The effects of cognitive-based instruction and assessment on figurative constructions comprehension and production: a case study

Beatriz Martín-Gascón

doi:10.30827/portalin.vi41.26121

Autores/as

Beatriz Martín-Gascón Universidad Complutense de Madrid https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2962-8339

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.30827/portalin.vi41.26121

Palabras clave:

instrucción-evaluación de base cognitiva, producción-comprensión metafórica, emoción, Lingüística Cognitiva

Resumen

Este estudio examina el impacto de una instrucción y evaluación de base cognitiva en la competencia metafórica y en la comprensión y producción de construcciones lingüísticas complejas de la emoción en L2. Dentro del campo de la Lingüística Cognitiva aplicada al aula de L2, nuestro estudio empírico se suma al creciente cuerpo de investigación que explora el papel de la enseñanza explícita de la metáfora en un entorno de instrucción. Como novedad, este aúna ideas de la LC y la teoría conceptual de la metáfora para el diseño e implementación de una pedagogía cognitiva y una evaluación coherente con este enfoque. Asimismo, aborda construcciones metafóricas complejas en español que se usan vocabulario sobre percepciones físicas para expresar emociones (p. ej., tocar fondo). El estudio sigue un diseño pretest/posttest1/postest2 para tres condiciones (control, cognitiva y tradicional). La recogida de datos se compila a través de cuatro tareas que miden la comprensión y producción de metáforas generales, así como la comprensión y la producción de las construcciones metafóricas objeto de estudio. Los resultados de las pruebas estadísticas muestran cómo, tras la instrucción, el grupo cognitivo es superior. Estos resultados revelan los beneficios de una instrucción y evaluación basadas en la concienciación metafórica.

Descargas

Los datos de descargas todavía no están disponibles.

Biografía del autor/a

Beatriz Martín-Gascón, Universidad Complutense de Madrid

Beatriz Martín Gascón holds a PhD (Cum Laude and International Mention) in Languages and Cultures from the University of Córdoba. Currently, she is an Assistant Doctor at the Complutense University in Madrid, where she teaches courses such as pragmatics, academic discourse, and advanced grammar. Her research field lies within conceptual metaphor, verbal irony, and emotion conceptualization. Additionally, she has experience in empirical studies designing and implementing innovative pedagogical materials.

Citas

Achard, M., & Niemeier. S. (Eds.). (2008). Cognitive linguistics, second language acquisition, and foreign language teaching. Walter de Gruyter.

Acquaroni, R. & Suárez-Campos, L. (2019). El desarrollo de la competencia metafórica en la enseñanza del español LE/L2. In I. Ibarretxe Antuñano, T. Cadierno & A. Castañeda Castro (Eds.), Lingüística cognitiva y español LE/L2 (pp. 371-391). London: Routledge.

Bachman, L. (1990). Fundamental Considerations in Language Testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Billow, R.M. (1975). A cognitive developmental study of metaphor comprehension. Developmental psychology, 11, 415-422.

Boers, F. (2000). Enhancing metaphoric awareness in specialised reading. English for specific purposes, 19(2), 137-147.

Boers, F., & Lindstromberg, S. (Eds.). (2008). Cognitive linguistic approaches to teaching vocabulary and phraseology. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Buck, D. (1949). A dictionary of selected synonyms in the principal Indo-European languages. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

Cadierno, T., & Eskildsen. S. (Eds.). (2015). Usage-based perspectives on second language learning. Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter Mouton.

Charteris‐Black, J. (2002). Second language figurative proficiency: A comparative study of Malay and English. Applied linguistics, 23(1), 104-133.

Cook, V. (1985). Language functions, social factors, and second language learning and teaching. IRAL, 23(1-4),177-198.

Cook, V. (2016). Second language learning and language teaching. Routledge.

Deignan, A. (1999). Metaphorical polysemy and paradigmatic relations: A corpus study. Word, 50(3), 319–338.

Deignan, A. (2020). Figurative language learning and lexicography. In P. Hanks & G.M de Schryver (Eds.), International Handbook of Modern Lexis and Lexicography, (pp. 1–15). Berlin: Springer.

De Knop, S., & De Rycker. T. (Eds.). (2008). Cognitive approaches to pedagogical grammar: A volume in honour of René Dirven. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

De Knop, S., Boers, F., & De Rycker. A. (Eds.). (2010). Fostering language teaching efficiency through cognitive linguistics. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

Geeraerts, D., & Cuyckens, H. (Eds.). (2007). The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics. Oxford University Press.

Evans, V., & Green, M. (2006). Cognitive Linguistics: An introduction. Edinburgh University Press.

Evans, N., & Wilkins, D. (2000). In the mind's ear: The semantic extensions of perception verbs in Australian languages. Language: 546-592.

Grady, J. (1997). Foundations of meaning: Primary metaphors and primary scenes. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of California, Berkeley.

Ibarretxe-Antuñano, I., Cadierno, T., & Castañeda, A. (Eds.). (2019). Lingüística cognitiva y español LE/L2. New York, NY: Routledge.

Ibarretxe-Antuñano, I. (1999). Polysemy and metaphor in perception verbs: A cross- linguistic study (Doctoral Dissertation). University of Edinburgh.

Ibarretxe-Antuñano, I. (2000). ¿Es la metáfora el único proceso que interviene en el cambio semántico? Revista española de lingüística aplicada, 1, 409-418.

Ibarretxe-Antuñano, I. (2002). Mind-as-body as a cross-linguistic conceptual metaphor. Miscelánea. A Journal of English and American Studies, 25(1), 93-119.

Ibarretxe-Antuñano, I. (2005). Limitations for cross-linguistic metonymies and metaphors. Cognitive and discourse approaches to metaphor and metonymy, 19, 187.

Ibarretxe-Antuñano, I. (2006). Cross-linguistic polysemy in tactile verbs. In J. Luchjenbroers (Ed.), Cognitive Linguistics Investigations: Across languages, fields and philosophical boundaries (pp. 235-253). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Ibarretxe-Antuñano, I. (2008). Vision metaphors for the intellect: Are they really cross-linguistic? Atlantis, 30(1), 15-33.

Ibarretxe-Antuñano, I. (2013). The relationship between conceptual metaphor and culture. Intercultural pragmatics, 10(2), 315-339.

Kogan, N. (1983). Stylistic variation in childhood and adolescence: creativity, metaphor, and cognitive styles. In J. Flavell & E. Markman (Eds.), Cognitive development (pp. 630-706). New York: Wiley

Kövecses, Z. (2000). The scope of metaphor. In A. Barcelona (Ed.). Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads: A cognitive perspective (pp. 79-92). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Kövecses, Z. (2010). Metaphor: A practical introduction. Oxford University Press.

Kövecses, Z. (2020). Extended Conceptual Metaphor Theory. Cambridge: CUP

Kurath, H. (1921). The semantic sources of the words for the emotions in Sanskrit, Greek, Latin and the Germanic languages. Menasha: George Banta Publishing.

Lakoff, G., & Johnson. M. (1980). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Lakoff, G., & Johnson. M. (1999). Philosophy in the Flesh. New York: Basic books.

Lantolf, J. P., & Bobrova, L. (2014). Metaphor instruction in the L2 Spanish classroom: Theoretical argument and pedagogical program. Journal of Spanish Language Teaching, 1(1), 46-61.

Littlemore, J. (2001). Metaphoric competence: a language learning strength of students with a holistic cognitive style? TESOL Quarterly, 35(3), 459-491.

Littlemore, J. (2010). Metaphoric competence in the first and second language. In M. Pütz & L. Sicola (Eds.), CELCR (pp. 293-331).

Littlemore, J., & Low, G. (2006a). Figurative thinking and foreign language learning. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Littlemore, J., & Juchem-Grundmann, C. (Eds.). (2010). Applied cognitive linguistics in second language learning and teaching. AILA Review, 23(1).

Llopis-García, R. (2010). Why cognitive grammar works in the L2 classroom: A case study of mood selection in Spanish. AILA Review, 23(1), 72-94.

Llopis-García, R. 2021. Applied Cognitive Linguistics for Meaningful–and Successful!–L2 Language Teaching. YRCL. Online Conference.

MacArthur, F. (2010). Metaphorical competence in EFL: Where are we and where should we be going? A view from the language classroom, Applied Cognitive Linguistics in Second Language Learning and Teaching. AILA Review, 23:155-173.

MacArthur, F., & Littlemore, J. (2011). On the repetition of words with the potential for metaphoric extension in conversations between native and non-native speakers of English. Metaphor and the Social World, 1(2), 201-239.

MacArthur, F., Krennmayr, T., & Littlemore, J. (2015). How basic is UNDERSTANDING IS SEEING when reasoning about knowledge? Asymmetric uses of sight metaphors in office hours consultations in English as academic lingua franca. Metaphor and Symbol, 30(3), 184-217.

Martín-Gascón, B. (2020). Potenciando la competencia metafórica en tiempos de COVID: "Flippear" la clase de ELE con Microsoft Teams. 5th Virtual International Conference on Education, Innovation and ICT (pp. 620-623). Adaya Press: REDINE.

Martín-Gascón, B. (2021). Engaging ELE learners: emotion metaphors on GIFS”. In J.A. Aznar Díaz, M.P. López Núñez, M.P. Cáceres Reche & F.J. Hinojo Lucena (Eds.), Desempeño docente y formación en competencia digital en la era SARS COV 2 (pp. 543-554). Madrid: Dykinson.

Martín-Gascón, B. (2022). ¡Ahora sí que me has tocado las narices! and other tactile perception metaphors: a cognitive and contrastive analysis”. Sintagma. Revista de Lingüísitca, 34, 45-63.

Mitchell, R., Myles, F., &. Marsden, E. (2019). Second language learning theories. Routledge.

Niemeier, S. (2017). Teaching (in) metaphors. In F. Ervas, E. Gola & M.G. Rossi (Eds.), Metaphor in communication, science and education (pp. 267-282). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.

O’Reilly, D., & Marsden, E. (2021). Eliciting and measuring L2 metaphoric competence: Three decades on from Low (1988). Applied Linguistics, 42(1), 24-59.

Raffaelli, I., & B. Kerovec. (2018). The concept of ‘touch’in the formation of the Croatian and Turkish lexicon: The example of tactile verbs. LingBaW, 4, 129-140.

Rojo, A., & Valenzuela, J. (2005). Verbs of sensory perception: An English-Spanish comparison. Languages in Contrast 5(2), 219-243.

Soriano, C. (2016). El lenguaje de las emociones. In M.C. Horno Chéliz, I. Ibarretxe Antuñano y J.L Mendívil Giró (Eds.), Panorama actual de la ciencia del lenguaje (pp. 243-259). Zaragoza: Prensas de la Universidad de Zaragoza.

Suárez-Campos, L., & Hijazo-Gascón, A. (2019). La metáfora conceptual y su aplicación a la enseñanza del español LE/L2. In Iraide Ibarretxe, Teresa Cadierno & Alejandro Castañeda (Eds.), Lingüística cognitiva y español LE/L2 (pp. 235-252). Routledge.

Sweetser, E. (1990). From etymology to pragmatics: Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Teymouri A.M., & Dowlatabadi, H. (2014). Metaphoric competence and language proficiency in the same boat. Procedia–Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 1895-1904.

Tyler, A. (2012). Cognitive linguistics and second language learning: Theoretical basics and experimental evidence. New York: Routledge.

Tyler, A., Mueller, C., & Ho, V. (2011). Applying Cognitive Linguistics to Learning the Semantics of English to, for and at: An Experimental Investigation. Vigo International Journal of Applied Linguistics, (8), 180-205.

VanPatten, B., Keating, G.D., & Wulff, S. (Eds.). (2020). Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction. New York: Routledge.

Viberg, Å. (2015). Sensation, perception and cognition: Swedish in a typological-contrastive perspective. Functions of language, 22(1), 96-131.

FUNDING INFORMATION

Financial support for this paper has been provided by the Spanish Ministry of Education (FPU Program, FPU17/04542), as well as by the Fulbright Commission through the predoctoral program for a seven-month stay at Columbia University (New York).