Palavras-chave
Como Citar
Resumo
Traditional approaches to metaphor have focused primarily on its ubiquity in language and thought. Recently, a growing interest in the pervasiveness of metaphor in modes other than purely linguistic ones has been explored. In this paper particular attention is paid to non-verbal forms of metaphorical depiction. We have examined a small corpus of EFL students’ drawings and narratives in order to both tap into their mental representations of what ‘language learning’ means to them and get closer insights into these learners’ belief system. We approach the analysis multimodally, by scrutinizing the various meaning-making potentials of images and text as they conceptualize the learners’ perspectives of English language learning. To frame the study of these metaphorical representations, we take Block’s (2003) ‘acquisition’ and ‘participation’ metaphors and Oxford et al.’s (1998) perspectives on education. Results indicate that most of the visual and narrative metaphorical depictions portray language learning as a dynamic, individual acquisition process and can, therefore, be comprehended primarily through the Learner-Centered Growth perspective.Referências
ADAMI, E.; KRESS, G. (2014). Introduction: multimodality, meaning making, and the issue of “text”. Text and Talk. v. 34, nº 3, pp. 231-237.
BARKHUIZEN, G. (1998). Discovering learners’ perceptions of ESL classroom teaching/ learning activities in a South African context TESOL Quarterly. v. 32, nº 1, pp. 85- 108.
BOURNE, J.; JEWITT, C. (2003). Orchestrating debate: a multimodal approach to the study of teaching of higher literacy skills. Reading: Literacy and Language, UKRA(July), pp. 64-72.
BREEN, M. (2001). Learner contributions to language learning: New directions in research. Harlow, UK: Pearson Education Limited.
BROWN, A. (2009). Students’ and teachers’ perceptions of effective foreign language teaching: a comparison of ideals. The Modern Language Journal. v. 93, nº i, pp. 46-60.
CARROLL, N. (1996). A note on film metaphor. Journal of Pragmatics. v. 26, nº 6, pp. 809- 822.
CIENKI, A.; MÜELLER, C. (Eds.). (2008). Metaphor and gesture. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
EVANS, V., & GREEN, M. (2006). Cognitive linguistics: An introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
IEDEMA, R. (2003). Multimodality, resemiotization: extending the analysis of discourse as multi-semiotic practice. Visual Communication, v. 2, nº 1, pp. 29-57.
FARRELL, T. (2006). The teacher is an octopus: uncovering preservice English language teachers’ prior beliefs through metaphor analysis. Regional Language Centre Journal. v. 37, nº 2, pp. 236-248.
FORCEVILLE, C. J.; URIOS-APARISI, E. (Eds.). (2009). Multimodal metaphor. Berlin Mouton De Gruyter.
GIBBS, R. (2011). Evaluating conceptual metaphor theory Discourse Processes. v. 48, pp. 529- 562.
GRAVES, K. (2008). The language curriculum: A social contextual perspective. Language Teaching. v. 41, nº 2, pp. 147-181.
HAGER, P. (2008). Learning and metaphors. Medical Teacher. v. 30, pp. 679-686.
HORWITZ, E. (1981). Beliefs about language learning inventory. Unpublished manuscrit. The University of Texas at Austin.
HORWITZ, E. (1987). Surveying student beliefs about language learning. In: A. Wenden & J. Rubin (Eds.), Learner strategies in language learning. London: Prentice Hall.
KOLLER, V. (2003). Metaphor Clusters in Business Media Discourse: A Social Cognition Approach Department of English Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
KÖVECSES, Z. (2010). Metaphor: A practical introduction (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
KRESS, G. (2003). Literacy in the new media age. London: Routledge.
KRESS, G. (2010). Multimodality: A social semiotic approach to contemporary communication. New York: Routledge.
KRESS, G.; VAN LEEUWEN, T. (2001). Multimodal discourse: The modes and media of contemporary communication. London: Edward Arnold.
KRESS, G.; VAN LEEUWEN, T. (2006). Reading images: the grammar of visual design. London: Routledge.
KUO, I.-C. (2011). Student perceptions of student interaction in a British EFL setting ELT journal. v. 65, nº 3, pp. 281-290.
LAKOFF, G.; JOHNSON, M. (1980a). Conceptual metaphor in everyday language. The Journal of Philosophy. v. 77, nº 8, pp. 453-486.
LAKOFF, G.; JOHNSON, M. (1980b). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago University of Chicago Press.
LAKOFF, G.; JOHNSON, M. (1999). Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and the Challenge to Western Thought New York Basic Books
LARSEN-FREEMAN, D. (1997). Chaos/complexity science and second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics. v. 18, nº 2, pp. 141-165.
LEKI, I.; CARSON, J. (1994). Students’ perceptions of EAP writing instruction and writing needs across the discisplines. TESOL Quarterly. v. 28, nº1, pp. 81-101.
LOW, G. (2003). Validating metaphoric models in Applied Linguistics. Metaphor and Symbol. v. 18, n°4, pp. 239-254.
MARTINEC, R.; SALWAY, A. (2005). A system for image-text relations in new (and old) media. Visual Communication. v. 4, pp. 337-371.
MINOR, L.; ONWUEGBUZIE, A.; WITCHER, A.; JAMES, T. (2002). Preservice teachers’ educational beliefs and their perceptions of characteristics of effective teachers. The Journal of Educational Research. v. 96, nº 2, pp. 116-127.
ORTONY, A. (Ed.) (1979/1993). Metaphor and thought: Second edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
OXFORD, R.; TOMLINSON, S.; BARCELOS, A.; HARRINGTON, C.; LAVINE, R.; SALEH, A.; LONGHINI, A. (1998). Clashing metaphors about classroom teachers: toward a systematic typology for the language teaching field. System. v. 26, pp. 3-50.
PARPALA, A.; LINDBLOM-YLÄNNE, S.; RYTKÖNEN, H. (2011). Students’ conceptions of good teaching in three different disciplines Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education. v. 36, nº 5, pp. 549-563.
PINAR, M. (2013). Multimodality and cognitive linguistics. Review of Cognitive Linguistics. v. 11, nº 2, pp. 227-235.
SEDIVY, S. (1997). Metaphoric picture, pulsars, platypuses. Metaphor and Symbol. v. 12, nº 2, pp. 95-112.
SLIMANI, A. (1989). The role of topicalisation in classroom language learning. System. v. 17, pp. 223-234.
STEEN, J. G. (2011). The contemporary theory of metaphor - now new and improved. Review of Cognitive Linguistics. v. 9, nº 1, pp. 26-64.
SWALES, S. (1994). From metaphor to metalanguage. English Teaching Forum. v. 32, nº 3, para. 8.
UNSWORTH, L. (2006). Towards a metalanguage for multiliteracies education: Describing the meaning-making resources of language-image interaction. English Teaching: Practice and Critique. v. 5, nº 1, pp. 55-76.
WILLIAMS, M.; BURDEN, R. (1997). Psychology for language teachers. A social constructivist approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
ZIMMERMAN, C. (1997). Do reading and interactive vocabulary instruction make a difference? TESOL Quarterly. v. 31, pp. 121-140.
O periódico Trabalhos em Linguística Aplicada utiliza a licença do Creative Commons (CC), preservando assim, a integridade dos artigos em ambiente de acesso aberto, em que:
- A publicação se reserva o direito de efetuar, nos originais, alterações de ordem normativa, ortográfica e gramatical, com vistas a manter o padrão culto da língua, respeitando, porém, o estilo dos autores;
- Os originais não serão devolvidos aos autores;
- Os autores mantêm os direitos totais sobre seus trabalhos publicados na Trabalhos de Linguística Aplicada, ficando sua reimpressão total ou parcial, depósito ou republicação sujeita à indicação de primeira publicação na revista, por meio da licença CC-BY;
- Deve ser consignada a fonte de publicação original;
- As opiniões emitidas pelos autores dos artigos são de sua exclusiva responsabilidade.
Downloads
