Languages are (like) visualslinguistic considerations and potential usage

  1. Palacios Pablos, Andrés
Revista:
Ibérica: Revista de la Asociación Europea de Lenguas para Fines Específicos ( AELFE )

ISSN: 1139-7241

Ano de publicación: 2009

Título do exemplar: Metafora y LFE

Número: 17

Páxinas: 99-118

Tipo: Artigo

DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openDialnet editor

Outras publicacións en: Ibérica: Revista de la Asociación Europea de Lenguas para Fines Específicos ( AELFE )

Resumo

Consistent with students� increasingly visual cognitive learning style, Languages are (Like) visuaLs (Lav) is proposed as a verbo-graphic metaphor applicable to the learning of non-figurative grammar issues of language. its validity as a special hybrid is assessed and assumed according to some principles of conceptual, pictorial and visual metaphor theories (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980; Lakoff, 1987; Forceville, 2002). To illustrate this proposal, a mapping is outlined, namely WOrDs-in-sHaPes eXCHange (Wise). a representation of words in their syntagmatic sequence, Wise is exemplified here with the english verb group, resembling a game based on fitting visual shapes whose rules are adapted and therefore mappable onto the verbal rules. This analogy and its graphical nature particularly suitable to esP students� academic training can readily ease the system acquisition, thus providing a useful remedial tool for raising learners� linguistic awareness of agreement within the sentence, often a grammatical weakness in esP. such is the case with prospective architects and civil engineers, to whom a practical appendix is addressed. Though Wise description takes up most of the paper, some possible teaching and research potentials of this metaphoric visual application are also observed, inviting further study and testing of the expected results.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Caballero, R. (2003). “How to talk shop through metaphor: bringing metaphor research to the ESP classroom”. English for Specific Purposes 22: 177-194.
  • Cameron, L. & G. Low (1999). “Methaphor”. Language Teaching 32: 77-96.
  • Carroll, N. (1994). “Visual metaphor” in J. Hintikka (ed.), Aspects of Metaphor, 189-218. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
  • Downing A. & P. Locke (2006). English Grammar. A University Course. New York: Routledge.
  • Forceville, C. (2002). “The identification of target and source in pictorial metaphors”. Journal of Pragmatics 34: 1-14.
  • Goatly, A. (1996). “Green grammar and grammatical metaphor”. Journal of Pragmatics 25: 537-560.
  • Halliday, M.A.K. (1985). An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold.
  • Huddleston, R. (1984). Introduction to the Grammar of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Jiang, X. & W. Grabe (2007). “Graphic organizers in reading instruction: Research findings and issues”. Reading in a Foreign Language 19: 34-55.
  • Indurkhya, B. (1991). “Modes of metaphor”. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity 6: 1-27.
  • Johnson, M. (1987). The Body in the Mind. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
  • Lakoff, G. & M. Johnson (1980). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Lakoff, G. (1987). “Image metaphors”. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity 2: 219-222.
  • Littlemore, J. (2004). “Itembased and cognitive-style-based variation in students’ abilities to use metaphoric extension strategies”. Ibérica 7: 5-31.
  • Low, G. D. (1992). “Can grammar be humanised? And can cognitive linguistics do it?” in J. Kohn & D. Wolff (eds.), New Tendencies in Curriculum Development, 113-128. TEMPUS project publication. Szombathely,Hungary: Szombathely Teacher Training College Publishing House.
  • Low, G. & J. Littlemore (2009). “The relationship between conceptual metaphors and classroom management language: reactions by native and non-native speakers of English”. Ibérica 17: 25-44.
  • MacLennan, C. (1993). “Metaphor in the language classroom: a case for change”. Institute of Language in Education Journal 10: 137-152.
  • MacLennan, C. (1994). “Metaphor and prototypes in the learning teaching of grammar and vocabulary”. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Theory 22: 97-110.
  • Myers, G. (2003). “Words, pictures, and facts in academic discourse”. Ibérica 6: 3-13.
  • Quirk, R., S. Greenbaum, G. Leech & J. Svartvik (1985). A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman
Fonte de datos: Dialnet