Abstract
This study explores the ability of Jordanian learners of English as a foreign language (EFL) to comprehend metaphorical expressions in English and investigates whether the use of their first language (L1) conceptual and linguistic knowledge may facilitate the comprehension of these expressions. For this purpose, the study adopts a contrastive model developed by Charteris-Black, which consists of six types of metaphor to compare and contrast in both English and Arabic. On the basis of this model, the researcher designed a multiple-choice test to assess the participants’ recognition of English metaphorical expressions. The results reveal that the participants’ receptive knowledge of metaphors varied on the basis of the six types of metaphor. The study provides evidence of the possibility that EFL learners display general conceptualizing capacity regardless of their language, which hints, possibly, at the potential universality of conceptual metaphor. It also proposes some pedagogical implications that may assist EFL learners in acquiring metaphorical expressions in English.
Keywords
Introduction
Due to their pervasiveness in everyday interaction, metaphorical expressions have begun to draw considerable attention in recent years. Many scholars have investigated various types of figurative language expressions in different languages based on Conceptual Metaphor Theory (Boers, 2000 [Dutch and French]; Cameron & Deignan, 2006; Charteris-Black, 2001 [Spanish], 2002 [Malay]; Deignan, Gabyrs, & Solska, 1997 [Polish]; El Refaie, 2015; Gibbs & Matlock, 2008; Kövecses & Szabó, 1996 [Hungarian]; Yu, 1995, 2015 [Chinese], Zibin & Hamdan, 2014, etc.). The importance of mastering the use of metaphors by learners of English as a foreign language (EFL) stems from their significant role in communicative interactions (Littlemore & Low, 2006). However, their acquisition has always been seen as a stumbling block for EFL learners around the world. Most importantly, EFL learners may fail to realize where first language (L1) and second language (L2) meet and where they diverge. Charteris-Black (2002) stated that conceptual fluency could be defined as the means by which the concepts of a language are metaphorically coded. Thus, conceptual transfer from the L1 to the target language can be a source of error facing many EFL learners. This study aims to (a) investigate Jordanian EFL learners’ ability to comprehend metaphorical expressions in English and whether using their conceptual and linguistic knowledge of their L1 (i.e., Jordanian Spoken Arabic [JSA]) would assist them in comprehending metaphorical expressions in English, and (b) illustrate the similarities and differences between English and Arabic in terms of conceptual and linguistic metaphors.
Theoretical Framework
The nature of metaphor assumes a distinction between literal and figurative language (Lakoff, 1987; Lakoff & Johnson, 2003). Thus, senses of words that are thought to be different from their primary and basic senses can be used to refer to figurative language use (Charteris-Black, 2002). In contrast, literal language is concerned with the basic word meaning that is related to physical experiences in the world. Lakoff and Johnson (2003) argued that metaphors are devices that are omnipresent in all walks of life. They indicated that, basically, the ordinary conceptual system of humans is metaphorically structured and for this reason, it is not possible for us to live without metaphor. Lakoff (cited in Deignan et al., 1997) proposed that the term • Those are • He was
In Lakoff and Johnson’s view, metaphors are seen as a matter of cognition; they can be understood as mappings between two conceptual domains: the “source” domain and the “target” domain (Lakoff, 1993, p. 1; Lakoff & Johnson, 2003, p. 252). For instance, we usually conceive of LOVE as a JOURNEY where JOURNEY is the source domain and LOVE is the target domain. Thus, when we hear a couple describing their relationship as traveling on a
Concerning the cognitive processing of L2 metaphors, Littlemore (2003) argued that when L2 learners encounter gaps in their target language lexis, they usually employ certain strategies to process metaphors in the target language. For instance, L2 learners may compare the target item with another object in an analogical (using
Similarly, Cooper (1999) suggested that research on L2 comprehension of idioms showed that L2 learners used their knowledge of L1 to process idioms in L2. Specifically, the idioms that are identical in both languages were the easiest to comprehend and produce, whereas those idioms that are different in both languages (i.e., English and Spanish) produced a high number of incorrect answers (Irujo, 1986). In the current study, the researcher argues that L2 learners may transfer their conceptual and linguistic knowledge of L1 into L2; the transfer is positive if the two languages share the same conceptual and linguistic metaphors, whereas the transfer is negative when the conceptual and linguistic metaphors are not shared in both languages. The current study focuses on the use of L1 conceptual and linguistic knowledge to comprehend metaphors in L2. The next section provides an overview of some empirical studies on the acquisition of metaphor.
Empirical Studies
Boers (2000) argued that many figurative language expressions that are used in daily speech can be traced back to a common source domain. For instance,
Recognition of metaphor as a common ingredient of everyday language.
Recognition of metaphorical themes behind many figurative expressions.
Recognition of the non-arbitrary nature of many figurative expressions.
Recognition of many possible cross-cultural differences in metaphorical themes.
Recognition of crosslinguistic variety in figurative expressions.
According to Al-Jumah (2007), researchers have started to show keen interest in the study of conceptual metaphors recently. In his study, Al-Jumah compared conceptual and linguistic metaphor in English and Arabic. He focused on the similarities and differences of Arab learners of English as a second language (ESL) responses when asked to interpret metaphors in both Arabic and English in business discourse, bearing in mind the cultural differences between the two languages. Al-Jumah adopted a holistic approach that consisted of textual analysis, conversation meetings, students’ writings, and questionnaires. His study, however, focused on metaphorical expressions that are concerned with the theme of business only. In particular, it aims at enhancing Arab ESL learners’ comprehension of business-related metaphors. The study paid special attention to Arab ESL learners who were studying in the United States at the time of the study. In contrast, the study reported here does not focus on one theme only. It deals with different types of conceptual and linguistic metaphors, belonging to different themes (see conceptual metaphors in Appendices A-F). The current study delves deeper into the conceptual knowledge of the two languages, attempting to show the similarities and differences; hence, it sheds light on the universality of conceptual metaphors.
Objectives of the Study
Generally, the current study tests the commonly-held belief that learners demonstrate general conceptualizing capacity even though they have different languages (Charteris-Black, 2002). It is based on the belief that comparing the similarities and differences of metaphorical expressions between two different languages may provide an important glimpse into the conceptual and linguistic knowledge of these languages. In addition, it provides some pedagogical implications for teaching metaphorical expressions to EFL learners. The study seeks answers to the following research questions:
Method
Sample
One hundred advanced Jordanian EFL learners, fourth-year students majoring in English language and literature at the University of Jordan, participated in the study. Their mean age was 22 years. All were native speakers of JSA, who had a working knowledge of Modern Standard Arabic (MSA). It should be noted that the participants were mostly female (85 females and 15 males); the majority of students who specialize in English language and literature at the University of Jordan are females, at least at the time of the study. The researcher did not consider gender as an independent variable in the current study as the sample of male participants is non-representative. The selection of this group of advanced EFL learners was based on the researcher’s belief that at this age and proficiency level in English, the students would be equipped with the metalanguage necessary for the multiple-choice test that is going to be administered as this type of test is intellectually demanding. Students of low or intermediate level of proficiency may not be suitable for this study. At the time of data collection (i.e., the second semester of the academic year 2012-2013), the participants had completed at least 80 to 90 credit hours of advanced English courses such as Novel, Drama, Poetry, Translation, Shakespeare, Syntax, Poetry, and Linguistics.
Data Collection
Twenty-four English metaphorical expressions were selected from
talk-his no has taste Lit. his speech is tasteless “His speech is meaningless”
The underlying conceptual metaphor (i.e., IDEAS ARE FOOD) explains the relatedness of the linguistic expressions in both languages. The selected metaphors in English were then checked with reference to a corpus to ascertain their occurrence and frequency in contemporary speech. The English metaphors were checked in The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA; n.d.). With regard to the Arabic metaphors, the researcher conducted a pilot study in which 12 native speakers of JSA were asked to provide the meaning of the JSA metaphorical expressions used in this study. The purpose of this procedure was to ascertain the occurrence of these metaphorical expressions in contemporary JSA speech. The researcher included in the final version of the test only those metaphorical expressions that received similar answers from 80% and above of the JSA native speakers. In addition, to ensure the validity of the test, an earlier version of it was given to 10 native speakers of English (American, British, and Australian) before the test took place. The researcher included in the final version of the test the sentences that received similar responses from 80% and above of the English native speakers. No minimum frequency level for English metaphorical expressions in COCA (n.d.) was set. However, the frequency is taken into account in the discussion of the results.
The metaphorical expressions were then analyzed and compared according to the similarity and the difference between the conceptual metaphors and linguistic expressions in both English and JSA. This comparison aims at anticipating the participants’ responses in the test based on their metaphorical knowledge of L1.
Test
A 24-item multiple-choice test, containing short contexts, taken with minor modifications from COCA (n.d.), was administered to test the participants’ ability to recognize metaphorical expressions in English (see Appendix G). The test consisted of four instances of each type of metaphorical expressions. The participants were asked to choose the answer that gives the correct meaning of the
Type 1
This type deals with metaphorical expressions that have an equivalent conceptual basis (i.e., metaphor) and equivalent linguistic expression in both English and JSA (see Appendix A). For instance, it is expected that as JSA has an equivalent conceptual metaphor and an equivalent linguistic expression of the English metaphorical expression an
Type 2
In this type, metaphorical expressions have equivalent conceptual basis and similar linguistic expression in both English and JSA (see Appendix B). It is worth noting that “similar” means that part of the expression is equivalent in both languages while other parts are not. As a result, if the participants used literal translation of the metaphorical expression, they would partially arrive at the correct meaning. The participants would have to change a word or more to arrive at the correct English metaphorical expression with an equivalent sense. Therefore, it is expected that Type 2 would be easy to figure out by the participants as they can use partial literal translation to arrive at the correct meaning but not as easy as Type 1.
Type 3
Type 3 metaphorical expressions are those that have completely different conceptual basis in both English and JSA but similar linguistic expression (see Appendix C). It is assumed that the participants may encounter difficulties with Type 3, because the similarity of the linguistic expression between the two languages may encourage negative transfer of L1 meaning. This may be due to the fact that L1 metaphorical knowledge can be used in understanding L2 metaphorical expressions. Therefore, at least one of the two distracters for this type is more related to the Arabic meaning, rather than to the English meaning. The reason for this proximity is to introduce the possibility of transfer from L1.
Type 4
Type 4 deals with metaphorical expressions that have equivalent conceptual basis in English and JSA but completely different linguistic expressions in both languages (see Appendix D). In this type, literal translation of the metaphorical expression is not an option as the linguistic expressions are completely different. However, if L1 metaphorical knowledge is employed in comprehending L2 meaning, then it can be argued that this type would be easier than Type 3. Nevertheless, learners may not be able to access L1 conceptual basis as the linguistic expressions in both languages are different unless the differences were explained to them. In this type of metaphor, learners should be assisted to encourage positive transfer from L1 conceptual knowledge.
Type 5
Type 5 metaphorical expressions are those that have completely different conceptual basis and completely different linguistic expression in English and JSA. Nonetheless, the metaphorical expressions may be transparent because they are readily accessible on the basis of knowledge that is culturally neutral (see Appendix E). It is suggested, however, that students should be made aware of this type of metaphorical expressions before these units can become transparent to them.
Type 6
Type 6 metaphorical expressions are those that have completely different conceptual basis and completely different linguistic expression in English and JSA. Moreover, the metaphorical expressions are opaque as the conceptual basis reflects the encoding of a culture-specific meaning (see Appendix F). It can be argued that Type 6 may pose problems to the participants as the conceptual bases and the linguistic expressions are completely different in both languages. In addition, the metaphorical expressions reflect culture-specific senses.
Statistical Analysis
To establish whether there were any statistically significant differences in the scores concerning the six different types of metaphorical expressions used in the test, one-way ANOVA (SPSS Version 18) was used to compare the means of the six different types. ANOVA was chosen as a statistical test, because it makes it possible “to compare whether or not the variation
Results and Discussion
Table 1 presents a summary of percentages, means, and standard deviations of accurate responses on the six types of metaphorical expression on the test:
Percentages, Means, and Standard Deviations of Accurate Responses on the Six Types of Metaphorical Expression on the Test.
A thorough examination of Table 1 shows differences in the percentages, means, and standard deviations of accurate responses on each of the six types of metaphorical expression on the test. To establish whether there are statistically significant differences
One-Way ANOVA: Comparison of the Six Types of Metaphorical Expression on the Test.
Post Hoc Tukey.
p < .05.
An examination of Table 2 shows that there are statistically significant differences
Type 1 (94%) and Type 2 (85%).
Type 4 (81%) and Type 5 (71%).
Type 3 (44%) and Type 6 (52%).
Type 1
Table 4 below presents the participants’ overall outstanding achievement (94%). The highest percentage of correct responses was 95%, while the lowest was 91%. The ease with which the participants were able to choose the correct meaning of the English metaphorical expressions of this type may be due to the equivalence of the conceptual basis and the linguistic expression in both languages (see Appendix A).
Type 1: Correct Responses on Each Test Item on the Test.
Even if the participants had translated the metaphorical expression literally from JSA, they would still have arrived at the correct meaning. It may be seen that positive transfer here had a big role to play in the participants’ correct answers. One may argue that the participants found Type 1 easy to answer because the conceptual bases and linguistic expressions are equivalent in both L1 and L2. Thus, it may be claimed that they are equally transparent in both languages. In fact, Deignan (2003) argued that some shared conceptual metaphors across languages may draw on the same source domain. For instance, the conceptual basis of the metaphorical expression
The fact that the two metaphorical expressions
It may be inferred that students need to be encouraged to use L1 as a resource to comprehend L2 metaphorical expressions when the conceptual bases in both languages are equivalent. For example, students may be encouraged to group metaphorical expressions under a particular conceptual basis that is equivalent in both languages to help them relate the metaphorical expressions to the conceptual basis and thus remember these expressions. It was suggested by Boers (2000) that metaphorical expressions that belong to a particular conceptual basis (i.e., “metaphorical theme”) tend to be more transparent than the “isolated” ones (p. 563). Thus, if L2 teachers made students aware of these conceptual bases and the metaphorical expressions related to them, the comprehension of these metaphorical expressions may become easier.
Type 2
Table 5 below clearly indicates that the percentage of correct answers was high (85%). The highest score was 90% for
Type 2: Correct Responses on Each Test Item on the Test.
For instance, the metaphorical expression
Encyclopedic knowledge of the world and the creatures that live within it may account for the participants’ correct responses to the two metaphorical expressions,
In addition, 88% correct answers were received for the metaphorical expression,
The participants’ ability to recognize metaphorical expressions of this type on the test (85%) may indicate that they had no trouble with conceptual knowledge. However, it may suggest that more focus needs to be given by L2 teachers to the linguistic expression and vocabulary with respect to this type as they are not totally the same in both languages. Also, it may be argued that at least the conceptual metaphors that are based on universal bodily experience and emotions may be near-universal or potentially universal (cf. Boers, 2003).
Type 3
Table 6 below shows that the participants faced considerable difficulty with Type 3 (44%). The highest score on this type was 57% for
Type 3: Correct Responses on Each Test Item on the Test.
As the conceptual bases are different in both languages, it may be argued that literal translation of the similar metaphorical expressions may have tempted the participants to transfer L1 conceptual bases so that they arrived at the wrong answer. In fact, the researcher anticipated that the participants would choose the answer that is more related to the JSA meaning. Thus, the researcher designed the distracters for this type in a way that at least one of them was related to the meaning of the metaphorical expression in JSA to determine whether the participants would choose it or not.
While 57% selected the correct answer for
In addition, 36% recognized the correct meaning of the item
According to Table 6, 34% of the participants circled the correct answer of the metaphorical expression,
Finally, 47% of the participants circled the correct answer of the metaphorical expression
Type 4
As illustrated in Table 7 below, type 4 elicited a high percentage of correct answers (81%). In fact, the participants’ score on Type 4 was the third highest after Type 1 (94%) and Type 2 (85%), respectively (see Table 1). The highest score on Type 4 was 90% for
Type 4: Correct Responses on Each Test Item on Test.
Furthermore, the
Another reason that may account for the participants’ good performance is the high frequency of some of these expressions in the English language. For instance,
Type 5
Table 8 below indicates that the participants did well on the test (71%). The highest score was 86% for
Type 5: Correct Responses on Each Test Item on the Test.
Moreover, 63% of the participants were able to recognize the correct meaning of
Type 6
Table 9 below shows that only 52% of the participants were able to choose the correct answers of Type 6. The highest score was 70% for
Type 6: Correct Responses on Each Test Item on the Test.
This markedness may have contributed to the participants’ wrong answers. Eckman (1985) suggested that L2 more marked areas will be difficult. For instance, only 31% of the participants were able to recognize the correct meaning of
Even though
In light of these results, L2 teachers need to concentrate more on the cultural differences when dealing with metaphorical expressions of this type.
Conclusion and Pedagogical Implications
The results provide evidence that the participants’ receptive knowledge of metaphorical expressions in English varies based on the type of metaphor. Type 1 (94%) and Type 2 (85%) were the easiest to recognize by the participants on the test. This result was expected as Type 1 metaphorical expressions have the same conceptual bases and linguistic expressions in English and JSA. In addition, Type 2 metaphorical expressions have the same conceptual bases and similar linguistic expressions in both languages. Type 3 was the most difficult for the participants. It was suggested that the similarity of linguistic expression between the two languages may have encouraged the participants to transfer their L1 conceptual knowledge while answering this type. Type 4 was also easy to answer by the participants (81%). This is possibly due to the equivalence of conceptual bases in English and JSA, which may have played a positive role in the participants’ correct answers. Type 5 elicited a good number of correct answers (71%). Even though this type deals with metaphorical expressions that have different conceptual bases and linguistic expressions in English and JSA, the conceptual bases are culturally neutral. This may have made it easier for the participants to recognize the correct meaning of these expressions. Type 6 elicited significantly low number of correct answers (52%). These low results may be attributable to the fact that this type deals with metaphorical expressions that are totally different conceptually and linguistically in the two languages. Based on the data analysis, the researcher suggests some pedagogical implications to L2 teachers:
L2 teachers need to explain that metaphors are not mere rhetoric devices used exclusively by poets and writers to enhance the quality of literary texts. Students need to be aware that metaphors are devices used in all walks of life by everyone.
L2 teachers need to encourage students to use L1 as a resource to comprehend L2 metaphorical expressions when the two languages have equivalent conceptual bases (i.e., Types 1, 2, and 4). These similarities would make it easier for EFL learners to read and understand metaphorical expressions in English (Charteris-Black, 2001; Deignan et al., 1997).
Raising students’ awareness of the differences of conceptual metaphors between L2 and L1 may be very beneficial to facilitate their comprehension of L2 conceptual metaphors. In addition, students should be made aware of the differences in expressing conceptual metaphors between L1 and L2 (i.e., Types 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6) to reduce the risk of negative transfer. These differences should be taken into consideration as they may contribute to the production of marked and non-native expressions by L2 learners and translators (Charteris-Black, 2001). In addition, more attention needs to be given by L2 teachers to the differences in linguistic expressions in L1 and L2, especially when the conceptual bases are the same in both languages (e.g., Types 1, 2, and 4).
Teaching students to group metaphorical expressions under a particular metaphorical conceptual basis or theme may also be helpful as it may “provide a framework for lexical organization” (Boers, 2000, p. 563). Teachers could devise special exercises for this purpose.
L2 teachers need to give more attention to collocations in English and give students exercises that could assist them in understanding the way they are used in English.
It could be also useful to encourage students to produce their own metaphors to enhance their ability to recognize and translate metaphors in L2.
It may be beneficial to raise students’ cultural awareness of L2 metaphorical expressions as it may contribute considerably to the development of their communicative competence in L2.
In sum, the study provides evidence of the possibility that students display general conceptualizing capacity regardless of their language. Moreover, it supports the claim that comparing and contrasting metaphorical expressions between two different languages may provide an important glimpse into the conceptual and linguistic knowledge of these languages. Thus, further large-scale exploration of the correspondences and the differences of conceptual metaphors and linguistic expressions in other languages is an area worthy of further investigation.
Footnotes
Appendix A
Type 1.
| No. | Linguistic expression |
Figurative meaning (equivalent) | Conceptual basis (equivalent) | Frequency in (COCA) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| English | Arabic | ||||
| 1. | He is |
He loves her so much | LOVE IS MADNESS + STATES ARE LOCATIONS | 0.58 per million | |
| 2. | She rules the office with |
To rule using rigorous or ruthless control | CONTROL IS HOLDING | 0.43 per million | |
| 3. | He is making my |
To be very angry | ANGER IS A HOT FLUID IN A CONTAINER + THE BODY IS A CONTAINER FOR THE EMOTIONS | 0.13 per million | |
| 4. | You have certainly |
To identify and state the essence of something | TO TOUCH IS TO LOCATE | 0.30 per million | |
Appendix B
Type 2.
| No. | Linguistic expression |
Figurative meaning (similar) | Conceptual basis (similar) | Frequency in (COCA) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| English | Arabic | ||||
| 1. | My |
When one is startled or excited from surprise, joy, or fright | THE STATE OF THE FEELINGS IS THE MATERIAL STATE OF A VITAL ORGAN | 0.17 per million | |
| 2. | He |
To use a lot of effort to achieve something | HUMAN BEHAVIOR IS ANIMAL BEHAVIOR | 0.36 per million | |
| 3. | He warned that this will |
Make the situation worse | ANGER IS HEAT + MAINTAINING INTENSITY OF CONFLICT IS MAINTAINING HEAT (OF FIRE) | 0.12 per million | |
| 4. | I am moving |
To move very slowly | SPEED OF ACTION IS SPEED OF MOVEMENT + HUMAN BEHAVIOR IS ANIMAL BEHAVIOR | 0.18 per million | |
Appendix C
Type 3.
| No. | Linguistic expression |
Figurative meaning | Figurative meaning | Conceptual basis (different) | Frequency in (COCA) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| English | Arabic | |||||
| 1. | It doesn’t mean that you wish someone harm, it simply means good luck | I forbade her from going to a certain place. | English: Superstition (if the “good luck” causes bad, then probably the perceived bad luck of breaking one’s leg causes good). |
0.25 per million | ||
| 2. | Our business is really improving. We’ve been |
On the credit side of a ledger; prosperous | A living hell, sad and gloomy (negative connotation) | English: Encyclopedic knowledge that positive numbers appear in black while negative numbers appear in red. |
4.44 per million | |
| 3. | Is he really angry with me or is he just |
To tell someone something untrue as a joke to shock them temporarily and amuse them when they find out later that it was a joke | Tricking someone into talking about something he or she would have rather kept secret | English: BEHAVIORAL ATTRIBUTES ARE MATERIAL ATTRIBUTES |
0.09 per million | |
| 4. | He had |
To be scared | To be totally relaxed | English: FEAR IS FEELING COLD |
0.47 per million | |
Appendix D
Type 4.
| No. | Linguistic expression |
Figurative meaning | Conceptual basis (equivalent) | Frequency in (COCA) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| English | Arabic | ||||
| 1. | She is a |
A woman who uses her sexual attractions to accumulate gifts | WEALTH IS A HIDDEN OBJECT | 0.22 per million | |
| 2. | I got fired today and to |
To make a bad situation worse | BEHAVIORAL ATTRIBUTES ARE EQUAL TO MATERIAL ATTRIBUTES | 0.24 per million | |
| 3. | She gave me |
Treat someone with indifference | REJECTING IS AVOIDING EYE CONTACT + INDIFFERENCE IS COLDNESS | 0.21 per million | |
| 4. | He fell |
To be completely in love | FALLING IN LOVE IS PHYSICAL FALLING | 0.45 per million | |
Appendix E
Type 5.
| No. | Linguistic expression |
Figurative meaning | Figurative meaning | Conceptual basis (different) | Frequency in (COCA) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| English | Arabic | |||||
| 1. | Keep your |
You just have to manage, especially when facing financial problems | A womanizer; a guy who pursues women all the time | English: Breathing is surviving + HEAD STANDS FOR THE PERSON |
0.16 per million | |
| 2. | She is still adapting to life |
In a very active or possible risky manner | Collaborative work is better than working alone | English: SPEED OF ACTION IS SPEED OF MOTION. |
0.35 per million | |
| 3. | I’m trying to |
To keep out of trouble, especially trouble with the law | Not being able to understand anything | English: Keeping the nose clean indicates staying away from trouble with the law+ NOSE STANDS FOR THE PERSON |
0.08 per million | |
| 4. | The fact that Carrie is dating a member of the mafia is just |
A small evident part or aspect of something largely hidden | To have no family | English: Encyclopedic knowledge: The shape of the underwater portion of the iceberg can be difficult to judge by looking at the portion above the surface |
0.91 per million | |
Appendix F
Type 6.
| No. | Linguistic expression |
Figurative meaning | Figurative meaning | Conceptual basis (different) | Frequency in (COCA) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| English | Arabic | |||||
| 1. | Princess Diana had |
She is of a noble family; aristocratic ancestry | He has a sense of humor | English: BLOOD FOR STATUS |
0.14 per million | |
| 2. | He was very brave but fear of spiders was his |
A weak point or fault in someone or something otherwise perfect | To harm somebody or cause trouble for him then offer to help him | English: HEEL FOR THE PERSON + story of Achilles |
0.32 per million | |
| 3. | Let me |
Freed, as from blame or a vexatious obligation | She doesn’t come to a certain place as often as she used to | English: Knowledge: When a fish flips out of the hook, it goes back in the water |
2.44 per million | |
| 4. | His parents were both |
Of or relating to workers whose work usually does not involve manual labor and who are often expected to dress with a degree of formality | Unable to understand anything | English: COLOR OF CLOTHES FOR STATUS |
0.78 per million | |
Appendix G
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research and/or authorship of this article.
1.
Even though the participants have been exposed to metaphorical expressions in the target language explicitly, the kind of instruction students usually have in literature courses (especially poetry) does not introduce metaphors as conceptual tools used by all speakers of a language to talk about their daily-life experiences, their culture, and the world they live in. Students perceive of metaphors as mere rhetoric devices used to enhance the quality of literary texts.