EXAMINING SERBIAN EFL LEARNERS’ METAPHORIC COMPETENCE: METAPHOR IDENTIFICATION AND TRANSLATION

Липар 81 (2023) (стр. 175-195)

АУТОР(И): Tamara N. Janevska

Е-АДРЕСА: tamara.janevska@filum.kg.ac.rs

Download Full Pdf   

DOI: 10.46793/LIPAR81.175J

САЖЕТАК:

The paper presents the results of a study devoted to the examination of students’ metaphoric competence. The participants received no precoding training, or structured metaphorical in- put. The study was based on The Economist’s climate change coverage, a film titled “Climate change technology: Is shading the earth too risky?”, which was a part of an English composition assignment. We transcribed the oral data and, following the MIPVU (Steen 2010), identified sentences which contained at least one lexical unit that was metaphorically used. The students were asked to complete a questionnaire that was organized in accordance with our research goals. Namely, our study tested the students’ ability to distinguish between metaphorical and literal meaning in order to check their intuitions about what constitutes a metaphor. They were also asked to translate the given sentences into Serbian so that we could examine how they deal with metaphor in translation. The results suggest that the differences in translation are caused by the availability of the conventionalized metaphorical senses across the SL and TL lexicon. The research offered insight into students’ metaphoric competence prior to any exposure to Conceptual Metaphor Theory (Lakoff, Johnson 1980), which could be contrasted with the results obtained after a structured metaphorical input.

КЉУЧНЕ РЕЧИ:

metaphoric competence, metaphor identification, metaphor translation, Serbian EFL learners, Conceptual Metaphor Theory, news discourse

ЛИТЕРАТУРА:

  • Arduini 2014: S. Arduini, Metaphor, translation, cognition, in: D. Miller, E. Monti (Eds.), Tradurre Figure/Translating Figurative Language, Bologna: CeSLiC, 41–52.
  • Bogetić 2017: K. Bogetić, Language is a beautiful creature, not an old fridge: Direct metaphors as corrective framing devices, Metaphor and the Social World, 7(2), 190– 212.
  • Dorst et al. (2011): A. Dorst, G. Mulder, G. Steen, Recognition of personification in fiction by non-expert readers, Metaphor and the Social World, 1:2, Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 174‒201.
  • Eco 2014: U. Eco, Ekfrasi, ipotiposi e metafora, in: D. Miller, E. Monti (Eds.), Tradurre Figure/Translating Figurative Language, Bologna: CeSLiC, 1‒9.
  • Forceville, Urios-Aparisi 2009: C. Forceville, E. Urios-Aparisi, Multimodal Metaphor, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Forceville 2020: C. Forceville, Visual and Multimodal Communication: Applying the Relevance Principle, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Gibbs 2017: R. Gibbs, Metaphor Wars: Conceptual metaphors in human life, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Goatly 2007: A. Goatly, Washing the Brain – Metaphor and Hidden Ideology, Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
  • Janevska 2021: Т. Јаневска, Појмовна метафора и настава вокабулара страног језика: преглед досадашњих истраживања, Савремена проучавања језика и књижевности, Зборник радова са XII научног скупа младих филолога Србије, књига 1, Крагујевац: Филолошко-уметнички факултет, 293–300.
  • Johnson 1989: J. Johnson, Factors related to cross-language transfer and metaphor interpretation in bilingual children, Applied Psycholinguistics, 10, 157–177.
  • Kövecses 2014: Z. Kövecses, Conceptual metaphor theory and the nature of difficulties in metaphor translation, in: D. Miller, E. Monti (Eds.), Tradurre Figure/ Translating Figurative Language, Bologna: CeSLiC, 25–39.
  • Kövecses 2000: Z. Kövecses, Metaphor and Emotion: Language, Culture, and Body in Human Feeling, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Krennmayr 2011: T. Krennmayr, Metaphor in newspapers, The Netherlands: LOT.
  • Lakoff, Johnson 2003[1980]: G. Lakoff, M. Johnson, Metaphors we live by, London: The University of Chicago Press.
  • Littlemore, Low 2006: J. Littlemore, G. Low, Metaphoric competence and communicative language ability, Applied Linguistics, 27 (2), 268–294.
  • Littlemore 2010: J. Littlemore, Metaphoric competence in the first and second language: Similarities and differences, in: M. Pütz, L. Sicola (Eds.), Cognitive Processing in Second Language Acquisition: Inside the learner’s mind, Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 293‒315.
  • Low 2008: G. Low, Metaphor and Education, in: R. Gibbs (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 212‒231.
  • Navarro i Ferrando 2019: I. Navarro i Ferrando, Current Approaches to Metaphor Analysis in Discourse, Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
  • Schäffner 2014: C. Schäffner, Umbrellas and firewalls: Metaphors in debating the financial crisis from the perspective of translation studies, in: D. Miller, E. Monti (Eds.), Tradurre Figure/Translating Figurative Language, Bologna: CeSLiC, 69‒84.
  • Shuttleworth 2014: M. Shuttleworth, Translation studies and metaphor studies: Possible paths of interaction between two well-established disciplines, in: D. Miller,
  • E. Monti (Eds.), Tradurre Figure/Translating Figurative Language, Bologna: CeSLiC, 53‒65.
  • Steen 2014: G. Steen, Translating metaphor: What’s the problem?, in: D. Miller, E. Monti (Eds.), Tradurre Figure/Translating Figurative Language, Bologna: CeSLiC, 11‒24.
  • Steen et al. 2010: G. Steen, A. Dorst, J. Herrmann, A. Kaal, T. Krennmayr, T. Pasma, A Method for Linguistic Metaphor Identification: From MIP to MIPVU, Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
  • Tseronis, Forceville 2017: A. Tseronis, C. Forceville, Multimodal Argumentation and Rhetoric in Media Genres, Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Sources