  • MARTINEZ M.A., SAULEDA N., HUBER G.L. (2001) Metaphors as Blueprints of Thinking about Teaching and Learning, „ Teaching and Teacher Education”, t. 17, s. 965 – 977.
  • MUNBY H. (1986) Metaphor in the Thinking of Teachers: An Exploratory Study, „Journal of Curriculum Studies”, t. 18/2, s. 197 – 209.
  • MUSIAŁ A. (2002) Exploring Teacher Trainees’ Metaphors of Language Teaching, w: STANULE- WICZ D. (red.), PASE Papers in Language Studies. Gdańsk, s. 463-470.
  • PFEIFFER W. (2001) Nauka języków obcych: Od praktyki do praktyki. Poznań.
  • REDDY M. J. (1993) The Conduit Metaphor: A Case of Frame Conflict in Our Language about Language, w: ORTONY A. (red.), Metaphor and Thought. New York, s. 284 – 324.
  • RICOEUR P. (1978) The Rule of Metaphor, London.
  • ROSCH E. (1975) Cognitive Reference Points, „Cognitive Psychology”, t. 7, s. 532 – 547.
  • ROSCH E. (1978) Priniples of Categorization, w: ROSCH E., LOYD B.B. (red.) Cognition and Categorization, Hillsdale, s. 27– 48.
  • ROSS R. S. (1974) Speech Communication. Fundamentals and Practice, New Jersey.
  • SCHÖN D. A. (1993) Generative Metaphor: A Perspective on Problem Setting in Social Policy, w: ORTONY A. (red.) Metaphor and Thought, New York, s. 137 – 163.
  • SIEK-PISKOZUB T., STRUGIELSKA A. (2007) Jak kształcić nauczyciela autonomicznego. Historia pewnego seminarium, w: JODŁOWIEC M., NIŻEGORODCEW A. (red.) Dydaktyka języ- ków obcych na początku XXI wieku. Kraków, s. 337 – 346.
  • SIEK-PISKOZUB T., STRUGIELSKA A. (2008) Osobiste teorie ucznia i nauczyciela, w: JARO- SZEWSKA A., TORENC M. (red.) Kultury i języki: poznawać - uczyć się - nauczać. Księga Jubileuszowa dla Pani Profesor Elżbiety Zawadzkiej-Bartnik z okazji 65 urodzin. Warszawa, s.131 – 138.
  • SIEK-PISKOZUB T., STRUGIELSKA A. (2008a) Autonomy, Experience and Concepts: A Study in Educational Discourses, „Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics”, t. 44/4, s. 597 – 616.
  • SOYLAND A. J. (1994). Psychology as Metaphor. London.
  • STEFANOWITSCH A., GRIES S. T. (red.) (2006) Corpus-Based Approaches to Metaphor and Metonymy. Metonymy (Trends in Linguistics 171). Berlin and New York.
  • STRUGIELSKA A. (2008) The Teacher, the Learner, and the Classroom as Reflections of Contemporary Cultural Models: A Study in Metaphorical Conceptualization, „Acta Universitatis Nicolai Copernici, English Studies”, t. 15, s. 99 –110.
  • STRUGIELSKA A. (2009) Metaphorical Reflections of Learners’ Educational Experience – Cohe- rence Relations and Internal Dynamics, w: CHARZYŃSKA-WÓJCIK M., MALICKA-KLE- PARSKA A., WÓJCIK J. (red.) Language Encounters, Lublin, s. 53 – 62.
  • STRUGIELSKA A., SIEK-PISKOZUB T (2008) The Teaching/Learning Experience at the University Level – a Case Study in Educational Discourse, w: WĄSIK Z., KOMENDZIŃSKI T. (red.) Metaphor and Cognition. Philologica Wratislaviensia: From Grammar to Discourse. Frankfurt am Main, Berlin, s. 117 – 131.
  • TAYLOR J. R. (1989) Linguistic Categorization: Prototypes in Linguistic Theory. Oxford.
  • WELLS G. (2006) Monologic and dialogic discourses as mediators of education, „Research in the Teaching of English”, t. 41/2, s. 168 – 182.
  • WERBIŃSKA D. (2005) Skuteczny nauczyciel języka obcego, Warszawa. WILLIAMS L. V. (1983) Teaching for the Two-Sided Mind. Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
  • WILLIAMS M., BURDEN R. L. (1997) Psychology for Language Teachers. A Social Constructivist Approach, Cambridge.
  • WYGOTSKI L. S. (1978) Mind in Society: the Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, MA.
  • ZANOTTO M. S., CAMERON L., CAVALCANTI M. C. (red.) (2008) Confronting Metaphor in Use. An Applied Linguistic Approach, Amsterdam, Philadelphia.

Document Type

Publication order reference



YADDA identifier

JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.