· web view(warm welcome). however, lakoff (2013) states that affection is warmth is not found in...
TRANSCRIPT
“Is there a she?” and “Do you play sex?” The importance of Conceptual Fluency for Japanese Learners of English
Daniel CourtneyDepartment of International Studies
Meiji Gakuin UniversityJapan
AbstractLexical mistakes can arise when there are differences in the conceptual systems of a learner’s L1 and their L2. Two examples of such mistakes made by Japanese learners of English are the use of BE verbs instead of have, and using play instead of do. This paper discusses these mistakes in light of the theory of Conceptual Fluency. Although the research on Conceptual Fluency in the Japanese ELF context is limited, some evidence has been found which supports the use of Conceptual Fluency based methodology in the Japanese EFL classroom. Evidence from outside the Japanese context also suggests that students do not acquire Conceptual Fluency without explicit instruction. This paper argues that such instruction could help students avoid the two mistakes discussed.
Keywords: Conceptual Metaphor Theory, Conceptual Fluency, Metaphorical Competence, Japanese, EFL
1.0 Introduction
This paper explores two mistakes made by Japanese learners of English, “Is
there a she?” and “Do you play sex?” using Danesi’s (1993) theory of
Conceptual Fluency. Danesi (1993) builds the notions of Conceptual Fluency
and Metaphorical Competence on Lakoff and Johnson’s (1980) Conceptual
Metaphor Theory (hereafter CMT), which asserts that metaphors are more
cognitive than linguistic. As linguistic metaphors accrue via cognitive links
between the source and target of a metaphor, Danesi (1993) suggests L2
138
learners may struggle to interpret and use metaphors in their L2. In this way,
common mistakes can be viewed as arising from how Japanese and English
speakers conceptualise metaphorical relationships differently. Two examples
of such mistakes are covered in this paper: using BE verbs instead of have, and
using play instead of do. The first mistake results from Japanese
conceptualizing relationships as existing whereas English conceptualizes them
as possessions (Radden & Seto, 2003). The second comes from the English
conceptualization of certain sports as games, which is absent in Japanese.
Although research into the Conceptual Fluency of Japanese learners of English
is limited, there is some evidence that explicitly teaching conceptual
metaphors in the target language can improve student L2 metaphorical
choices. This paper explains how current evidence suggests that explicit
conceptual awareness teaching can help students avoid conceptual mistakes.
The potential for more research on English language Conceptual Fluency in
Japan is also outlined.
2. 0 Literature review
The literature review first considers and presents an overview of Lakoff and
Johnson’s (1980) CMT, before discussing Danesi’s (1993) Conceptual
Fluency and the related concept of Metaphorical Competence. Finally it
reviews the literature on implementing Conceptual Fluency and Metaphorical
Competence, both in the context of teaching English as a foreign language
(hereafter EFL) in Japan and in other countries.
2.1 Conceptual Metaphor Theory
The central claim of CMT is that metaphor is not simply a linguistic
phenomenon, but that “human thought processes are largely metaphorical”
(Lakoff & Johnson, 1980, p. 6) [their emphasis]. In this theory a metaphor is
not a linguistic expression, but the cognitive link between different conceptual
139
domains, which allows metaphorical language to be constructed and correctly
interpreted.
This theory is best understood through example, so let us look at two:
MORE IS UP and AFFECTION IS WARMTH. These examples are given in
the standard form TARGET DOMAIN IS SOURCE DOMAIN. According to
Lakoff and Johnson (1980) we use information we know about the source
domain to think about the target domain, which then allows us to use language
about the source domain to talk about the target domain.
In MORE IS UP we are conceptualising an increase in a non-vertical
amount as vertical (upwards) motion. This allows us to talk about
temperatures rising and prices being high. This example highlights two points
in CMT. The first is that often language which is thought of as literal has a
metaphorical basis. A price has no physical position to speak of, and so
speaking of it in vertical terms is a figurative extension of the original
meaning of up. The second is that conceptual links can be seen as arising from
our experience of the world. When objects are placed in a pile, or a substance
poured into a container, the level rises (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980).
We can likewise see this experiential basis in AFFECTION IS
WARMTH. Lakoff and Johnson (1999) argue that this metaphor arises from
the experience of being held by a parent as a baby and feeling their body heat.
This cognitive link then gives rise to expressions such as “They greeted me
warmly” (Lakoff & Johnson, 1999, p. 50).
As metaphors arise from experience, CMT predicts that in cultures
where people share similar experiences, at least some of the same
metaphorical relationships should exist (Kövecses, 2005). This is an important
point for thinking about how CMT can influence teaching L2, and is discussed
further in 2.2 and 2.3. Both the metaphors MORE IS UP and AFFECTION IS
WARMTH exist in Japanese just as in English, giving rise to almost the exact
expressions we find in English: bukka ga takai (prices are high) and atatakai
kangei (warm welcome). However, Lakoff (2013) states that AFFECTION IS
140
WARMTH is not found in the Tamil language in southern India. Here,
presumably due to the hot and humid climate, a link between annoyance and
warmth can be found.
While there are cases like these where a metaphor translates perfectly
or not at all, these are the extremes of a spectrum. Between these two extremes
are various levels of transferability. For example, both English and Japanese
use the underlying metaphor THE ANGRY PERSON IS A PRESSURISED
CONTAINER. However, whereas in English this gives rise to expressions
related to hot liquid (“boil with anger”, “simmer down”) (Kövecses, 2005), in
Japanese the phrases hara ga tatsu (stomach rises) and atama ni kuru (come to
one’s head) derive from the same metaphor (Matsuki, 1995). While these
phrases are likely initially opaque to an English speaker, the similarity in
conceptual basis might make them more transferrable than a phrase based on a
completely different metaphor. These levels of transferability are discussed in
2.3.1.
Masuda and Arnett (2015) argue that it is beneficial to the study of
teaching EFL to pair Cognitive Linguistics, of which CMT forms one part,
with Sociocultural Theory. Sociocultural Theory works on the principal that
cognitive abilities do not develop in isolation, but rather “as a result of
internalizing socially based learning through culturally constructed artifacts”
(Masuda & Arnett, 2015, p. 10). While Masuda and Arnett suggest Cognitive
Grammar and Construction Grammar are “of particular interest” (p. 1-2), the
importance of culture to CMT suggests that Sociocultural Theory should be of
interest to researchers in this field too. However, a full description of the
relationships between Sociocultural Theory, CMT and EFL teaching would
require an entire essay in itself, and as such is beyond the scope of this
particular paper.
It must be noted that authors such as Murphy (1996, 1997), Glucksberg
et al. (1993) and McGlone (2007) have criticised some of Lakoff and
Johnson’s conclusions. However, I have yet to find any dispute over their
141
central point, that metaphorical expressions in language have a cognitive basis.
For example, Glucksberg et al. (1993) argue that L1 speakers do not activate
the cognitive links Lakoff and Johnson propose when interpreting
conventional expressions involving figurative language. These arguments are
moot as far as this paper is concerned, as it is more concerned with metaphors
in a speaker’s L2 than L1. It does not matter whether or not L1 speakers rely
on cognitive links to interpret metaphors, only that awareness of such links
can aid learners’ L2 development. This is the topic of the next two sections.
2.2 Conceptual Fluency and Metaphorical Competence
Danesi (1992) relates CMT to second language acquisition by introducing the
related notions of Conceptual Fluency and Metaphorical Competence. Danesi
(1992, p. 490) argues that despite producing language that is both
grammatically accurate and communicatively successful “there continues to be
something still not quite 'kosher,' so to say, in the actual speech samples
produced typically by our SL learners.” In other words, learners possess
Verbal Fluency but not Conceptual Fluency: “students 'speak' with the formal
structures of the target language, but they 'think' in terms of their native
conceptual system” (Danesi, 1992, p. 490).
Danesi (1992, p. 490) defines Conceptual Fluency as “something that
cannot be explained in strictly grammatical and/or communicative terms”,
where the grammatical and communicative knowledge constitute Verbal
Fluency. This definition suggests that Conceptual Fluency only covers
situations where an L2 speaker will be understood by an L1 speaker, but not
sound natural. However, this is at odds with his later work. Danesi (2016, p.
145) states a common Conceptual Fluency mistake among beginner Italian
learners is to say Io sono caldo to express the idea “I am hot”. However,
Italians would interpret this to mean “I am (sexually) aroused” or “I have a
fever” (Dansei, 2016, p. 145). This example, along with the first example
discussed in this paper (“Is there a she?”), show that mistakes of Conceptual
142
Fluency can and do cause problems for understanding and therefore
communication.
Dansei (2016, p. 145) differentiates Conceptual Fluency and
Metaphorical Competence as following:
Conceptual Fluency: the ability to use the conceptual-semantic system
that produced figurative discourse systematically.
Metaphorical Competence: the control of figurative language.
These definitions suggest the difference between the two is that Metaphorical
Competence is focused on the language whereas Conceptual Fluency refers to
the underlying conceptual system. However, it would seem unlikely that one
can be achieved without the other. As the terms are so inextricably linked, and
to avoid any confusion over exactly what constitutes a “metaphor” versus a
“figurative expression”, the term Conceptual Fluency (hereafter CF) is used
predominantly in this paper.
The final question to be answered is whether or not teaching CF is
necessary. Danesi (1992, p. 491) argues that learners’ discourse exhibits a
literalness which shows “students have had little or no opportunity to access
the metaphorically structured conceptual domains inherent in SL discourse.”
This shows that despite obtaining grammatical and communicative
competence, learners are “almost completely lacking” in metaphorical
competence (Danesi, 1992, p. 491).
Likewise, Russo (1997, p. 112) found that in his English speaking
learners of Italian, CF “develops to only a fraction of native-like competency
after one year of study and then levels out.” Russo (1997) suggests that this
could be an avoidance strategy employed by students after failed attempts to
directly translate L1 figurative expressions into L2. Russo (1997) claims his
data are consistent with such a fossilization.
While it cannot be taken as a given that this Russo’s findings will
generalise to Japanese learners of English, there are two reasons why it is
143
likely that this will be the case. The first is that both being Indo-European
languages, it is more likely that English and Italian will share metaphors
through cross linguistic transfer than English and Japanese, which are less
related linguistically, culturally and geographically (Neumann, 2001). The
second is that learning English is a powerful source of anxiety for many
Japanese students (Brown, 2004). It has certainly been my experience while
teaching English in Japan that students frequently employ avoidance strategies
rather than risk making mistakes in English.
As with CMT, it has been argued that Sociocultural Theory, in
particular Concept-Based Instruction, can contribute to CF pedagogy (Lantolf,
2013). The central tenet of Concept-Based Instruction is that in order to lead to
successful development, instruction must be based on scientific knowledge.
Scientific knowledge refers to the understanding which is gained through
academic research, as opposed to “commonsense everyday knowledge” and
“rules-of-thumb” (Lantolf, 2013, p. 65). Concept-Based Instruction also
proposes that for accurate conceptual knowledge to be successfully acquired
by language learners, it may be necessary to rely on visual, rather than verbal
representations. Both of these ideas will be relevant later in this paper.
2.3 Teaching Conceptual Fluency in Japan
This section reviews four studies involving CF in the Japanese EFL context,
Azuma (2009), Azuma and Littlemore (2010), Cho and Kawase (2012) and
Yasuda (2010). Each provides a different insight into the teaching of CF.
2.3.1 Levels of Transferability (Azuma, 2009)
Azuma (2009) builds on the work of Kövecses (2005), in addition to studies
by Deignan, Gabrys and Solska (1997) and Charteris-Black (2002) which look
at organising metaphors by their level of transferability between L1 and L2.
Azuma (2009) tested Japanese learners of English on their ability to interpret
expressions classified into the four following groups.
144
1. Similarity sharing group, where similar concepts/wordings are used in
English and Japanese, e.g. time is money is used similarly in both
languages.
2. Partial similarity sharing group, where there are similar concepts or
wordings in English and Japanese, e.g. off one’s head means to be crazy
or drunk in English, but shares some similarity in wording with the
Japanese kubikiri, meaning to be decapitated or by figurative extension,
to be fired.
3. Difference group, where neither the concepts nor wordings transfer,
e.g. kick the bucket, which has no similar expression in Japanese.
4. Problematic group, where the wordings are the same, but the meanings
are different between the two languages, e.g. pull one’s leg, meaning to
lie for the purposes of a joke in English, is a near direct translation of
the Japanese ashi wo hipparu, which means to hold someone back from
success.
Table 1 shows the four groups with the percentage of correct answers given by
the Japanese students. As can be seen over half of the similarity group
expressions were interpreted correctly by the students. These results suggest
that simple exposure to context (the test items were presented in isolation)
might be enough for students to understand these expressions. Conversely, less
than 5% of the problematic group were understood. Taken together these
results suggest that teachers planning to teach CF should consider which
expressions transfer before choosing items to be taught.
Table 1.
Japanese students’ scores on interpreting figurative expressions.
145
Adapted from Azuma (2009)
2.3.2 Explicit Teaching (Azuma & Littlemore, 2010)
Azuma and Littlemore (2010) studied the differing effects of two different
teaching methodologies on students’ ability to understand, produce and be
creative with figurative language. The two groups were an attribute-matching
group, explicitly taught about metaphorical transfer, and a gestalt-training
group, taught in a more implicit manner. The attribute-matching group were
given the expression “my teacher is a witch” and asked to consider which
attributes of “witch” could transfer to a teacher. The gestalt-training group
were asked to match a series of shapes with emotions, and then to draw their
own shapes for other emotions.
After these both groups were given the same exercises, to match three
famous people with shapes, and then to assign a colour, animal and food to
each famous person. However, in each exercise the attribute-matching group
were asked to give reasons for their choices, forcing them think explicitly
about the cognitive links. Conversely the gestalt-training group were
instructed to rely on their intuition.
The improvement of the students was measured with pre- and post-
tests. Azuma and Littlemore (2010) found significant improvements in both
146
Metaphor Group English Japanese Calque Student
Scores
l: similarity-sharing
group
time is money toki ha okane ni
naru
56.1%
2: partial similarity-
sharing group
off one’s head kubikiri 29.8%
3: difference group kick the bucket [none] 30.1%
4: problematic group pull someone’s
leg
ashi wo hipparu 4.9%
understanding and production of figurative expressions in the attribute-
matching groups, but not in the gestalt training group. Neither group showed
significant improvement in using figurative expressions creatively. These
results suggest explicit teaching of figurative language leads to better student
outcomes.
2.3.3 Encouraging Deep Thinking (Cho & Kawase, 2012)
Cho and Kawase (2012) compared the efficacy of two different teaching
methodologies on students’ use of the pronouns in, at, and on. One group was
taught using a traditional approach, in which the teacher explained the various
uses of these prepositions using example sentences, then completed exercises
using dictionaries. The second group was taught in a conceptually based way,
using the pictures of the central image schemas for each preposition. Central
image schemas are the most basic, non-figurative meanings of words, the
physical basis upon which figurative uses are built. For example, the central
image schema of “in” is where the word refers to being inside a physical
container, such as “Put the toys in the box!” (Cho & Kawase, 2012, p. 166).
After this the students were asked to draw pictures for figurative uses, such as
“In my opinion…” and “Mother was mad at me…” (Cho & Kawase, 2012, p.
166). This use of visual representations to teach prepositions is entirely in line
with Lantolf’s (2013) description of Concept-Based Instruction.
Cho and Kawase (2012) found a significant improvement in the
performance of the schema-based group from pre-test to post-test, and a small
decrease in the results of the traditionally taught group. These results could be
taken to suggest that using the central image schemas had a positive effect on
students’ performance. However, other studies have struggled to find a
significant difference between schema-based instruction and traditional
teaching methods (Mitsugi, 2013; Sato, 2015), suggesting the deep thinking
encouraged by drawing pictures may be the decisive factor in Cho and
Kawase’s (2012) positive results.
147
2.3.4 Organising Expressions by Metaphor (Yasuda, 2010)
Yasuda (2010) explored the difference of a traditional approach and a
conceptual approach on students’ understanding of phrasal verbs. Both groups
were given 21 phrasal verbs to learn. In the traditional approach group, the
verbs were presented in alphabetic order with Japanese translations. The
conceptual approach group were given the verbs arranged by the preposition
in the phrasal verb and the metaphor it employs. Figure 1 shows the example
of phrasal verbs including the preposition “up”. As discussed in 2.1, the
metaphor MORE IS UP exists in both English and Japanese. However, the
same word can have more than one metaphor attached to it (Lakoff &
Johnson, 1980). Yasuda (2010) includes verbs employing the metaphors
MORE VISIBLE/ACCESSIBLE IS UP and COMPLETION IS UP.
Yasuda (2010) compared the two groups’ performance on their ability
to provide the correct adverbial particle for 30 phrasal verbs, 15 from the list
of 21 used in the training, and 15 which were new to the students. As Yasuda
(2010) hypothesised, there was no significant difference in the results on the
exposed items, but the conceptual approach group performed significantly
better on the unexposed items. This result suggests that an understanding of
the underlying metaphor can help students to interpret new vocabulary
employing the same metaphor.
Figure 1. Phrasal verbs organised by underlying metaphor (Yasuda, 2010).
148
3.0 Two mistakes of Conceptual Fluency
This section looks in detail at two mistakes that can be linked to issues of CF,
and what steps can be taken by teachers to help correct them. Both of these
mistakes were made by my students while I taught English in Japan, and were
chosen as they are representative of a particular kind of mistake I have
encountered many times in this context. The fact that these mistakes are
common suggest that they lack transferability (See Azuma, 2009). These two
specific examples were chosen because their amusing nature made them more
memorable for me than other similar mistakes. The claim I make is not that
these specific instances are definitely due to a lack of CF on behalf of these
two students, but that the common mistake they are representative of could be
avoided with a higher level of CF. Section 3.1 looks at the mistake “Is there a
she?”, while section 3.2 discusses “Do you play sex?”.
3.1 Is there a she?
This question was written by a junior high school student in an introductory
lesson, in response to a worksheet prompt which asked the students to write
one question they wanted to ask me. It is a direct translation of the Japanese
“kanojo imasu ka?”, which translates more naturally as “Do you have a
girlfriend?” There are two separate mistakes that arise from this direct
translation. The first is the use of the word “she” for “girlfriend”. In Japanese
the word kanojo can be used to mean either word, and maybe shows more that
the student’s overreliance on their electronic dictionary than of their lack of
CF. It is the second mistake which is of interest to this paper.
The second mistake, using “is there” instead of “do you have” is the
common mistake which can be linked to a lack of CF. Radden and Seto (2003)
state that English is a HAVE-language using a “possession schema”, whereas
149
Japanese is a BE-language, using a “location schema”. They find this
difference between the two languages is clear in shopping transactions, where
in English we might ask “Do you have a Big Mac”, someone Japanese would
ask “Big Mac hitotsu arimasu ka?” (Lit. “Is there a Big Mac?”) (Radden &
Seto, 2003, 226). I would argue that it is this difference of schema used by the
two languages which leads to the prevalence of this kind of mistake by
Japanese learners of English.
Although Japanese can also express possession using the verb “motsu”,
(Lit. “to hold”), the existential form “there is” (“imasu” for people and
animals, “arimasu” for plants and objects) is more common and natural:
“motsu” can be used for holding or actual possession, not idiomatically as
“have” is in English (Bleiler, 1963). Radden & Seto (2003) state that using
“motsu” in a shopping transaction would be understood as asking if the staff
personally owned the item in question, not if it was available for sale.
This partial translatability of “have” (i.e. “motsu” makes sense in some
situations but not others) makes some English expressions more difficult than
others to interpret for Japanese learners. In the expression “I have a car”, for
example, it is clear that you are not physically holding a car, and therefore
possession is easily inferred. However, in “I have a girlfriend” it is in no way
illogical to infer this means “embracing”, especially when Japanese contains
no articles so the word “a” might be ignored (Bleiler, 1963). The use of
possession to express relationships then, is where the unavoidable need for CF
comes in.
I would argue that the key to teaching students to avoid this mistake is
to help them to learn to conceptualise the relationship itself as a possession.
When I talk about having a girlfriend (or a sibling, parent, child etc.) I am not
saying that I own her. Likewise she doesn’t own me. What both of us possess
is the relationship, a figurative connection between the two of us. I stumbled
upon one potential method to teach this concept while researching this paper.
Azuma (2009) includes the phrase “unmei no akai ito” (Lit. red thread of fate)
150
in her “partial similarity” group. This phrase refers to a Chinese legend in
which a couple destined to be together are tied together by an incorporeal red
thread, originally by their ankles but in modern Japanese pop culture by their
little fingers (Wikipedia, 2017). Searching online for this legend led me the
picture shown in Figure 2.
Figure 2. An image expanding on the concept of the red thread of fate. http://uranai.style/2227
This image expands on the red thread idea, adding a black thread to central
figure’s ex, a green thread to their childhood friend and a yellow thread to
their colleague. This image could be used in conjunction with Cho and
Kawase’s (2012) method of having students draw pictures to encourage deeper
thinking about the meaning of the phrases being learnt. In this case the
students could be asked to draw their own diagram showing their relationships
with different people in their lives. Students could expand on the four colours
used here, and explaining their reasons for choosing the colours they did
would further encourage deep thinking. Again this fits with the ideas of
Concept-Based Instruction, using a visual representation of the underlying
metaphor (Lantolf, 2013).
Before moving on to the second example, I must add that I am in no
way suggesting that Japanese learners cannot learn idiomatic uses of “have”,
such as to express relationships. It is probable that most learners who make
this mistake are already aware of the correct expression in English, but that
151
their L1 thinking causes these mistakes when they are under the time
constraints of real conversation. I believe being made more aware of the
conceptual underpinnings of the English usage can help learners to more fully
internalise this usage and thus make fewer mistakes with it in conversation. In
other words, a teaching methodology which explicitly includes training in CF
can help students to acquire, rather than learn, this usage.
3.2 Do you play sex?
This is a question I was asked by a high school boy who obviously thought he
was being clever. My (also thinking I was clever) response was “It’s not a
game.” As shown below, my response was a better explanation of the
underlying conceptual mistake than I realised at the time. As with the first
example there are two mistakes in this question. The first mistake is the one
which is representative of Japanese learners. The student used the word
“play”, thinking it meant “suru” (Lit. “do”). The second mistake is that in
English we do not “do” sex but “have” it, linking back to the idiomatic uses of
“have” not present in Japanese mentioned in the previous section (Bleiler,
1963).
The play/do confusion, which I found surprisingly common among
Japanese students, would seem to stem from the collocation of “play” with
certain sports in English. In Japanese these sports collocate with the verb “do”,
“suru” (Shimada, 2016). It seems that students mistakenly generalise from
patterns such as “play soccer” and “play baseball” to turn any noun into a
verb, such as “play swimming” and “play sleeping”. In my time teaching at
Japanese junior high schools I noticed the first lesson of the first year textbook
included the phrase “I play football”, which was translated as “amefutto suru”
(Lit, “do American football”). Having already heard the overuse of “play” by
my high school students I tried to explain the difference, but was told by my
Japanese co-teacher that I would confuse the students. I would argue that
152
exactly the opposite is true, the lack of explanation is what causes the
confusion which leads to mistakes such as “Do you play sex?”
The conceptual basis for this mistake is the conceptualisation of certain
sports, mostly those using a ball, as games. The only sports which we use in
conjunction with “play” that do not use a ball share strong similarities with
ball games, such as badminton (similar to tennis) and ice hockey (similar to
field hockey). Teaching students this rule may be enough for them to learn the
difference between “play” and “do”, but in my experience they do not acquire
it. Perhaps because the verb “suru” is so fundamental in Japanese, once they
have acquired one translation it becomes difficult for them to retrain their
brains. Therefore I believe the best way to circumvent this particular mistake
is by teachers explicitly explaining the difference the first time the students
encounter the form “play SPORT” in English (see Azuma & Littlemore,
2010).
My own anecdotal experience of learning Japanese supports this
hypothesis. Japanese contains multiple words that can be translated as “wear”
in English, depending on the item being worn (Shimada, 2016). In a lesson
covering these terms, my Japanese teacher told me “In Japanese we don’t wear
glasses, we hang them on our faces.” This simple explanation was enough for
me to remember that in Japanese glasses take the verb “kakeru”, the same as
to “hang a picture”, for example.
Given the prevalence of this mistake, Azuma and Littlemore’s (2010)
evidence supporting explicit teaching, and my own experience of studying
Japanese, it seems clear that the same method my Japanese teacher used,
directly translating the phrase to make the conceptual difference explicit,
would be beneficial to Japanese learners of English.
Both the English examples (“play SPORT” and “have
RELATIONSHIP”) and the glasses example in Japanese provide support for
Concept-Based Instruction (Lantolf, 2013). Thinking in terms of one-to-one
equivalents (i.e. have = motsu, play = suru, wear = kiru) is a rule-of-thumb,
153
not scientific knowledge. In other words, while it may be true in general that
“have” means motsu, or that “wear” means kiru, these rules-of-thumb do not
apply in all circumstances. They are oversimplifications of the more complex
reality which is revealed by careful research into actual use of the two
languages. In the example of “play”, the rule-of-thumb is not even correct in a
general sense; suru is more often equivalent to “do” in English than it is to
“play”.
4.0 Future research
This section looks at the potential for future research into CF in Japanese
learners of English, first in general and then specifically related to the
examples discussed in this paper. Finally it looks into the potential benefits of
Sociocultural Theory to CF research.
4.1 General avenues for future research
As stated in Section 1.0, research on CF in Japanese learners of English is
limited. In fact, none of the studies cited in Section 2 refer specifically to CF
or Metaphorical Competence, instead referring to “learning through cognitive
metaphors” (Yasuda, 2010), “interpretation of figurative expressions”
(Azuma, 2009), “promoting figurative creativity” (Azuma & Littlemore,
2010), a “cognitive linguistics approach” (Cho & Kawase, 2012) “core
meaning based instruction” (Mitsugi, 2013) and “core schema based
instruction” (Sato, 2015). Further searches for these terms only produced a
few results: Akamatsu (2010), Cho and Kawase (2011), Fujii (2016a, 2016b),
and Mitsugi (2017). This limited number of studies suggests that in general
more research is needed on CF in the Japanese EFL context.
Amongst these studies, one commonality is a fairly small sample size,
only Cho and Kawase (2012) and Yasuda (2010) having more than 100
participants in total, while Azuma and Littlemore (2010) have only 30, divided
between the two groups. Therefore, one suggestion for future research is
154
simply to increase sample size, giving more confidence to any statistically
significant results found.
A second suggestion is hinted at in Sato (2015). Several studies
discussed (Azuma & Littlemore, 2010; Cho & Kawase, 2012) use a pre and
post-test to assess the effectiveness of different instruction methods. Sato
(2015) uses one pre-test and two post-tests, the first one week after the training
session, announced at the end of the training, the second another week later,
without prior announcement. Sato (2015) found that the experimental group,
using “schema based instruction” performed better on the second post-test
than the control group. However, this difference was not found to be
significant, possibly due to the small sample size used in the study (18
students in each group). Despite these inconclusive results, this provides an
interesting hypothesis that can be tested: students taught using CF have better
retention over longer time periods than students taught using traditional
methods. This could be tested with larger a larger sample size and with a
longer gap between the teaching and the post test, maybe a month, three or
even six.
4.2 Future research on “Is there a she?” and “Do you play sex?”
Of the two mistakes discussed in this paper, I believe that the first provides a
much better opportunity for future research. As discussed in Section 3.2, my
suggested corrective intervention for the second is simply to use direct
translation to make the conceptual difference between the two languages clear
from the outset. However, as play and do are such basic words, it is difficult to
be sure even with absolute beginner students that they are not already aware of
these words in English.
The mistake of BE for have is more teachable, as the method discussed
in Section 3.1 does not rely solely on the students being exposed to the
vocabulary for the first time. To recap, the CF based method I suggested for
correcting this mistake would involve explaining to students that have is used
155
to describe the possession of a relationship, then showing the picture in Figure
2, and asking the students to produce their own pictures representing their
relationships with various people in their lives. Asking students to describe
why they had chosen certain colours for certain people would encourage deep
thinking about the conceptual basis of this usage, which Cho and Kawase’s
(2012) results suggest help students retain figurative expressions. These
students could then be tested alongside a control group taught have for
relationships in a more traditional manner.
4.3 Future research on Conceptual Fluency and Sociocultural Theory
Researchers such as Masuda and Arnett (2015) have pointed out the overlap
between Cognitive Linguistics and Sociocultural Theory, and suggest that
combining these two fields would benefit ELF pedagogy. Lantolf (2013) is
more specific in highlighting the link between CF and Concept-Based
Instruction.
Lantolf (2013) claims that only one study had been published on
Concept-Based Instruction and figurative language (Yanez-Prieto, 2008). If
any further research has been done in the intervening five years, I have not
been able to find it. This suggests that there is a need for research on Concept-
Based Instruction and CF. Specifically, the research discussed in this paper
suggests potential benefits to using scientific knowledge (as defined within
Concept-Based Instruction) to inform the development of visual schema-based
materials to teach figurative uses of polysemic words.
5.0 Conclusion
This paper has so far discussed the development of CF from CMT (Sections
2.1 and 2.2), and describes four studies into CF in the Japanese EFL context
(Section 2.3). It then discussed two mistakes of CF from my own experience
of teaching English in Japan (Section 3) prior to suggesting areas for potential
future research (Section 4).
156
Despite limited research in the Japanese EFL context, there is some
evidence that using CF based teaching methodology can be effective for
Japanese learners of English (Azuma & Littlemore, 2010; Cho & Kawase,
2012; Yasuda, 2010). Furthermore, research by Danesi (1993; 2016) and
Russo (1997) suggests that students in other contexts do not naturally acquire
CF. In fact, as Japanese and English are less closely related that English and
Italian it is likely that Japanese learners of English are even less likely to
acquire CF than Russo’s English learners of Italian.
CF is a potentially powerful tool for teachers of English in Japan.
However, before any more definitive claims on its effectiveness and efficacy
are made, more research is needed to confirm how it can be employed in the
classroom, and how effective such interventions are likely to be in the
educational practice of EFL.
References
Akamatsu, N. (2010). Difficulty in restructuring foreign-language vocabulary knowledge: Polysemous verbs. JACET Kansai Journal, 12, 68-79.
Azuma, M. (2004). Metaphorical competence in an EFL context: The mental lexicon and metaphorical competence of Japanese EFL students (Doctoral dissertation, University of Nottingham).
Azuma, M. (2009). Positive and negative effects of mother-tongue knowledge on the interpretation of figurative expressions. Papers in linguistic science, 15: 165-192
Azuma, M., & Littlemore, J. (2010). Promoting figurative creativity in EFL/ESL classrooms 1. Jacet Kansai, 12. 8-19.
Bleiler, E. F. (1963). Essential Japanese Grammar. Courier Corporation.Brown, R. A. (2004). The effects of social anxiety on English language learning in
Japan. Information and Communication Studies, 209.Boers, F. (2000). Metaphor awareness and vocabulary retention. Applied linguistics,
21(4), 553-571.Boers, F. (2001). Remembering figurative idioms by hypothesising about their origin.
Prospect 16(3), 35-43. Charteris‐Black, J. (2002). Second language figurative proficiency: A comparative
study of Malay and English. Applied linguistics, 23(1), 104-133.Cho, K., & Kawase, Y. (2011). Effects of a cognitive linguistic approach to teaching
countable and uncountable English nouns to Japanese learners of
157
English. ARELE: Annual Review of English Language Education in Japan, 22, 201-215.
Cho, K. & Kawase, Y. (2012). Developing a pedagogical cognitive grammar: Focusing on the English prepositions in, on, and at. ARELE, 23, 153-168.
Danesi, M. (1992). Metaphorical competence in second language acquisition and second language teaching: The neglected dimension. Language, communication and social meaning, 489-500.
Danesi, M. (2016). Conceptual fluency in second language teaching: An overview of problems, issues, research findings, and pedagogy. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 5(1), 145-153.
Deignan, A., Gabryś, D., & Solska, A. (1997). Teaching English metaphors using cross-linguistic awareness-raising activities. ELT journal, 51(4), 352-360.
Fujii, K. (2016a). Effects of Leaners’ English Proficiency Level in Learning English Prepositions through the Schema-Based Instruction. English Language Teaching, 9(10), 121.
Fujii, K. (2016b). Exploration into the Effects of the Schema-Based Instruction: A Bottom-Up Approach. Journal of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics, 20(1), 75-94.
Glucksberg, S., Brown, M., & McGlone, M. S. (1993). Conceptual metaphors are not automatically accessed during idiom comprehension. Memory & Cognition, 21(5), 711-719.
Kövecses, Z. (2005). Metaphor in culture: Universality and variation. Cambridge University Press.
Lakoff, G. (2013) George Lakoff: Cascade theory: Embodied Cognition and Language from a Neural Perspective. Central European University < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWYaoAoijdQ >
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the Flesh (Vol. 4). New york: Basic books.
Lantolf, J. P. (2013). Sociocultural theory: A dialectical approach to L2 research. In Gass, S. M., & Mackey, A. (Eds.). (2013). The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 57-72). Routledge.
Masuda, K., & Arnett, C. (2015). Cognitive linguistics, Sociocultural Theory and language teaching: Introduction. In Masuda, K., Arnett, C., & Labarca, A. (Eds.). (2015). Cognitive linguistics and sociocultural theory: Applications for second and foreign language teaching (pp. 1-22). Walter de Gruyter.
Matsuki, K. (1995). Metaphors of anger in Japanese. In Taylor, J. R., & MacLaury, R. E. (Eds.). (1995). Language and the Cognitive Construal of the World (pp. 137-152). Walter de Gruyter.
McGlone, M. S. (2007). What is the explanatory value of a conceptual metaphor?. Language & Communication, 27(2), 109-126.
Mitsugi, M. (2013). The effectiveness of core meaning based instruction on preposition choice. Research bulletin of English teaching, 10, 1-25.
158
Mitsugi, M. (2017). Schema-Based Instruction on Learning English Polysemous Words: Effects of Instruction and Learners' Perceptions. Journal of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics, 21(1), 21-43.
Murphy, G. L. (1996). On metaphoric representation. Cognition, 60(2), 173-204.Murphy, G. L. (1997). Reasons to doubt the present evidence for metaphoric
representation. Cognition, 62(1), 99-108.Neumann, C. (2001). Is metaphor universal? Cross-language evidence from German
and Japanese. Metaphor and Symbol, 16(1-2), 123-142.Radden, G., & Seto, K. I. (2003). Metonymic construals of shopping requests in
HAVE-and BE-languages. PRAGMATICS AND BEYOND NEW SERIES, 223-240.
Russo, G. A. (1998). A conceptual fluency framework for the teaching of Italian as a second language (Doctoral dissertation, National Library of Canada= Bibliothèque nationale du Canada).
Sato, M. (2015). Effectiveness of acquiring of basic verbs by using core schema-based instruction. International Journal of Languages, Literature and Linguistics, 1(1), 34-38.
Shimada, Y. (2016) Periplus Pocket Japanese Dictionary, Third Edition. Tokyo: Tuttle Publishing.
Yanez-Prieto, M. D. C. (2008). On literature and the secret art of (im) possible worlds: Teaching literature-through-language. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA.
Yasuda, S. (2010). Learning phrasal verbs through conceptual metaphors: A case of Japanese EFL learners. TESOL Quarterly, 44(2), 250-273.
運命の赤い糸. (2017, August 20). In Wikipedia. Retrieved 13:13, August 20, 2017, from https://ja.wikipedia.org/
159