The study of conceptual metaphors in ESAP L2 writing: range and variability

• Authors: Tatiana Permyakova , Tatiana Utkina
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

The article presents the study of the influence of professional competence of EFL learners on their academic writing. The task was approached through analyzing learners’ competence in specific knowledge domains - knowledge of terms and specific concepts, represented as conceptual metaphors. Conceptual metaphor models were analyzed in the English written texts produced by Russian students with different competences in economics – at both non-professional and professional levels of academic discourse (NPAD and PAD respectively). Metaphor Identification Procedure VU University Amsterdam (MIPVU) was applied to metaphor identification, and alternative metaphor and preferential conceptualization analysis was performed to compare the scope of source and the range of target in NPAD and PAD. Findings highlight the areas of commonality as well as divergence in terms of students’ professional competence represented in conceptual metaphors in L2 writing. The main differences in the scope of the source analysis are quantitative rather than qualitative. The range of target comparison between NPAD and PAD indicates a significantly larger range of targets for the professional level students, a lower level of metaphorization for the non-professional level, and inclusive strategies across the two levels. Practical recommendations suggest an improved research methodology for studying metaphor production in EAP and ESP as well as a deeper understanding of ESP content and its structure.

Keywords

EN

metaphor; cognitive linguistics; conceptual metaphor models; academic discourse; professional discourse; English for specific purposes; English for academic purposes; L2 writing; Economics; metaphoric competence

• Publisher: Uniwersytet Łódzki. Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego
• Journal: Research in Language
• Year: 2016
• Volume: 14
• Issue: 4
• Pages: 437-451

Dates

published

2016-12-30

Contributors

author

Tatiana Permyakova

• National Research University Higher School of Economics

author

Tatiana Utkina

References

• Alekseeva, L. 1998. Termin i metafora: semanticheskoe obosnovanie metafory [Term and Metaphor: Metaphorization Semantic Grounding]. Perm: Perm State University.
• Alekseeva, L., and Mishlanova, S. 2002. Meditsinkii diskurs: teoretitcheskie osnovy i printsipy analiza. [Medical Discourse: Theoretical Background and Principles of Analysis]. Perm: Perm State University.
• Azuma, M. 2004. Metaphorical Competence in an EFL Context: The Mental Lexicon and Metaphorical Competence of Japanese EFL Students. Published PhD dissertation. University of Nottingham.
• Bailey, R. 2003. Conceptual Metaphor, Language, Literature and Pedagogy. Journal of Language and Learning 1(2). 59-72.
• Berendt, E. A. (ed.). 2008. Metaphors for Learning: Cross-cultural Perspectives. John Benjamins Publishing.
• Budaev, E. 2007. Sopostavitel’naia polititcheskaia metaforologiia. [Comparative Political Metaphorology]. Published PhD dissertation. Ekaterinburg.
• Cassirer, E. 1990. Sila Metafory. [The Power of Metaphor]. In N.D. Arutyunova and M.A. Zhurinskaya (eds.), Teoriia Metafory, 33-43.Moskva: Progress.
• Charteris-Black, J. 2000. Metaphor and Vocabulary Teaching in ESP Economics. English for Specific Purposes 19(2). 149-165.
• Charteris-Black, J. and T. Ennis. 2001. A Comparative Study of Metaphor in Spanish and English Financial Reporting. English for Specific Purposes 20(3). 249-266.
• Chudinov, A. 2005. Metaforitcheskaia mozaika v sovremennoi polititcheskoi metafore. [Metaphoric Mosaic in Modern Political Metaphor]. Ekaterinburg.
• Davidson, D. 1978. What Metaphors Mean. Critical Inquiry 5(1). 31-47.
• Educational Program. [Online] Available from: http://www.hse.ru/edu/courses/94100357.html http://www.hse.ru/edu/courses/94100352.html [Accessed: 21 August 2015].
• Everaert, M., Lentz, T. and H. De Mulder. 2010. The Linguistics Enterprise: from Knowledge of Language to Knowledge in Linguistics. The linguistics enterprise: From knowledge of language to knowledge in linguistics 150. 1-10.
• Fauconnier, G. 1997. Mappings in Thought and Language. Cambridge University Press.
• Gibbs Jr, R. W. and G. J. Steen. (eds.). 1999. Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics: Selected Papers from the 5th International Cognitive Linguistics Conference, Amsterdam, 1997 (Vol. 175). John Benjamins Publishing.
• Gunnarsson, B.- L. 2009. Professional Discourse. Continuum Discourse Series. London.
• Hashemian, M. and M. R. T. Nezhad. 2013. The Development of Conceptual Fluency and Metaphorical Competence in L2 Learners. Linguistik online 30(1/06). 41-56.
• Kathpalia, S. S. and H. L. H. Carmel. 2011. Metaphorical Competence in ESL Student Writing. RELC Journal 42(3). 273-290.
• Katiya, M., Mtonjeni, T. and P. Sefalane-Nkohla. 2015. Making Sense of Errors Made by Analytical Chemistry Students in Their Writing. Journal of Language Teaching and Research 6(3). 490-503.
• Kövecses, Z. 2005. Metaphor in Culture: Universality and Variation. Cambridge University Press.
• Kubriakova, E. 1999. Semantika v kognitivnoi lingvistike (o kontsepte konteinera i formah iego ob’’ektivatsii v yazyke). [Semantics in Cognitive Linguistics (on Concept “Container” and forms of its objectification in language)]. Izvestiia RAN 6 (58). 4–39.
• Lakoff, G. and M. Johnson. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. University of Chicago Press.
• Littlemore, J. and G. Low. 2006. Metaphoric Competence, Second Language Learning, and Communicative Language Ability. Applied linguistics 27(2). 268-294.
• Littlemore, J. et al. 2014. An Investigation into Metaphor Use at Different Levels of Second Language Writing. Applied Linguistics 35(2). 117–144.
• Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English. [Online]. Available from: http://www.ldoceonline.com [Accessed: 18 August 2015].
• Mishlanova, S. and T. Utkina. 2008. Osobennosti metaforizatsii v nauchno-populyarnom diskurse. [Peculiarities of Metaphorization in Scientific Popular Discourse]. Tyumen State University Herald 1. 114-120.
• Mishlanova, S. and T. Utkina. 2014. Metafora v professional’noy kommunikatsii. [Metaphor in Professional Communication (on the Basis of Economic Discourse)]. European Social Science Journal 2(2). 259-264.
• Myers, G. 2003. Discourse Studies of Scientific Popularization: Questioning the Boundaries. Discourse studies 5(2). 265-279.
• Permyakova, T. and T. Utkina. 2014. The Study of Professionalization Levels in ESAP Learning: Cognitive Metaphor Model Analysis. Journal of Teaching English for Specific and Academic Purposes 2(3). 519-526.
• Pragglejaz Group, P. 2007. MIP: A Method for Identifying Metaphorically Used Words in Discourse. Metaphor and symbol 22(1). 1-39.
• Rodriguez, M. C. 2003. How to Talk Shop Through Metaphor: Bringing Metaphor Research to the ESP Classroom. English for Specific Purposes 22(2). 177-194.
• Shirazi, M. G. and M. R. T. Nezhad. 2013. Developing Intermediate EFL Learners’ Metaphorical Competence Through Exposure. Theory and Practice in Language Studies 3(1). 135-141.
• Suomela-Salmi, E. and F. Dervin. (eds.). 2009. Cross-linguistic and Cross-cultural Perspectives on Academic Discourse. John Benjamins Publishing.
• Steen, G. J. 2009. From Linguistic Form to Conceptual Structure in Five Steps: Analyzing Metaphor in Poetry. In G. Brône and J. Vandaele (eds.), Cognitive poetics: Goals, gains and gaps, 197-226. Berlin; New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
• Tarnopolsky, O. and A. Vysselko. 2014. Mini-courses on Economic Disciplines in an Advanced ESP Course for University Students of Economics. The Journal of Teaching English for Specific and Academic Purpose, 2(1), 45-59.

Identifiers

DOI

10.1515/rela-2016-0021