Cognitive and contrastive linguistics in TEFL

[Duncan Powrie]

This is more like it!! Interesting, very interesting...so, how do the following "definitions" grab you guys (they're off the top of my head!)?

Metaphor: narrowly defined, similar to simile , except that "like" is not used. More broadly, it is another meaning system (like grammar, and now "lexicogrammar" etc) that can account for many patterns that we are now (it seems) only beginning to really notice/sit up and take notice of. It is probably a more powerful and generalizable system than "idiom". Wjserson is onto something very important when he mentions making comparisions - metaphor is about making sense of and explaining a potentially infinite world with a limited literal vocabulary.

Figurative: seems to be similar to "metaphor(ical)", but the "mental image" that figurative language conveys may not necessarily be part of a wider metaphor A=B (perhaps instead it would just be an idiom?). Actually, maybe the difference between figurative language and metaphor is that the latter "slips in under our radar" much more easily, and is more pervasive (see "Metaphor", above)? Used in dictionaries regarding usage, but the label is perhaps not as consistently employed as it should be; and maybe we need a "metaphor" label as well!

Idiom: even if you understand the meaning of all the component parts, you might not really understand or more importantly APPRECIATE the idiom in question (which is why many teachers, including myself, steer clear of idioms unless there is absolutely no other way to express the meaning they might usefully convey); figurative language, and metaphor, on the other hand, seem to be very useful (especially the latter).

I'm not claiming that this satisfactorily explains the real difference(s?) between these terms, though...and we more than likely still need all three!

Another thought: if metaphors don't appear in other languages, perhaps they are more likely to be "idiomatic(ally phrased or put)"?

Incidentally, what do you think of the approach taken to meaning ("core" to extended/figurative/metaphorical) in the (New) Oxford Dictionary of English (which may not always coincide with frequency findings)?

[Olga]

Dear 'cognitive' friends'

Thank you for your extremely interesting replies. I promise to answer soon but I've got to tell you it's not easy. The reason is I'm on my maternity leave now and I'm still feeding my baby. My daughter has had a great appetite for the last few days and I couldn't find time to write. I placed my request for contact with all cognitively oriented people because I am interested in how practically metaphors and analogies can be used in an English lesson, especially to explain difficult grammatical, lexical or cultural points or such which are non-existing in the studen't L1. This week has been horribly busy, so please be patient. I hope to write back this weekend. I'm still waiting for more ideas from you Greetings to you all!!! OLGA

[Duncan Powrie]

metaphor is about making sense of and explaining a potentially infinite world with a limited literal vocabulary...maybe the difference between figurative language and metaphor is that the latter "slips in under our radar" much more easily

Sorry to be quoting myself, but I didn't want to edit and expand my last post too much, in case others were about to quote from it.

Following on from the above quotes, I just thought, although metaphor is non-literal, as far as the speaker is probably concerned the comparison is "literally" true e.g. "Teaching my new class IS a(n absolute) nightmare!!".

That is, the comparison is valid and appropriate to the speaker at least, and could well remain so even if they were (made) aware that they used a metaphor to describe something that has yet to actually exist verbally (what they wanted to say was presumably not easily verbalized - or were they just opting for artistic effect/interest value?!). Note that I added an element of exaggeration with "absolute" there!

Figurative speech, however, seems to retain its element of fantasy/vividness of image, and would be less likely to be taken as (literally) real (especially in retrospect), even though it also often "slips in/by" unnoticed at the time of speaking; what was said can always be (later) qualified by "figuratively speaking, of course" (=BUT NOT REALLY) etc (see examples below).

But the main point of difference between metaphors and figurative speech seems, as WJSERSON so helpfully pointed out, to be that the former is about (implicit) comparisons between nouns, and the latter to do with verbs! He genius!!

What, then, is the difference between each of these terms and "idiom" (or can we let that one slide now?).

Oh, here are some interesting examples I culled from various dictionaries:

Cambridge Advanced Learner's: #Of course, she was using the term "massacre" in the figurative sense (=metaphorically, if in original statement was not a verb); #Chris will come with you to hold your hand, figuratively speaking (=clearly figurative).

LDOCE4: #He's my son, in the figurative sense of the word (=figurative, or metaphorical?!); #They have a taste - figuratively speaking - for excitement (=What the ****?! These Longman examples SUCK!!).

Macmillan English Dictionary: I laughed until I nearly died, figuratively speaking, of course. (For "figurative", definition only/no examples).

OALDCE6: She is, figuratively speaking, holding a gun to his head (=clearly figurative). (For "figurative", definition only/no examples).

[Duncan Powrie]

That is, the comparison is valid and appropriate to THE SPEAKER at least, and could well remain so even if THEY were (made) aware that they used a metaphor to describe something that has yet to actually exist verbally...

Damn. And there I was in the "Genderless Pronoun" thread banging on about how indefinite pronouns would "probably" more often precede "they" than things like "the teacher"...ah well, at least this example can be trusted (it was spontaneous). Anyone fancy writing to the authors of The Grammar Book?! I wonder if any "real" linguists ever bother stopping by Dave's ESL Cafe (apologies if any of you are or consider yourself real linguists! ).

Anyway, I always (like to) admit when I am wrong (or rather, here, misled), let's get back to metaphor, Cognitive Linguistics etc!

[wjserson]

Apology accepted, Duncan.

[Duncan Powrie]

Ooh I was about to go to bed then. I still am, except it'll be harder to sleep now with a wet pillow...

[Duncan Powrie]

Wait, Wjserson, you mean you're a REAL linguist?!?!

[wjserson]

Well, yeah, I guess I am. What are your conditions Dunkman and we'll see if I make the cut

[Duncan Powrie]

Well, like I implied before, "real" linguists don't drop by Dave's ESL Cafe every ten minutes, do they? They're too busy getting new prescription glasses, or seeing the doctor for repetitive hefty-tome hefting/page-turning injuries to their digits - when they're not shooting the breeze with me, that is (the guys at MIT have a very nice selection of biscuits, by the way). So, almost by definition, you can't be a real one (unless you have the ailments referred to above, GAINFULLY gained - hopefully in a faculty somewhere - in the pursuit of linguistic knowledge and/or insanity). Sorry! NEXT!

Heh we may as well have some fun here, until Aunty Olga returns, huh!

[Duncan Powrie]

I was in Kinokuniya (a big bookstore in Tokyo) today slobbering over Researching and Applying Metaphor (Lynne Cameron & Graham Low, eds; from the Cambridge Applied Linguistics range) - it looks really interesting! I can't afford to buy it until next payday (in a week or so), though . One of the things it mentioned was "dead metaphor" - metaphor that has been used so often that it is no longer thought of as metaphor, and would probably be dealt with as merely an instance of polysemy (if I correctly recall what the author said). See how much more concise all that is than my waffle a few posts ago?! Reading often repays the expense incurred in buying the book!

I am also considering getting William Croft and Alan Cruse's recent Cognitive Linguistics (Cambridge Textbooks in Applied Linguistics), rather than risking plunging straight into stuff by guys like Langacker, Fillmore, Jackendoff etc. (I already have John R. Taylor's Cognitive Grammar (Oxford Textbooks in Linguistics), but it is a big and complex book beyond the really stimulating first two chapters, so I'll be nowhere near finishing it for a while!).

Does anyone have any other reading recommendations (besides e.g. Lakoff and Turner) that would help me (and others) get further into the topics of this thread (but relatively painlessly)?

[wjserson]

Aww! It's just so cute to see all your preconceived ideas about what a linguist is Dunkman!
So, after having changed the subject, you believe a linguist is a guy with glasses who reads and carries heavy books? Couldn't that be an engineer or an archeologist? Or are you basing your entire definition of 'linguists' on the looks of a younger Noam Chomsky (20 or 30 years ago)

Couldn't you find your own self (DP) categorized under the term 'linguist' and you're just to afraid to admit it?

[Duncan Powrie]

Hmm ducky I don't really have a "type" in mind when it comes to linguists, and you can't really go by looks anyway (although admittedly, the preppy "Chomsky" look is probably what we think of when glasses are mentioned) - I mean, look at that STUD Steven Pinker (I bet Chomsky gets a bit jealous whenever/IF he ever looks out of his window and sees "Stud" SP strolling across the campus with a veritable bevvy of adoring bespectacled girls (and perhaps boys ) crowding around him).

So, we need to define a linguist according to other criteria...um hmmm thinkingggg hardddd...aha I mentioned injuries to digits before didn't I! Yes, a real linguist (i.e. linguist's linguist) is somebody who doesn't need to sweat buckets over how to analyze a sentence, no matter how crazy (the SENTENCE is ) because a) they actually did some serious reading and thinking AT university if not before (in the womb?!) or b) they are too busy with their own research, writing and agendas to analyze crazy sentences (unless they are Chomsky of 30 years ago, or his diehard followers even now).

That is, linguists seem to have a VERY good knowledge of at least one language. All guys like me can do is play catch up, and hope that what we "apply" in teaching is drawing judiciously on all available relevant data, and is ultimately still a fair reflection of it.

There is often talk of linguists needing to listen to the opinions of teachers if not applied linguists, but I am ultimately much more interested in language (in use) than pedagogy.

Damn getting a bit heavy there!

I haven't actually weighed engineering books vs. your average English tome, but I doubt if many namby pamby scientists could lift the whole OED CD-ROM, let alone the printed edition.

[Duncan Powrie]

Cambridge Advanced Learner's: #Of course, she was using the term "massacre" in the figurative sense (=metaphorically, if in original statement was not a verb).

I was just thinking, even if a verb had been used e.g. her original statement had been something like, "We'll massacre them (in the game tomorrow)", wouldn't a metaphor still be implicitly there - SPORTS ARE WAR. That is, examples of figurative language can point to or remind us of underlying metaphorical systems.

(From SPORTS IS WAR/MASS KILLING we could lead onto OPPONENTS IN SPORTS ARE ENEMIES WHO NEED TO BE DEFEATED, and WINNING IN SPORTS INVOLVES KILLING AN ENEMY etc. However, apart from "They (=these two teams) are sworn enemies", I can't think of other non-literal uses of "enemy" in sports specifically, and if a student already knows the literal meaning of "enemy", the non-literal meaning is hardly going to be such a leap that students would need to study it in/as (a specific) metaphor beyond SPORTS ARE WAR. That is, there often seems to be a risk of a proliferation of "metaphors", without any of one them being clearly marked as more superordinate to the others (one way to decide might be to see which of the words especially in the right side of the metaphors actually occuring in/as metaphors).

We could therefore just study the area of (literal) warfare, including "massacre(s)", with an eye to the use of "massacre(s)" (but not necessarily "enemy") in sports, based upon the frequency of either actually occuring in sports also (where metaphor would be involved), regardless of their general (and literal-meaning) frequencies (if you don't want to study war much, you could of course just study sport, and if "massacre" crops up, simply say it is a metaphorical extension of the literal (wartime) meaning). Where, then, is "enemy" (used to mean) an ENEMY more frequently?!).

All we'd then need to do is look for examples that do actually run along the lines of SPORTS ARE WAR and are more clearly/helpfully metaphors (I'm sure sports commentators use some - maybe I'll watch "Any Given Sunday" again soon to see what Olly Stone's character spouts! "It's war out there, folks!"; "What a scene of carnage!"; "They destroyed that line-up!" etc etc).

Sorry that we seem to still be concerned with definition of terms, Olga, maybe we'll get onto practicalities soon! I hope there is a glimmering of an approach for you too in what I said above. Does anyone know if there are any activity books on metaphor? I recall seeing one or two, but I can't remember titles, authors etc.

In the meantime we might just need to depend on the information contained in e.g. the COBUILD guide to metaphor, the Macmillan English Dictionary for Advanced Learners, the index of metaphors and metonymy in Zoltan Kovecses's Metaphor: A Practical Introduction (Oxford University Press, New York 2002) etc. Dictionaries of idioms (Oxford's, and Longman's are both very good) or proverbs might also be very suggestive and helpful in pointing the way to metaphor (e.g. fall in love; love is blind etc > LOVE IS...? LOVE IS SIMPLY LOVE, MAN!! ).

[Duncan Powrie]

Anyway, regardless of all the terminology involved (or should that be potentially "involved" terminology?!), the main thing that we are concerned with really is the power of the mind and imagination in making sense of the world through what it knows already, through processes of comparison, analogy, metaphor, whatever. Let's not get too hung up on being precise - not that we've been that precise so far! - we can all just go read the literature!

It doesn't really matter what you call it, the only thing that matters is the allusion to something already known (or that could be quickly and easily taught to a student who didn't even know the basic meaning to begin with, let alone have any conception of extended meanings/uses).

As as example, I was talking to a Japanese guy yesterday, and used "I bet..." (with its "surmising" function, based on what somebody has told me up to now e.g. this guy recently did a breakneck tour of Hokkaido and Tohoku in a weekend, and only had a few hours sleep on the way back to work on the Monday, so I said, "I bet you were tired at work!").

He didn't "get" the "bet" first time round, doubtless because he didn't know or expect that it could be used in conversations away from the racetrack or schoolyard ("I bet you ($1 that you) can't...!")*, but he did know (thankfully!) the sense of "bet" in sports/gambling, and the idea of YOUR OPINIONS CAN BE (LIKE) MONEY, TO BET IN A CONVERSATION was very clear and intuitively appealing to him. Furthermore, the action involved in leaning forward excitedly to "bet" with your "money" (versus the more "detached" alternatives he offered, such as think, suppose etc) also made the "feel" and distinctiveness of the word (that is, its use here) that much more apparent. "Bet" seems to involve more "risk" than detached language, so it can bring people closer together (that is, more is being "invested" in the conversation, which will probably make the people feel more "valued" ).

From that, he could readily understand the meaning of phrases like: You bet!, You want to bet?!, I wouldn't bet on it etc - the person mentioned is(n't) going to stake "money" on something (being true or not)!

I don't know if this use of "bet" is metaphorical, or figurative, or whatever, and such distinctions would be too academic for learners; all that mattered was reminding the student of "known" things, and extending the meaning slightly by processes of analogy.

Teachers have been using analogy long before the metaphor "movement" came along, but mainly just in a purely "semantic" sense/way (i.e. "The meaning (use?) of this word/structure is almost/very/quite/somewhat/a bit etc similar to that other word or structure that you already know"); all we are doing now is trying to focus on how people conceptualize the world (rather than argue the toss about meaning based on "outside" authorities - but obviously, corpora are blurring the line between what we think people might say (detached or potential meanings of the language - competence) and what they do actually say (instantiated meanings)).

The fact that both me and the student could see and agree that the "two" meanings of bet were closely related shows how powerful and useful cognitive processes in action can be.

* By the way, I felt like pointing out to him that "...tired at work" (regardless of "betting!" vs question intonation - not that I mentioned intonation, or questions vs "invitations" etc to him specifically!) was what carried a lot of, if not most of the meaning in what I said (i.e. I had made a "proposition" about his tiredness at work), and that he therefore shouldn't've totally stopped conversing to worry about what "bet" meant; but as he had reasonable English generally, I guessed that he "knew" TIRED, AT and WORK, and therefore presumed that he had had no "problem" with "tired at work" specifically (even though he hadn't responded to what I'd said), so it didn't seem a crime to forget the conversation and study "bet" instead. That is, it's hard to insist on top-down approaches to listening comprehension if students don't go for it, if they still feel that there are some words they simply "have to" know to "fully" understand! Maybe we just have to accept that these "temporary" lulls in "conversational competence" will correct themselves naturally later (when the student not only HAS learnt, but FEELS they have learnt enough to be able to confidently tackle "top-down" approaches to comprehension).