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

Authors

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

DOI:

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

Keywords:

cognitive-based instruction and assessment, metaphor comprehension and production, emotion, Cognitive Linguistics

Abstract

In this study, we examine the effects of a cognitive-based instruction and assessment on L2 learners’ metaphoric competence and comprehension and production of complex linguistic constructions in relation to emotion. Within the field of Cognitive Linguistics (CL) applied to the L2 classroom, our empirical study adds to the growing body of research exploring the role of explicitly teaching metaphor in an instructional setting. As a novelty, our study brings together insights from CL and conceptual metaphor theories for the design and implementation of a cognitive-based pedagogy along with a coherent assessment. It also addresses complex metaphorical constructions in Spanish that use vocabulary from physical perception that maps onto vocabulary of the self to express emotions (e.g., tocar fondo). The study follows a pretest/posttest/delayed posttest design for three research conditions (control, cognitive, and traditional). Data collection consists of four tasks measuring general metaphor comprehension and production, as well as target metaphorical constructions comprehension and production. Results of the statistical tests show that after instruction the cognitive group outperforms the traditional in all tasks. These findings reveal that a CL and metaphor-based instruction followed by a coherent assessment becomes a fruitful approach to teaching complex constructions in the L2.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biography

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.

References

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).