Author: Monika Wiśniewska-Kin
Year of publication: 2017
Source: Show
Pages: 87-99
DOI Address: https://doi.org/10.15804/tner.2017.48.2.07
PDF: tner/201702/tner20170207.pdf

This article demonstrates the results of the educational project “Word Art Awareness,” which was established in some primary schools in a metropolitan environment (Lodz, Poland). The aim of the study was to identify 8 – 9 and 9 – 10-year-old children’s knowledge of the following topic: target domain of the metaphorical mapping (JOY, SADNESS, LOVE, HATRED, FEAR) as well as childlike metaphorical accomplishments related to identification of similarities and diff erences between destination domain and source metaphor domain through the process of educational environment construction. In designed didactical intervention operations, research data resulted from participant observation, focus interview, and children’s production analysis (graphical visualization, paired-associate learning tasks and tests of unfinished tasks). Research findings show children’s preferences related to the translation of one metaphor discipline through another one as well as construction strategies related to children’s knowledge about the emotional aspect and feelings. Moreover, findings suggest the need for a broader understanding of educational environments in Polish educational culture.

REFERENCES:

  • Cameron L., (1996). Discourse context and the development of metaphor in children, Current Issues in Language & Society, Vol. 3 Issue 1, pp. 49-64.
  • Cameron, L. (2003). Metaphor in educational discourse. London: Continuum.
  • Gentner D., (1983). Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy, Cognitive Science, Vol. 7 Issue 2, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog0702_3, pp. 155-170.
  • Glicksohn J., Yafe T., (2009). Physiognomic Perception and metaphoric Thinking in Young Children, Metaphor & Symbol, Vol. 13 Issue 3, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327868ms1303_2, pp. 179-204.
  • Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we move by. IL: University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
  • Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh. NY: Basic Books, New York.
  • Özçalişkan Ş., (2005). On learning to draw the distinction between physical and metaphorical motion: is metaphor an early emerging cognitive and linguistic capacity?, Journal of Child Language, Vol. 32 Issue 2, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000905006884, pp. 291-318.
  • Özçalişkan Ş., (2007). Metaphors We Move By: Children’s Developing Understanding of Metaphorical Motion in Typologically Distinct Languages, Metaphor & Symbol, Vol. 22 Issue 2, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10926480701235429, pp. 147-168.
  • Pearson B,. (1990). The comprehension of metaphor by pre-school children, Journal of Child Language, Vol. 17 Issue 1, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0305000900013179, pp. 185-203.
  • Pérez-Hernández L., Duvignau K., (2016). Metaphor, Metonymy, and their Interaction in the Production of Semantic Approximations by Monolingual Children: A Corpus Analysis, First Language, Vol. 36 Issue 4, DOI: https://doi./abs/10.1177/0142723716648845, pp. 383-406.
  • Reyna V.F. & Kiernan B., (2009). Children’s Memory and Metaphorical Interpretation, Metaphor & Symbol, Vol. 10 Issue 4, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327868ms1004_5, pp. 309-331.
  • Siltanen S.A., (2009). Eff ects of Explicitness on Children’s Metaphor Comprehension, Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, Vol. 5 Issue 1, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327868ms0501_1, pp. 1-20.
  • Stites L.J., Özçalişkan Ş., (2013a). Developmental changes in children’s comprehension and explanation of spatial metaphors for time, Journal of Child Language, Vol. 40 Issue 5, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000912000384, pp. 1123-1137.
  • Stites L.J., Özçalişkan Ş., (2013b). Teasing Apart the Role of Cognitive and Verbal Factors in Children’s Early Metaphorical Abilities, Metaphor & Symbol, Vol. 28 Issue 2, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2013.768511, pp. 116-129.
  • Vosniadou S., (1987). Children and metaphors, Child Development Vol. 58, Issue 3, DOI: DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1130223, pp. 870-885.
  • Waggoner J.E., Palermo D.S. & Kirsh S.J., (2017). Bouncing Bubbles Can Pop: Contextual 99Children’s Metaphor Comprehension and Production Sensitivity in Children’s Metaphor Comprehension, Metaphor & Symbol, Vol. 12 Issue 4, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S014271641600045.
  • Winner E., (1988). The Point of Words: Children’s Understanding of Metaphor and Irony. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Press.
  • Wiśnieweska-Kin M., (2009) [Love is like a fan; cognitive nature of children’s metaphors, Lodz, University of Lodz Publisher]
  • Żuchowska, W., (1992) [Word Art Awareness. Beginnings of literacy education, Warsaw, School and Pedagogical Publisher]

Wiadomość do:

 

 

© 2017 Adam Marszałek Publishing House. All rights reserved.

Projekt i wykonanie Pollyart