In language teaching, emphasis is usually placed on grammatical competence rather than metaphorical competence to improve a learner’s proficiency in the target language. Research has shown that figurative language poses a problem for second language learners whether it is in their ability to interpret, process, or produce metaphors. This affects communication as metaphors are not only restricted to formal texts but are a common feature of everyday language through which individual’s conceptualize and describe the world. To gauge students’ metaphorical competence, this paper aims to analyze student writing to identify the type of problems second language writers have with collocations and to convince teachers of the importance of promoting the development of metaphoric language among language learners. The findings revealed that although students attempt to use a range of metaphors such as grammatical, textual, illocutionary, and sociolinguistic in their writing, these tend to be unidiomatic and need to be developed further for fluency in the target language.
AllbrittonDWMcKoonGGerrigRJ (1995) Metaphor-based schemas and text representations: making connections through conceptual metaphors. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition21(3): 612-25.
2.
BachmanLF (1990) Fundamental Considerations in Language Testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Brutt-GrifflerJ (2002) World English: A Study of Its Development. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
5.
CameronLLowGD (2004) Figurative variation in episodes of educational talk and text. European Journal of English Studies8(3): 355-74.
6.
CameronLStelmaJ (2005) Metaphor clusters in discourse: methodological issues. Journal of Applied Linguistics1(2): 107-36.
7.
CortsDPPollioHR (1999) Spontaneous production of figurative language and gesture in college lectures. Metaphor and Symbol14(2): 81-100.
8.
DanesiM (1992) Metaphorical competence in second language acquisition and second language teaching: the neglected dimension. In: AlatisJE (ed.) Language Communication and Social Meaning. Washington DC: Georgetown University Round Table on Language and Linguistics, 489-500.
9.
GibbsRW (2005) Embodiment and Cognitive Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
10.
HillJ (2000) Revising priorities: from grammatical failure to collocational success. In: LewisM (ed.) Teaching Collocation: Further Developments in the Lexical Approach. Hove: Language Teaching Publications, 47-69.
11.
HonnaN (2008) English as a Multicultural Language in Asian Contexts: Issues and Ideas. Tokyo: Kurosio.
12.
JohnsonJRosanoT (1993) Relation of cognitive style to metaphor interpretation and second language proficiency. Applied Psycholinguistics14: 159-75.
13.
KathpaliaSSKooSL (2008) Is collocation the way to language proficiency?TESL Reporter41(1): 1-11.
14.
KirkpatrickA (2008) English as an official working language of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN): features and strategies. English Today24(2): 27-34.
15.
KirkpatrickA (2010) English as a Lingua Franca in ASEAN: A Multilingual Model. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.
16.
KirkpatrickA (2011) English as an Asian lingua franca and the multilingual model of ELT. Language Teaching44(2): 212-24.
17.
KövecsesZ (1995) The ‘container’ metaphor of anger in English, Chinese, Japanese and Hungarian. In: ZdravkoR (ed.) From a Metaphorical Point of View: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Cognitive Content of Metaphor. Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter, 117-47.
18.
LakoffGJohnsonM (1980) Metaphors We Live By. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
19.
LangackerRW (1991) Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Volume 2: Descriptive Application. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
20.
LantolfJP (1999) Second culture acquisition: cognitive considerations. In: HinkelE (ed.) Culture in Second Language Teaching and Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 28-49.
21.
LittlemoreJ (2001) Metaphor as a source of misunderstanding for overseas students in academic lectures. Teaching in Higher Education6(3): 333-51.
22.
LittlemoreJLowG (2006a) Metaphoric competence, second language learning and communicative language learning ability. Applied Linguistics27(2):268-94.
23.
LittlemoreJLowG (2006b) Figurative Thinking and Foreign Language Learning. Houndsmills: Palgrave Macmillan.
24.
LowGD (2006) Metaphor and education. In: GibbsRW (ed.) The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
25.
PouliseN (1990) The Use of Compensatory Strategies by Dutch Learners of English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
26.
RitchieLD (2006) Context and Connection in Metaphor. Houndsmills: Palgrave Macmillan.
27.
SeidlhoferB (2001) Closing the conceptual gap: the case for a description of English as a lingua franca. International Journal of Applied Linguistics11(2): 133-57.
28.
SeidlhoferB (2008) Of norms and mindsets. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics31(3): 1-7.
29.
SinclairJ (1991) Corpus, Concordance, Collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
30.
SwainM (1995) The functions of output in second language learning. In: CookCSeidlhoferB (eds.) Principle and Practice in Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 125-44.
31.
TaroneE (1983) Some thoughts on the notion of communication strategy. In: FaerchCKasperK (eds) Strategies in Interlanguage Communication. Harlow: Longman, 61-78.
32.
TrimR (2007) Metaphor Networks: The Comparative Evolution of Figurative Language. Houndsmills: Palgrave Macmillan.
33.
UnderwoodGSchmitNGalpinA (2004) The eyes have it: an eye-movement study into the processing of formulaic sequences. In: SchmittN (ed.) Formulaic Sequences. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
