Metaphor use implications for fostering EFL students’ understanding of mother tongue role in the L2 learning environment

The paper examines the possibilities of using metaphor as an ontological tool for sensitizing EFL students to the role of mother tongue use in the foreign language classroom. Data for the study were collected through a structured questionnaire providing an insight into the subjects’ mental images of the L1 and L2 in terms of basic characteristics, functions and relationships. Metaphoric reasoning turned out to enhance the students’ understanding of the role played by the mother tongue in SLA and enable them to realize that it should be by no means banned from the foreign language learning environment.

REFERENCES:

• AMERICAN Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL) (2008), “Foreign Language Annals”, 6 (3), pp. 291 – 301.
• ANTÓN, , DiCamilla, F.J. (1999), Socio-cognitive functions of L1 collaborative interaction in the L2 classroom, “The Modern Language Journal”, 83 (2), pp. 233 – 247.
• BELZ, A. (2002), The myth of the deficient communication, “Language Teaching Research”, 6 (1), pp. 59 – 82.
• BLACK, (1993), Metaphor and Thought, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
• BLYTH, (1995), Redefining the boundaries of language use: The foreign language classroom as a multilingual speech community, in: C. Kramsch (ed.), Redefining the Boundaries of Language Study, MA: Heinle, Boston.
• BROWN, D. (2007), Principles of Language Learning and Teaching, NY: Pearson Longman, Whit Plains.
• BŰTT NER, (1910), Die Muttersprache im neusprachlichen Unterricht, Elwert, Marburg.
• CAMERON, (1999), Operationalizing ‘metaphor’ for applied linguistic research, in: L. Cameron, G. Low (eds.), Researching and Applying Metaphor, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
• CORTAZZI, , Jin, L. (1999), Bridges to learning: Metaphors of teaching, learning and Language, in: L. Cameron G. Low (eds.), Researching and Applying Metaphor, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
• CUMMINS, (1979), Linguistic interdependence and the educational development of bilingual
• CHILDREN, “Review of Educational Research”, 49, pp. 222 – 251.
• CUMMINS, (2007), Rethinking monolingual instructional strategies in multilingual classrooms, “Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics”, 10, pp. 221 – 241.
• DATT A, (2007), Bilinguality and Literacy: Principles and Practice. Continuum, Bristol.
• DEIGNAN, (2005), Metaphor and Corpus Linguistics, Benjamins, Amsterdam.
• DRISCOLL, (2012), Aristotle’s a priori metaphor, “Aporia”, 22(1), pp. 20 – 30.
• ELLIS, (2002), A metaphorical analysis of learner beliefs, in: P. Burmeister, T. Piske & A.
• RHODE (eds.), An Integrated View of Language Development: Papers in Honor of Henning Wode, Wissenschaftlicher Verlag, Trier.
• ELLWOOD, (2008), Questions of classroom identity: What can be learned from codeswitching in classroom peer group talk?, “The Modern Language Journal”, 92 (4), pp. 538 – 557.
• GRUBE, M.A. (1958), Aristotle on Poetry and Style, Liberal Arts Press, New York.
• HORNER, , Trimbur, J. (2002), English only and U.S. college composition, “College COMPOSITION and Communication”, 53(4), pp. 594 – 630.
• KRA MSCH, (1998), The privilege of the intercultural speaker, in M. Byram & M. Fleming (eds.), Language Learning in Intercultural Perspective: Approaches through drama and ethnography, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
• KRA MSCH, (2009), The Multilingual Subject: What Foreign Language Learners Say about their Experience and Why it Matters, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
• LAKOFF, , & Johnson, M. (2003). Metaphors We Live By, Chicago University Press, Oxford–Chicago.
• LIEBSCHER, , Dailey-O’Cain, J. (2004), Learner code-switching in the content-based foreign language classroom, “Canadian Modern Language Review/La revue Canadienne des langues vivantes”, 60 (4), pp. 501 – 525.
• LEVINE, S. (2011), Code Choice in the Language Classroom, Multilingual Matters, Bristol.
• LONG, H., Richards, J.C. (1999), Series editors’ preface, in: L. Cameron, G. Low (EDS.), Researching and Applying Metaphor, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
• MACARO, (2001), Analyzing student teachers’ code-switching in foreign language classrooms: Theories and decision making, “The Modern Language Journal”, 85 (4), pp. 531 – 548.
• MARTINEZ, , Sauleda, N., Huber, G. (2001), Metaphors as blueprint of thinking about
• TEACHING and learning, “Teaching and Teacher Education”, 17(8), pp. 965 – 977.
• ORTEGA, (2010), The bilingual turn in SLA. Plenary address at the American Association for Applied Linguistics conference, GA, Atlanta.
• SCOTT , (1994), Metaphors and language awareness, in: L. Barbara, & M. Scott (eds.), Reflections on Language Learning, Multilingual Matters, Clevedon.
• STEEN, (2014), The cognitive-linguistic revolution in metaphor studies, in: J. Littlemore, & J.
• SWAIN, , Lapkin, S. (2000), Task-based second language learning: The uses of the first language, “Language Teaching Research”, 4 (3), pp. 251 – 274.
• TAYLOR (eds.), The Bloomsbury Companion to Cognitive Linguistics, Bloomsbury, London–New York.
• THORNBURY, (1998), Images of teaching, “English Teaching Professional” 8, pp. 36 – 37.
• VYGOTSKY, S. (1997 [1934]), Thought and Language, MA: MIT Press, Cambridge.
• WAN, , Low, G.D., Li. M. (2011), From students’ and teachers’ perspectives: Metaphor
• ANALYSIS of beliefs about EFL teachers’ roles, “System”, 39(3), pp. 1 – 13.
• WAY, (1994), Knowledge Representation and Metaphor, Intellect, Oxford.