IS A PRISON. Students can capture here an insight into some aspects of the specificity of poetic metaphor, which emerges from the extension of the range of associations and the combination of unex pected analogies to create "something new." What is significant in this analysis is that the sets of metaphors-conventional, character specific, or novel-are not presented as casual occurrences but as part of a coherently structured metaphorical pattern. Non-literary texts may be also approached through this technique. For example, let us take a look at the magazine advertisment on page 6, taken from New Woman, September 1992, p. 149. Its significance rests on the so-called "birth metaphor" identified by Lakoff and Johnson (1980). For some reason we speak of nations in terms of birth. That is why the authors of the United States Constitution are called fathers, the "Founding Fathers." Fathers are supposed to support their children. Therefore, if many American children are undernourished, as claimed in this advertisement of the Children's Defense Fund, then the country is not "fathering," or doing its duty. That is why the text can be headlined: These Fathers Are Behind in Their Child Support. The birth metaphor functions as a kind of frame for the text. The message would be incomprehensible to any reader who is not able to activate the birth metaphor and to understand its connection with the history of the United States. This is a prime example of how necessary it is to understand metaphoricity and especially its culture-specific connotations in order to correctly interpret even simple everyday texts. Conclusion In its search to describe phenomena hitherto neglected in linguistic analysis, cognitive linguistics has provided some useful insights into the relationship between thought, language, and reality. It has also suggested some fruitful ways of searching for language data which can provide a clearer understanding of the nature of language structure and use, as this discussion has tried to demonstrate. More significantly, it has posed serious questions to linguists. It has made us aware that the essence of language is not form or structure as emphasized by both the structuralist and generative grammar schools. It lies closer to the heart of semantics. The cognitive turn in linguistics has shifted attention to problems of meaning, idiomaticity, and metaphoricity in language. For teachers of foreign languages, these insights may be useful for traditional hurdles in language teaching and learning, and may provide more efficient and creative ways of presenting English language data to learners from other cultures. REFERENCES Barcellona, A. 1992. Romeo and Juliet's love. Paper presented to the XVth International Congress of Linguists, Université de Laval, Québec, August 1992. Deane, P. 1992. Metaphors of center and periphery in Yeats's The Second Coming. Paper presented to the XVth International Congress of Linguists, Université de Laval, Québec, August 1992. Freeman, D. 1992. Catching the nearest way: Path and container metaphors in Macbeth. Freeman, M. 1992. Metaphor making mean- Hawkes, T. 1972. Metaphor. London: Methuen. Hiraga, Masako. 1991. Metaphor and com parative cultures. In Cross-cultural communication: East and west, vol. III., ed. P. Fendos. Taiwan: National Cheng-Kung University. Hiraga, M. and J. Williams. 1992. Metaphor and the poetic text. Panel presented at the XVth International Congress of Linguists, Université de Laval, Québec, August 1992. Lakoff, G. and M. Johnson. 1980. Metaphors we live by. New York and Chicago: Chicago University Press. Langacker, R. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press. Ortony, A., ed. 1979. Metaphor and thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. From Metaphor to Metalanguage Suzanne Swales All language-learning models can be re- Before any learner-training programme dents. The problem is that no one knows a useful, imaginative, if highly abstract basis focus on the cognitive aspect but they "do not examine the learners' perception of what they do to learn or manage their learning. They do not seek to present the process of L2 learning from the learners' viewpoint." We need to help students make explicit their covert beliefs about language learning because these beliefs may influence which strategies they use in their learning and how effectively they use them. The ultimate goal of autonomous learning cannot be reached if there is an inherent mismatch from the beginning between how students think they learn and how they are being asked to learn. Learners test out their hypotheses of what a language course should be and what they should attain in a given time span. When, as Horwitz (1987:119) says: language classes fail to meet student expectations, students can lose confidence in the instructional approach and their ultimate achievement can be limited. Pictorial metaphors such as the ones described in the study below are one way of gaining insight into students' inherent beliefs. Unlike other techniques such as thinking aloud protocols or direct interviews, which claim to be windows into the mind (another metaphor!), student drawings are more like framed pho knowledge of both linguistics and psychology, tographs of their current view of lan we accept these proposals as an elaborate meta- Flower and Hayes's (1980) model of If, in an academic/teaching context, such constructs are required to make explicit the current view of language learning, why should this device not also be used in an intuitive/learning context? Again, as Wenden (1987:3) says, all studies on universal language processing strategies and communication strategies guage learning. Horwitz says that when learners enter upon a course of instruction their assumptions are often based on limited knowledge usually reflecting their previous language-learning experience; therefore, teachers should challenge these beliefs as a way of raising awareness about the nature of learning (Horwitz 1987:160). Metaphors in the classroom Before any learner training can begin, the learners will have to define, at least provisionally, what language is for them. Metalanguage is the language needed to explain this concept in the classroom. However, talking and thinking about language and language learning is paradoxical because in so many language-learning classrooms, it is necessary to employ the language being learnt at a greater level of precision and complexity than the learner possesses. Faerch and Kasper (1983:55) ask: Would it be feasible to have learners engage in communicative situations in the classroom which require a more extensive knowledge of L1⁄2 than that which the learners can be expected to have? On the one hand, there is a risk of frustrating the learners by making too strong demands on their ability to communicate. On the other hand, there could be considerable gains in teaching learners how to compensate for insufficient linguistic resources by using the totality of their communicative resources creatively and appropriately. One way out of this dilemma is the use of metaphor. For a great many people pictures and visualisation are the most accessible metaphoric representations of ideas. Both this problem and this solution are particularly applicable at the elementary stage of language learning where attempts to consider the process are frequently abandoned because learners lack the necessary vocabulary and technical framework. The study Twelve beginning-level adult female students at the British Council in Dubai took part in a study I conducted: three Iranians, one Qatari, two Somalis, two Sri Lankans, and four from the United Arab Emirates. They were asked to draw a set of cartoons which would illustrate the way they thought a language was learned and then to describe them. Before I saw the drawings, I had speculated about what insights they would provide. Would these possibly “naive” conceptions correspond to any professionally developed theory of language learning-empirical or theoretical? Do learners see language learning primarily as something organic which grows (developmental) like Strevens's (1977:41) description of a child's progress in L, acquisition: a series of successively closer approximations towards adult command of the language, a series of stages of "interlanguage" or of "provisional grammars" of the language. Or is it regarded as separate components which are assembled like lego bricks (incremental)? The answer, predictably, was both. Ten students chose to represent the process as developmental: Mathi (Sri Lanka) drew the Four Ages of Women in which quantity of language in the early stages becomes quality. The ultimate goal English Teaching Forum • July 1994 is operational command of the language. Fatima (Somalia) chose the idea of a baby crawling slowly towards proficiency guided by the mother/teacher. Elahah (Iran) also used this theme of dependence becoming independence and for her, language and education were undifferentiated (Fig. 1). She had left school early to get married and regretted not having continued her education as she had always wanted to be a doctor. Kadria (Iran) likened the growth of language to that of civilisation whereby a near-naked caveman finally dons a western business-suit (Fig. 2)! Roya (Iran) depicted the gradual growth of a village. Moodhy (U.A.E.) and Jazeera (Sri Lanka) both drew the growth of a strongly rooted fruit-bearing tree from a seed Encouragement of students to elaborate meta (Fig. 3). Halima (Somalia) and Adeeja phors is one way (U.A.E.) used enlightenment metaphors of darkness (ignorance) giving way to sunlight (knowledge) (Fig. 4). Marwa (U.A.E.) saw language learning as a form of irrigation whereby the desert changes to a lake as a result of rain. This water metaphor shows the limitless nature of learning and in her text she suggested that students should continue their language studies until they were 100! Only two students opted for incremental representations of the process. of empowering them as users of English. Figure 3 ticeably no machines, no communication metaphors, and no pictures of the mind as a computer. All the drawings are firmly rooted in natural elements-land, village life, and family. This obviously relates closely to their own political and social experience as women in Third World countries. Encouragement of students to elaborate such metaphors is one way of encouraging ownership of the languagelearning process and empowering them as users of English for their own social needs. Initially, I had expected the study to yield much more evidence about learner strategies, whereas the pictures and texts strongly pointed to the role that learning English played in personal education and development. Indeed, for some of the students, economic development and world citizenship are seen as coming about through the medium of English. To sum up, I feel that this small-scale study goes beyond foreign-languagelearning concerns. It also gives insight into students' views of education in general and, as such, it supports Wenden's (1987:11) assertion that, before learning/ training can take place: the network of ideals, values, and beliefs, the abstract social, political, and educational concepts that are constituent elements of their cultural assumptions, need to be critically examined and reinterpreted or re-created. Conclusion In order to increase its validity, this initial study needs to be extended to find out whether men and women in different cultural contexts would produce the same metaphors as my sample. This might have important implications in practice for, as Horwitz (1987:119) suggests: In the typical ESL classroom where there is a native teacher and students of many cultural backgrounds, differing beliefs about language learning may well be a significant source of culture clash. The cartoon metaphors can, of course, be used at higher levels where metalanguage is more sophisticated. Students can describe, discuss, and write about other students' metaphors and match them against their own conception of the language-learning process. This could be the springboard for a full learner-training programme. Use of metaphors is not limited only to language learners. Teachers use them extensively (whether consciously or not). Metaphors can give valuable insights into teachers' own theories of language learning, which inevitably affect their classroom practices. I asked some colleagues about their personal metaphors. One visualised a postal system where language was thrown into a post-box brain and sorted out automatically according to моза Figure 6 Figure 5 structural and semantic post codes. Another conjured up the human body as a system of systems: bone structure, musculature, the digestive system, and so on. Each system can be analysed separately and yet the interaction of all parts is required to sustain life and human activity. This view is both analytical and holistic. Each system must be well formed with almost complete structural integrity for the body to work. Bones could be regarded as grammar, digestion as the acquisition of vocabulary, and the muscles as theory! Developmental, incremental; field-dependent, field-independent. The interpretations and metaphors themselves are lim itless. Both teachers and students should be encouraged to create their own in coming to terms with how a foreign language is learned. REFERENCES Currie, W. B. 1973. New directions in teaching English language. London: Longman. Faerch, C. and G. Kasper. 1983. Strategies in interlanguage communication. London: Longman. Flower, L. S. and J. R. Hayes. 1980. In Cognitive processes in writing, ed. L. W. Gregg and E. R. Steinberg. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Horwitz, E. K. 1987. In Learner strategies in language learning, ed. A. Wenden and J. Rubin. Cambridge: Prentice-Hall International. Strevens, P. 1977. New orientations in the teaching of English. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wenden, A. L. 1987. In Learner strategies in language learning, ed. A. Wenden and J. Rubin. Cambridge: Prentice-Hall International. |