CHAPTER TWOLITERATURE REVIEW

This chapter reviews the related literature in the broad area of Cognitive Linguistics, Conceptual Metaphors, vocabulary learning and reading comprehension. The structure is as follows; the examination of cognitive linguistics and its relationship to metaphor and vocabulary learning; next, the most prevalent aspects of cognitive linguistics and its relationship to English language learning; followed by specific aspects of the above mentioned areas and finally the manner in which metaphors are utilized in language learning and teaching.

2.1 INTRODUCTIONMetaphor usage occurs very widely and is a dominant feature of everyday language as well as academic language. As seen from the traditional view, metaphor is treated as a special language which deviates from linguistic norms and is primarily considered as merely decorative and ornamental. However, metaphor according to cognitive linguistic view is not exclusively decorative or ornamental. Cognitive linguistic departs from the traditional view of metaphor in a much broader sense namely: metaphor is not a special language which deviates from linguistic norms, metaphor is not merely decorative and ornamental, metaphor is the representation of human thoughts, and metaphor varies and is versatile in its textual manifestations in a variety of texts and genres. The next section discusses cognitive linguistics and its relationship with metaphor.

2.2 COGNITIVE LINGUISTIC THEORY (CLT)CLT views language as part of cognitive systems comprised of perception, emotions, categorization, abstraction process and reasoning (Dirven & Verspoor, 2004). In this view, the cognitive process is manifested through language used: spoken and written. Rudzka-Ostyn (2003) points out that human beings use their cognition to understand and construe the world around them. In fact, language allows us to impose order on the world by categorizing or grouping its phenomena into categories or concepts (Rudzka-Ostyn, 2003: 20). Human needs language to describe and label the phenomena around them. In other words, it is language that interconnects the cognitive abilities and the world around. Tyler (2008: 7) summarizes the particulars of this process and mentions that language is a reflection of general cognitive process. Based on this cognitive view, Lakoff and Johnson (1980) theorize that the language that humans use to communicate is largely metaphorical.According to CLT, metaphor plays major roles in the way human think, speak and live. In other words, the world is seen through metaphors. Metaphors act as tools to construe the way the world is seen and to carry out abstract reasoning. In understanding abstract events, metaphors are used to associate abstracts objects, situations and events with their concrete counterparts (Juchem-Grundmann, 2009). Teaching strategies inspired by Cognitive Linguistics (CL) aim at a deeper understanding as a basis for increasing language proficiency and it offers a better understanding of the nature of language and vocabulary learning. CL also has a huge potential in helping to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of a vocabulary within a second language for the implementation of teaching and learning (Robinson & Ellis, 2008; De Knop & De Rycker, 2008; Boers & Lindstromberg, 2008; Juchem-Grundmann, 2009). Kalyuga and Kalyuga (2008) point out that the human cognitive system includes several basic components that are essential in the learning processes: sensory memory, working memory and long-term memory. Working memory plays a major role in short-term knowledge retention Baddely (1999) and is limited in capacity and duration when dealing with unfamiliar information. Long term memory stores information in the form of organizing knowledge structures within a specific domain. Learned information stored in long term memory is unlimited in capacity and duration (Kalyuga & Kalyuga, 2008). Organized information stored in the long term memory could reduce the amount of mental effort required to learn vocabulary (Nation, 2001). Available knowledge structures in long-term memory also provide guidance during cognitive processes such as problem-solving or language comprehension. Information that is stored in an organized domain help learners retrieve information effortlessly and helps them attain recall in a cognitively efficient manner (Kintsch, 1998).In the area of vocabulary learning, the concept of the learning burden of word is defined as the amount of mental effort required to learn the new word (Nation, 2001). However, learning burden is heavily influenced by prior knowledge and familiarity with related similar patterns (e.g. similar sounds, spellings, grammatical patterns and a similar collocation in the first language). Learning burden could be potentially reduced by drawing the learners attention to systematic patterns, analogies and a connection between the first and second languages (Laufer, 1998; Nation, 2001). Combining multiple elements of information in an organized domain in the working memory and the long term memory allow learners to avoid processing overwhelming amounts of information and to eliminate the potential for working memory overload.Kalyuga and Kalyuga (2008) call for the need of specific approaches to reduce potential cognitive overload and associate learning burdens among language learners. The specific approaches are needed since vocabulary learning is a cognitively demanding process and involves a very high level of working-memory. Juchem-Grundmann (2009) summarizes four well-defined didactic approaches that have been developed in the history of language teaching. Figure 1.1 below refers to the four didactic approaches in the history of language teaching.

Methodology of foreign language teaching and learning

Learner-centered/autonomy-focused approachesInstruction-centered/teacher -centered approaches

ConstructivismBehaviorismGrammar translation method

CognitivismAudio-visual methodAudio-lingualMethod

Figure 1.1: Foreign Language Teaching Methodology (adapted from Juchem-Grundmann, 2009)

Juchem-Grundmann (2009) categorizes foreign language teaching methodologies into two broad categories. On the one hand, the instructor or teacher-centered approaches and on the other the learner-centered or autonomy-method focused approaches. The traditional Grammar Translation Method arose from early language instruction which is known through the regular Latin courses. Behaviorism, initiated by Skinner (1957), sees learning in terms of habit formation and therefore teaching as conditioning. Frequently introduced as separate methods, the audio-lingual as well as the audio visual method are subsumed under the theoretical framework of Behaviorism as they follow the same process of imitation and reinforcing repetition and only differ in stimulus (Juchem-Grundmann, 2009). In general, both classical approaches are characterized by a clear focus on the teacher as the learning initiator in charge and the pre-structured material he or she distributes. On the contrary, as the main focus of the present study, Cognitivism under the broader theory of Constructivism focuses on learning and views the learners as the main agents of this process. In brief, the aforementioned traditional theories draw attention to teaching whereas the more modern theories highlight learning. Cognitivist learning strategies concentrate on knowledge and language processing in ensuring comprehension while constructivist strategies devote attention to the process of construing knowledge. However, both approaches aim at the same goal: learner autonomy. Cognitivist theory aims at gaining detailed insights in the cognitive learning processes and develops learning strategies to optimize storage; the latter also focuses upon the access and retrieval of knowledge. Constructivist theory actually builds on learner autonomy because knowledge is solely construed through human interaction with the concrete events (empirical) around them (Juchem-Grundmann, 2009).Under constructivism, CLT brings about the implementation of the Conceptual Metaphor Theory developed by Lakoff and Johnson (1980). The two have shown that many metaphorical expressions such as your claims are indefensible, he attacked every weak point in my argument exist in the English language. They argue that these expressions are not simply ways of talking about one thing in terms of another, but evidence that people also think about one thing in terms of another (Semino, 2008). The metaphorical expressions given earlier also reflect conventional patterns of thought, known as conceptual metaphors (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980).

2.3 CONCEPTUAL METAPHOR THEORYThe etymological origin of the word metaphor in this study is in line with the Cognitive Linguistic approach. The term metaphor originates from the Greek word meta meaning; with/after, expressing change, above or over, and pherien meaning; bring across, to carry, or to bear (Charteris-Black, 2000; Lazar, 1996; Kopp & Eckstein, 2004; Klein, 1971). Therefore metaphor means to carry meaning from one thing, or place to another thing, or place. Aristotle (1979) as cited in Kelley-Laine (2003) describes metaphors as giving something a name that belongs to something else. Metaphors create a likeness, or an analogy between two things (Slavik, 1999). In other words, metaphors involve the carrying across or transferring of meanings from one concept (the source domain) to another (the target domain). Thus, the use of metaphors often results in comparisons being made between two essentially dissimilar things, by identifying one with the other. For example, in the metaphor my love is like a rose, a comparison is made between love (the target domain) and a rose (the source domain), where the concrete qualities of the rose, such as beauty, fragrance and softness are carried over to the abstract notion of love. Cognitive linguistics makes use of the technical term domain. Metaphors transfer something from one domain to another domain. According to Evans (2007: 12), a domain constitutes a coherent knowledge structure possessing, in principle, any level of complexity of organization. Conceptual metaphor has two main domains namely the source domain and the target domain. In short, the term metaphor identifies systematic transfer from one domain (the source domain) to another domain (target domain). The source domain is the conceptual domain from which metaphorical expression is drawn to understand another conceptual domain (the target domain). The source domain is a concrete concept, based on sensory experience for example money, seeing, journey and war. Whereas, the target domain is a domain through which learners try to understand the use of a source domain. The target domain is an abstract concept for example, love, ideas, argument and life. Therefore, in the conceptual metaphor LOVE IS JOURNEY; LOVE is the target domain and JOURNEY is the source domain. In other words, the known or concrete domain is transferred to understand the abstract domain. The source and target domains of metaphorical transfer are referred to as conceptual domains that are defined as relatively complex knowledge structures which relate to coherent aspects of experience (Evans, 2007). In making sense of metaphor, interlocutors understand and experience one domain in terms of another, which is what Lakoff and Johnson (2003) call the essence of metaphor. The Conceptual Metaphor Theory (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980) questions and challenges the traditional linguistic views which were held by philosophers such as Aristotle (1979). Traditionally, metaphor is viewed as a matter of words rather than thoughts or actions. In literary contexts, metaphor is regarded as used for effect or for ornament and contrasts with literal language. For most people, metaphor is above the ordinary. They believe that the function of metaphor is a device of poetic imagination and rhetoric (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980). Lakoff and Johnsons main assertion is that metaphorical thought is normal and ubiquitous in our mental life, both conscious and unconscious and metaphors are a natural phenomenon and as such are pervasive in everyday language. In fact, the crucial addition to Lakoff and Johnsons claims is that metaphor is not just in language but in thought and action. In other words, the integration of the two domains namely the source domain and the target domain takes place. Source domain is used to make the more abstract target domain tangible and comprehensible (Lakoff, 2006). In fact, metaphor is the major mechanism through which we understand abstract concepts and perform abstract reasoning (Lakoff, 2006). In similar vein, metaphor helps in understanding unfamiliar phenomena in terms of phenomena we are familiar with (Semino, 2008). At the conceptual level, a metaphor is the relationship between two concepts, one of which functions as the source and the other as the target. For example, in ARGUMENT IS WAR, ARGUMENT is the target domain while WAR is the source domain. The linguistic level is motivated by the conceptual metaphors and represents the realization on words. It appears in the forms of everyday written and spoken languages. Thus, a variety of metaphorical expressions are developed from the conceptual metaphor ARGUMENT IS WAR, such as Your claims are indefensible, He attacked every weak point in my argument, and I demolished his argument (Lakoff & Johnson, 2003). Conceptual metaphor is denoted in upper case letter (ARGUMENT IS WAR), while linguistic metaphor is denoted in lower case letter (he attacked every weak point in my argument, your claims are indefensible).According to Grundmann (2009) considerable researches have been carried out on various discourses for metaphorical language under the tenet of Cognitive Linguistics; e.g., spoken discourse (Cameroon & Deignan, 2003), educational discourse (Cameron, 2003), university lectures (Littlemore, 2001), political discourse (Goatly, 2007; Musolff, 2000), economic discourse (Boers, 1997; Boers & Demecheleer, 1997; Bretones-Callejaz, 2002; Charteris-Black & Ennis, 2001; Charteris-Black & Musolff, 2003; Henderson, 1982; Herrera & White, 2000; Koller, 2004; Smith, 1995; White, 2003; White & Herrera, 2002), advertising (Forceville, 1996) and religious discourse (Balaban, 1997).Apart from the statement that metaphors are ubiquitous and used unconsciously, the most significant findings in Lakoff and Johnsons (1980) work is that metaphors are not a mere matter of language but a matter of thought (Juchem-Grundmann, 2009). The discipline of Cognitive linguistics views language as part of a cognitive system which comprises perception, emotions, categorization, abstraction process, and reasoning (Dirven & Verspoor, 2004: 8). In this view, language becomes the observable output of invisible input of cognitive process. Hence, Conceptual Metaphor theory exemplifies that the metaphors in the native language influence the way people think, speak and ultimately the way people live, serving as a tool to categorize the way the world is seen and to carry out abstract reasoning (Grundmann, 2009). Metaphors assist human cognition to understand abstract events by associating it with physical world (concrete events).

The Conceptual Metaphor (Lakoff & Johnson, 2003) is illustrated in the diagram below:Conceptual Metaphor(in the mind)

(in

Source domain(Concrete concept)Target domain(Abstract concept)

TIMEARGUMENTMONEYWAR

TIME IS MONEY ARGUMENT IS WARLinguistic Metaphor(verbal, written)

1. Youre wasting my time2. How do you spend your time?3. I demolished his argument4. He attacked every weak point in my argument

Figure 2.1: Conceptual Metaphor (Lakoff & Johnson, 2003)

2.4 METAPHOR IN SPECIALIZED GENRESMetaphor is a common feature of texts in a wide range of specialization (Lindstromberg, 1991; Henderson, 1994; Smith, 1995; Charteris-Black, 2000; Grundmann, 2009; Semino, 2008; Krenmayar, 2010). Some metaphorical words are so common that learners and teachers may not even be aware that some words they encounter in specialized texts are actually metaphorical. Semino (2008) gives a specific term for metaphors that appear so commonly that they are not realized as metaphor. She calls those common metaphors as conventional metaphor which are often used and understood without being conscious of their metaphoricity. Smith (1995) talks specifically about conventional metaphors in relation to economics discourse. He says: A number of what were originally metaphors have become conventionalized in the language of economics, and can now better be considered as technical terms than living metaphors. Such terms as equilibrium, float, inflation, leakage, boom, liquidity and slump are now so familiar in the jargon of the subject that their metaphorical etymology is not immediately obvious (p.4)

Some evidence of conventional metaphors in specialized genres can be seen in the architectural language used to describe theory-making in general. When discussing theories, authors or writers of the specialized texts often see theories as building. For example, linguists or economists, when discussing their theories, talk about models, or constructs; these require a structure in which their component elements are bonded or cemented together; this is to prevent the theories from being shaky or crumbling and at a later stage, they may need buttressing. Similarly, when teachers advise students on developing their ideas, they require them to write a plan and to provide evidence to support their point of view. This is to guard against their work lacking foundations and their arguments falling down. Cameron (2003) has found that metaphorical words involving nouns accounted lesser than metaphorical words involving verbs. Metaphorical words involving adverbs, adjectives, prepositions were found to be infrequent. Skorczynska (2001) has found out that metaphorical words involving verbs were frequent in business periodicals but less frequent in scientific journals. Noun metaphors were frequently used in scientific journals than in business periodicals. Shoukouhi and Isazadeh (2009) suggest that, not only an awareness to metaphor is important in language learning, an awareness to metaphorical word class (nominal, verbal, adjectival, adverbial and prepositional) is also equally significant to learners.Low (1999) enlists word class metaphor with respect to the conceptual metaphor AN ESSAY IS A PERSON. For example: the views of this paper have not been communicated to the subjects involved (Nominal metaphor), the essay first of all sets out to define the term bureaucracy and traces its development from the late 16th century (Verbal metaphor), An optimistic and an aggressive paper (Adjectival metaphor), The paper happily, if selectively, examines the opposite argument, however (Adverbial metaphor), the essay first of all sets out to define the term bureaucracy and traces its development from the late 16th century (prepositional metaphor).The existence of conventional metaphors in specialized texts needs to be deliberately taken into consideration in language learning. Vocabulary lessons geared towards teaching these metaphors could assist in the understanding of specialized vocabulary. An understanding of content specific vocabulary can provide learners with the knowledge that will enhance their understanding of academic texts and their stylistic awareness. Semino (2008) points out that metaphors are varied in their textual appearance, versatile in their functions and central to many different types of communication. The functions of metaphors are not exclusive to literature but vary considerably depending on the genres. The next section discusses the function of metaphor in greater details.

2.5 THE FUNCTION OF METAPHORMetaphor plays a major role in human life. Since the primordial man exists on earth, humans have used metaphor to make sense of their world particularly of what is abstract around them. Kristiansen (2006) outlines some functions of metaphor in human life. According to her, metaphors are the main tools of conceptualization by which human thought manages to explore and conceptually structure the experiential world of man. Indeed metaphors serve a number of different cognitive functions. The most essential one is their ability to make a new or abstract domain accessible through metaphorical concrete domain (Allbritton, 1995). As explained earlier, structure and vocabulary from the source domain are transferred to the target domain to provide a framework for understanding a new domain. According to Juchem-Grundmann (2009), due to this quality of metaphor, its use has become increasingly popular in scientific discourse, amongst specialists in the field and also in explaining scientific interrelation to laypeople or students to facilitate access to the field and improve understanding (Littlemore, 2001; Low, 2008). In reference to the role of metaphors in scientific discourse and learning science, Low (2008) gives the following summary:Using analogies is an essential aspect of academic expertise, whether one is discovering things or creating theories they allow the teacher to communicate with learners who have not mastered a theory..; they allow learners to visualize abstract concepts; they motivate learners..; they allow the teacher to tailor teaching to individual needs and levels of understanding (p.45)

Indeed, metaphors provide insights into an unknown domain by the mere use of familiar words and phrases, and in this way initiate and guide mapping processes. Using well-defined and commonly known vocabulary and knowledge structures, scientists are thus able to make their research available to laypeople. Teachers are able to break down complex structures in accessible and digestible knowledge available to learners. Cameroon (2003) claims that the ability to map from one domain to another seems to be a basic human feature. Cameroon (2003) explicitly extends the potential of metaphors in educational discourse to them functioning as a critical challenge of ones own understanding of target domain by applying source domain structures, which might reveal knowledge gaps that either call for the acquisition of more information to fill these gaps or for a restructuring with a different metaphor. Metaphors assist the problem-solving process which is usually based on individual examples, by providing analogies to make up for abstract principles needed. The function of metaphors in educational discourse opens a whole new field of research. Cameron (2003) further claims that metaphors could help facilitate reading comprehension and enhance retention.The advantage of metaphorical over non-metaphorical structures is their visual component. Indeed, explaining target structures by mapping familiar knowledge from different source domains, metaphor actually draw pictures. The reader or listener is guided to understand something in terms of something else, and in order to do so, the knowledge of source domain needs to be activated to process the metaphorical information (Low, 2008). The freshly generated knowledge is thus coded verbally and visually which makes it easier to retrieve from memory and thus easier to remember. Paivios (1986) Dual Coding theory suggests that dual coding ease in retrieval and remembrance through parallel verbal and visual processing of knowledge.Juchem-Grundmann (2009) in his study formulated ten theoretical implications for practical metaphor teaching:1. Metaphors are ubiquitous in everyday communication; they are being used consciously as well as unconsciously. Therefore, metaphors cannot be considered the 'icing on the cake' that may be learned last. Language learners need to be made aware of metaphorical language usage and learn to make use of metaphors themselves as soon as possible. That is, metaphors need to find their way into the language teaching curriculum.2. Metaphors are not arbitrary but they can be traced from their source domain. Therefore, language teaching should provide insights into different experiential grounding of metaphors in order to foster understanding.3. Metaphors do not come singly; they are linguistic instantiations of coherent concepts. Therefore, language learners need to be made familiar with conceptual metaphors or should be qualified to pinpoint the overarching concept themselves, trace the individual mappings and successfully decode them in order to be able to eventually draw creatively on metaphorical concepts.4. Metaphors are a phenomenon of thought and not merely of language and as such they have a physical neuronal basis (Lakoff, 2008). The acquisition of metaphors does not require the storage of the entire source domain together with the target domain. In fact, the only necessary establishment is that of new neural connections from the source to the target domain, in particular, those which save mental space (Lakoff & Johnson, 2003). Therefore, language learners need to be encouraged to reassign, and in this way link, existing vocabulary by comparing source and target domain structures.5. Metaphors are figurative, that is they draw mental pictures in assigning the source domain vocabulary to the target domain. Metaphor teaching should use visual materials to make the underlying mappings explicit to language users.6. Metaphors make abstract domains accessible. Thus, they are the cognitive tool that imparts scientific knowledge to the public and are most frequently used in academic discourse. Therefore, language learners, especially business English students, who are most likely to encounter abstract discourse, need to be able to decode linguistic metaphors.7. Metaphors highlight and at the same time hide certain aspects of target domains by choosing particular source domains and then utilizing only parts of the source domains for understanding. Therefore, language learners need to be sensitized to this construction of ambivalent reality and guided perception.8. Metaphors vary in degree of conventionality and are thus most likely processed differently. Elaboration on metaphor may enhance and improve storage and retrieval of vocabulary learning.9. Metaphors are highly culture-specific. Therefore, language learners need to learn about the cultural underpinnings of individual concepts used in the target language. Even metaphors that are biologically grounded in the organization of the human organism may lead to intercultural misunderstandings as they are not always universal.10. Metaphors differ from language to language. Therefore, the foreign language classroom needs to include a contrastive approach to study metaphor.The implications of metaphor teaching in the classroom proposed by Grundman (2009) show that metaphor plays significant roles in vocabulary learning and can be exploited in the ESL and ESP classrooms. Four significant implications should be given priority with regard to metaphor in ESL and ESP classrooms:1. Metaphors are ubiquitous in everyday communication, therefore it should be exploited in the classroom because metaphors can evoke phenomena that are likely to be familiar to learners from their everyday experiences.2. Metaphors are not arbitrary but can be traced from their source domain.3. Elaboration on metaphor can enhance and improve storage and retrieval of vocabulary.4. Metaphors can help explain abstract concepts to be more vivid and concrete.

2.6 COGNITIVE LINGUISTICS AND VOCABULARY LEARNINGWilkins (1974) points out that without grammar very little can be conveyed, but without vocabulary nothing can be conveyed. This best saying about the importance of vocabulary learning has been welcomed by teachers and learners for many years. Zhao (2003) proposes three principles based on cognitive linguistics to direct the teaching of vocabulary, that is, the study of categorization, prototype and metaphor.1. Categorization Categorization is the classification of things in the cognitive process. Correspondingly, the process that the subject interacts with the objects and classifies is a process of categorizing. On this basis, human can conceptualize and make sense of the world around them. More importantly, categories and categorizations exist everywhere and are ways we perceive the world, otherwise we cannot know it in an appropriate way (Glass & Holyoak, 1986; Zhao, 2003). Experience tells people that one object can at the same time belong to some multi-categories. For example, a husky (part wolf, part dog) can be listed under the categories of animals, dogs, puppy, dogs, etc. and constitutes the different levels of categories. In CL, human minds gets to know things at the middle level, on which they know objects most easily, and the categories in this level is thus called basic level category. Vocabulary that comes into existence on the basis of the basic categories goes to basic level vocabulary. A great emphasis should be given to the acquisition and instruction of basic vocabularies because basic lexicon is the basis for teaching other vocabulary categories. Linguistic categorization is the major focus of CL, because cognitive linguistics is not a single theory of language, but rather a cluster of theoretically and methodologically compatible approaches (Zhao, 2000). 2. PrototypeRosch (1988) carried out experiments of the category BIRD. She identified that to be a bird, it should share 13 common attributes, which involve (a) laying eggs, (b) having a beak (c) having two wings and two legs (d) having feathers (e) being able to fly (f) being small and lightweight g) chirps/sings (h) legs are thin/short (i) has long neck (j) has decorative feathers (k) has exotic colours (Ungerer & Schmid, 2001). She found that ROBIN shares the most attributes that resemble with other family members, which she classified as the prototype of the category BIRD. All the family members have similar features with the prototype. Prototype can be deduced from categorization experiments where some members of a category first come to mind in association experiments and are recognized more quickly as category members in verification tasks. If one takes these members as prototypes of the respective categories, this leads to definition like best example of category, salient example, clearest cases of category membership, most representatives of things included in a class (Rosch, 1988; Lakoff, 1986; Brown, 1990). Thus, the prototype of this theory can be applied to the understanding of polysemy of words. In other words, among the bundles of meaning of a certain vocabulary, there must be a core meaning that can be served as prototype of the others. Or all the other meanings are based on the extension or radiation of this prototypical meaning. For instance, the core meaning for the word down is of motion from a higher level to a lower level (the prototype). Then, following this prototype, there are expressions like he feels a bit down today or she is in the high spirit. As a result, the different meanings given in a dictionary is relatively limited and humans can in effect use the prototype and extend to many other meanings. In the teaching of English vocabulary, the teacher should try to make her students aware that the meaning of a word is not fixed and unchanged, but when using human cognitive imagination, there are some more correlated categories based on the prototypical meaning. Accordingly, core words are devised. Therefore, they are likely to be more useful than non-core words. Core words are typically those words used when defining other words. This approach can save students from blindly memorizing each meaning listed in the dictionary. Instead they are encouraged to learn vocabulary in a more scientific way by making full use of prototypical sense of the given semantic meaning.

3. Conceptual metaphorLakoff and Johnson (1980) note that the conceptual system that humans thought and behavior rely on is metaphoric in nature. In the same sense, metaphor is an important way of language change and development. The most important feature of metaphor is that its relatedness between things and categories. For example, the word leg can be used to refer to legs of human beings, legs of a chair, a bed, a table and so on which basically means the support of things. Vocabulary teaching and learning is a cycle of semantization and internalization, which is closely linked to and to a large extent dependent on the way a word is presented. To reduce students learning load and make sure that students can enlarge their vocabulary quickly and efficiently, a cognitive approach that is based on characterization, prototype and conceptual metaphor is a worthwhile attempt for learners to try out in both elementary and intermediate level of English Learning.

2.7 VOCABULARY LEARNING AND METAPHOR AWARENESSMetaphorical words or expressions do not just exist in academic reading text, it exists in everyday life. Reddy (1979) states that English, particularly ordinary everyday English is largely metaphorical. Low (1988) discusses that metaphors are so pervasive and argues that students need to develop metaphoric competence which according to him refers to awareness of words or expressions as metaphors, and strategies for comprehending and creating metaphors.In linguistic studies, metaphor awareness and linguistic awareness are interrelated. According to Carter (2003), linguistic awareness refers to the language learners deepened understanding of the linguistic form and function of the target language while metaphor awareness refers to the language learners enhanced awareness of metaphor and its function in language. In other words, metaphor awareness means that learners are aware and conscious of the metaphorical sense of words as they encounter them in their reading. A language learner with metaphor awareness is one who can identify metaphor in various forms, such as nominal metaphor, verbal metaphor and adverbial metaphor, after realizing the fact that metaphor exists in all languages and gaining knowledge of the formation of metaphor. Having had metaphor awareness has enabled them to extend the non-metaphorical meaning of words to metaphorical meaning. Schmidt (1995) addresses the notion of consciousness in the area of attention and language learning and says that consciousness or awareness is necessary for language learning to take place. Schmidt acknowledges the role of consciousness in language learning and argues that awareness is necessary in vocabulary learning. Learners select specific parts of the input they are exposed to which then become available for further processing.Boers (2004) points out that enhanced metaphoric awareness involve:1) Recognition of metaphor as a common ingredient of everyday language2) Recognition of the metaphoric themes (conceptual metaphors or source domains) behind many figurative expressions3) Recognition of non-arbitrary nature of many figurative expressions4) Recognition of possible cross-cultural differences in metaphoric themes5) Recognition of cross-linguistic variety in the linguistic instantiations of those metaphoric themesThere is a parallel between Boers (2004) enhanced metaphoric awareness and Grundmanns (2009) implications on metaphor teaching where both of them reach common ground that metaphor is a common ingredient of everyday language, metaphor is non-arbitrary but can be stimulated and metaphor can concretize abstract concept, thus making the explanation more vivid and concrete. The fact that metaphor allows human to think and talk about one domain of experience in terms of another can be exploited in order to help students understand new, unfamiliar phenomena in terms of phenomena they are familiar with. Metaphor can, therefore, help to make topics clearer, more accessible, and easier to imagine and remember. This is particularly important when learners are introduced to phenomena that are not just new to them, but also complex and inaccessible to ordinary perception. Metaphor also has the potential in helping learners to remember information, make inferences, answer questions and solve problems.Studies on metaphor awareness and vocabulary improvement are numerous. A recent study on metaphor awareness by Kalyuga & Kalyuga (2008) states that awareness of literal meaning or core meaning of metaphors or conceptual metaphors and grouping of various words and expressions in a metaphorical chunk may improve the process of vocabulary acquisition. Since words that appear in language as a result of the extension of metaphorical meaning resemble other etymologically-related words, this method may help learners in establishing mental associations and speed up learning, especially if students already know words to which the new vocabulary is related. Boers (2000) claims that various figurative expressions can often be traced back to a common metaphoric theme or source domain. He concludes that a lexical organization along such metaphoric themes or source domain can facilitate retention of unfamiliar figurative expressions. He also states that an enhanced metaphoric awareness on the part of language learners can be beneficial to their specialized reading.Charteris-Black (2000) says that metaphors provide insights into particular ways of thinking, both in general terms and in relation to the development of semi-technical registers. He asserts that vocabulary teaching to ESP economics students based on lexis that reflects important underlying metaphors of the subjects can help improve the comprehension of economic terminology.Another positive aspect of metaphor awareness application is that it may encourage students to figure out idiomatic expressions without the teachers assistance; and therefore help foster the development of learning independence and problem-solving skills (Kalyuga & Kalyuga, 2008). Moreover, the understanding of common metaphorical extensions in vocabulary may facilitate students understanding of cross cultural differences in metaphor usage and help to avoid errors caused by the mother tongue (Boers, 2003; Kovecses, 2002).Nation (2000) suggests that one useful strategy in learning polysemous words might be to define a word in terms of a concept which is utilized in all senses; such a strategy reduces the number of words to be learned. Thus, every occurrence of the word will act as a repetition of that word, rather than as a different one; and will therefore build on previous learning. Similar to Nation (2000), Verspoor and Lowie (2003) suggest that the effects of the guessing method for polysemous words can be made more effective and more efficient if the student is given the core sense of a target word and is consequently encouraged to make meaningful links between this sense and the other senses of a target word. The meaning will be processed at a deeper level (Craik & Lockhart, 1972).According to Brown and Perry (1991), a considerable amount of research has taken place since the late 1970s concerning vocabulary learning strategies. Emphases have mainly been on four strategies namely keyword (Pressly et al., 1982), contextual (Sternberg, 1987, Krashen, 1985; Mondria & Wit-de Boer, 1991; Laufer & Hulstjin, 2001; Cain, 2007; Pulido, 2007), semantic processing (Beck, Meckeown & Omanson, 1987) and awareness of the conceptual metaphor (Nation, 2000; Verspoor & Lowie, 2003; Boers, 2004; Charteris- Black & Ennis, 2001; Csabi, 2004; Deignan, Gabrys & Solska, 1997; Herrera & White, 2000; Kondaiah, 2004; Cameron & Low, 1999; Cameron, 1999; Kovecses & Szabo, 1996; Lazar, 1996; Kalyuga & Kalyuga, 2008).Brown and Perry (1991) mention that keyword method has received most attention and has been shown to be superior to contextual and no-strategy conditions. Sternberg (1987) claims that even though most vocabulary is learned from context, it does not necessarily mean that teaching specific vocabulary using context is the most effective or even relatively effective way of teaching that vocabulary. The fourth strategy, that is teaching vocabulary through raising metaphor awareness, is just beginning to receive attention in applied linguistics. Kalyuga and Kalyuga (2008) state that in recent years, studies in applied linguistics have been successfully adapted to facilitate foreign language vocabulary acquisition. In particular, steps have been taken to find out how metaphor awareness can increase the speed of vocabulary learning. These studies have demonstrated that knowledge of conceptual metaphors has a positive effect on a students ability to acquire polysemantic words and idiomatic expressions. Boers (2000a) in his experiments to measure the potential benefits of organizing figurative expressions according to their underlying metaphoric themes concluded that a lexical organization along such metaphoric themes or source domains can facilitate retention of unfamiliar figurative expressions. In his other study Boer (2000b) investigated whether students can cope better with specialized reading of economics if their metaphoric awareness is enhanced. One of the ways to raise learners metaphoric awareness is to draw their attention to the source domain or to the origin of unfamiliar figurative expressions as they encounter in their specialized reading. He concludes that an enhanced metaphoric awareness may help students to recognize the inference patterns associated with given figurative expression and thus remember unfamiliar figurative pattern. Henderson (1986) also proposes to raise students awareness of the role of metaphors in theory construction and question formulation in economics as a social science. Helping economics students to recognize the metaphors behind commonly accepted economics models and encouraging them to adopt alternative metaphorical perspective may foster a questioning attitude. By questioning attitude, he means that the inquisitive mind that learners have that is manifested in their habit of asking questions. Kalyuga and Kalyuga (2008) investigated how an awareness of conceptual metaphor and grouping of various words and expressions in a metaphorical chunk according to shared metaphorical themes may improve the process of vocabulary acquisition. They concluded that the presentation of vocabulary in chunks united by the same metaphorical themes could create a mental link and enhance learning by reducing a potential cognitive overload and associated learning burden. This method also may help learners in establishing mental associations and speed up learning, especially if students already know words to which new vocabulary is related. Charteris-Black (2000) suggests that conceptual metaphor can be made useful for vocabulary teaching in ESP Economics. He claims that familiarity with the metaphors through which impersonal and abstract processes are conceptualized seems a valuable addition to content-based ESP approaches. Learning a semi-technical register requires teaching the subject specific meanings of vocabulary and this provides the L2 learner with insight into the conceptual domain of their subject. Ortony (1993) summarizes three ways in which metaphor facilitates learning namely compactness, vividness and inexpressibility. Compactness involves the transfer from well-known to less well-known domains, vividness allows a more memorable learning experience due to the greater imagery, and inexpressibility shows that metaphors work by encoding certain aspects of peoples experience which seems to be impossible to encode. Together these three elements provide a strong basis for the claim that learning can be enhanced through the use of metaphors. Deignan et al. (1997) suggest that since metaphor is recognized as pervasive in language, more attention should be given to the teaching of strategy for comprehending and generating metaphors in L2. The researchers investigated the extent to which a small set of metaphorical expressions have equivalents across two languages (English and Polish), and whether metaphorical expressions might create difficulties for students. They suggested that raising metaphor awareness through discussion and comparison of metaphors in L1 and L2 is a useful approach to helping learners understand and appropriately produce metaphors. Lazar (1996) suggests three implications of using metaphors for language learning namely understanding metaphorical language involves a process of inference, metaphorical language ranges from the conventional to the original and metaphorical meanings are culturally determined. Vocabulary learning through metaphor awareness can be achieved through two means namely i) an explicit reference to the literal sense or origin ii) grouping figurative expressions under their source domains. The first means will be the main focus of the present study. Furthermore, the study also aims to explore the density of metaphorical words in the specialized texts and to find out the effects of metaphor awareness on the improvement of vocabulary learning and reading comprehension.2.8 VOCABULARY LEARNING AND CONTEXTUAL GUESSING Vocabulary learning through context helps learners learn specific strategies for acquiring words (Oxford & Scarcella, 1994: 231). Oxford (1986) advances the point that discrete learning democratizes the learning process by transferring more responsibility to students. Moreover Honeyfield (1977) points out that it is important to provide learners with strategies for inferring the meaning of unknown vocabulary from the context in which it occurs rather than having learners simply memorize long lists of words that makes the learning process slow and tedious. They should also be taught and encouraged to look for contextual clues to guess the meaning and function of an unknown word.Nation (1990) argues that because of the large number of low frequency words and because of their infrequent occurrence and narrow range, it is best to teach learners strategies for dealing with these words rather than to teach the words themselves. He further adds that a large proportion of the unknown words (at least 80 percent) can be successfully dealt with in this way. Similarly, Sternberg (1987) claims that most vocabulary is learned from context. Some researchers (Clarke & Nation, 1980; Liu & Nation, 1985) discuss factors that affect guessing vocabulary in context. According to them techniques and type of clues can provide information to help learners in guessing. According to Steinberg (1978), grammar, punctuation, definition, contrast, connectives, reference words, word analysis, and the learners experience and common sense could help learners in guessing the unfamiliar words in texts. Similar studies on metaphor awareness and on contextual guessing and vocabulary improvement have been carried out. According to Cain (2007) although context will not always reveal word meanings, the presence of written context to learn the meaning of new words and to elaborate the meaning of less familiar words are crucial. Other studies in vocabulary learning strategy highlight the importance of inferring meanings of words from context (e.g., Ittzes, 1991; Nagy, 1997; Schouten-van Parreren, 1992; Cain, 2007; Mondria & Boer, 1991; Pulido, 2007). These studies usually show that words must be offered in rich contexts to provide the learners with cues to learn new words. One way of using a context effectively is to ask the learner to guess explicitly the meaning of a word within its context. Advocates of the guessing method (e.g., Dupuy & Krashen, 1993; Schouten-van Parreren, 1992) argue that inference leads to better retention of vocabulary than learning words in isolation because increased mental effort should have a positive effect on retention. Schouten-van Parreren (1992) states that the inference of the meaning of words is conducive to retention. She further explains that in the process of guessing, the reader makes associations between the context and his own personal knowledge (both linguistic knowledge and knowledge of the world) and also guessing results in a strong affective involvement on the part of the guesser, especially if the guessing is followed by the verification of the meaning. Sternberg (1987: 20) claims that the greatest part of our own vocabulary has been acquired as a result of encountering words in a certain context or situation, from which we have inferred the meaning. Schouten-van Parreren (1992) has found that guessing of new words from the context yielded better results in a composition test in which words had to be used actively than when words were semanticized by means of pictures or through synonyms. Carpay (1975) carried out a series of experiments in which students of psychology were required to learn Russian using texts. The results showed that through the inference of meanings from the context, words could indeed be learnt receptively. Li (2002) carried out an experiment in which well-educated subjects had to guess the meaning of unknown foreign words with the aid of a sentence context. It was found that of the words that were guessed with the aid of a good cue in the reading condition, 74 percent were known in the (receptive) retention test.To summarize, the empirical research on the hypothesis that guessing is conducive to retention has so far provided inconclusive evidence of the superiority of this method with respect to others. It can be concluded that contextual guessing, on its own, is not sufficient in helping learners to enhance their vocabulary. Metaphor awareness method should be incorporated as one of the alternative methods in vocabulary learning and reading comprehension.

2.9 READING COMPREHENSIONThe present study provides a view of the reading comprehension from the perspective of Schema Theory. Schema theory is a theory of how knowledge is acquired, processed and retrieved. Schema theory is based on the belief that every act of comprehension involves ones knowledge of the world (Anderson et al., 1977, cited in Carrell & Eisterhold, 1983). Schemata reflect the experiences, conceptual understanding, attitudes, values, skills, and strategies one brings to a text situation (Vacca & Vacca, 1999).Research on the theory of schema has had great impact on understanding reading comprehension in first and second language (Carrell & Eisterhold, 1983; Vacca & Vacca, 1999). It made clear the case that understanding the role of schema in the reading process provides insights into why students may fail to comprehend text material. Students are in a better position to comprehend their assigned reading when they are familiar with the topic of the text they are reading, aware of the discourse level and structural make-up of the genre of the text, and skillful in decoding features needed to recognize words and recognize how they fit together in a sentence. Carrell (1988) points out that students apparent reading problems may be problems of insufficient background knowledge. However, as further pointed out by the same author, students might have sufficient schemata, yet unable to comprehend the text if such schemata are not appropriately activated.According to Brown (2001) with regards to reading, a text does not by itself carry meaning. The reader brings information, knowledge, emotion and culture that is schemata to the printed words. Clark and Silberstein (1977) indicate that research has shown that reading is only incidentally visual. More information is contributed by the reader than by the print on the page. An understanding of a text depends on how much schema one as readers, possess while reading. Consequently, readers failure or confusion in making sense of a text is caused by the lack of appropriate schemata that can easily fit with the content of the text. This lack of appropriate schemata can be either formal or content-based. Brown (2000) defines these two as follows: content schemata includes what one knows about people, the world, culture and the universe, while formal schemata consists of ones knowledge about discourse structure. Research in the area of schema theory and reading comprehension conclude that the closer the match between the readers schema and the text, the more comprehension occur (Brown, 2000). Comprehension of any kind depends on knowledge that is relating what people do not know to what they know. In other words, peoples understanding of a text depends on how much related schemata they as readers posses while reading. Consequently, failure of L1 or L2 readers to make sense of a text could be caused by the lack of an appropriate schema that can easily fit within the content of the text. This missing of an appropriate schema can be content, formal or linguistic.According to Carrell (1981), the text must activate in the reader, all of the appropriate cognitive schemata in order to comprehend. When reading a story with a familiar theme, especially one from the native culture, L2 readers might more easily activate the appropriate background concepts and hence more efficiently process the text. Not only is it important for the reader to have background knowledge to read more efficiently, but that knowledge also needs to be activated.

2.10 THE ROLE OF METAPHOR IN READING COMPREHENSIONFrom the perspective of cognitive linguistics, metaphor offers significant values in reading comprehension especially in specialized texts. This is because it has a special role in organizing conceptual knowledge through the interaction of two domains: source domain and target domain. Allbrighton and McKoon (1995) call the structure that maps source domain onto the target domain metaphor-based schema. In their research, Allbritton and McKoon claim that metaphor can aid in the comprehension of new information. They further claim that in our characterization of metaphor-based schemas, we have assumed that they are part of the world knowledge that readers bring to the process of text comprehension (p.613). An example of this is the use of metaphorical expressions in situations where the topic of the discourse is scientific, complex and highly abstract. Concrete source domains are then often metaphorically employed to explain scientific, abstract and difficult processes or events to make them easier to understand. Studies that deal with this aspect of metaphor predominantly focus on genres such as academic discourse, popular scientific prose, and educational discourse, both written and spoken. Mayer (1993) discusses metaphor and students understanding of science and how metaphor awareness can aid in the understanding of abstract scientific topics. He suggests that the instructive nature of metaphors, which set up analogies between the topic and the metaphor, is important in students understanding of the topic. More recently, Nuez (2008) showed that in technical books and articles about mathematics, highly conventional spatial source domains such as MOTION, ROTATION and OBJECTS IN BOUNDED SPACE were used to talk about complex, abstract mathematical issues such as limits and continuity functions. In addition, some of the gestures made in university-level classes that Nuez analysed depicted the same ideas; lecturers used their hands to make rotating and spatial movements while explaining the abstract issues. As Nuez suggests, these gestures reflect the idea that these concepts were also psychologically real for the persons using them. Darian (2000) studied the role of metaphor in the explanation and teaching of science, and its function in scientific texts. According to him, metaphorical expressions are common in biology texts. For example, the word factory in a sentence like Imagine the many millions of chloroplasts in just one lettuce leaf, each a tiny factory for producing sugars and starches (p. 171). Cameron (2003) found that groups of metaphors, or clusters, tended to appear close together in explanations of difficult concepts, illustrated by a stretch of talk in which a teacher explains the phenomenon of volcanic lava. Concrete metaphorical expressions such as treacle, runny butter and a bit like wax were used by the teacher intentionally and close together to refer to the working of volcanic lava, and were preceded and followed by stretches of talk in which only a few and highly conventional metaphors occurred. Tomohiro and Takashi (2000) claimed that there was a significant effect of metaphor awareness on reading comprehension. Metaphors that existed in texts helped readers acquire information because many important concepts were abstract and metaphors were needed to grasp them. According to Reynolds and Schwartz (1983), the memorability of passages is increased when the concluding statement is metaphorical rather than literal.In relation to the explanatory function of metaphors in science-related discourse, there is another function of metaphor in educational discourse, in written text books as well as spoken classroom interaction, which has to do with the topic or classroom management. Low (2005: 137) suggested that for at least one of the texts used in his study, the author made use of metaphor to summarize, disengage and evaluate a topic immediately prior to changing the topic. The metaphorical expressions there seemed not only used to explain the difficult topic, but also to summarize it more clearly. For spoken classroom interaction, Cameron and Low (2004: 360) showed that metaphors can have similar framing functions; they were used in an organisational manner, concerned with the design of the classroom and to negotiate with students about what was going to happen in the lesson or task. However, research on the roles of metaphor in text comprehension are still scarce in Malaysia. One study was found on the effects of conceptual mapping on reading comprehension. Rasaya and Elangkeeran (2005) in their experimental study on the effects of concept mapping as a cognitive strategy in reading comprehension among UiTM students in Terengganu found that the use of appropriate cognitive strategies could promote reading comprehension skills and also help in nurturing learners to be autonomous.

2.11 COGNITIVE LINGUISTICS AND METAPHOR TEACHINGCL highlights the main function of language as a tool of conceptualization (Radden & Dirven, 2007, p.17). Language is seen as a concrete evident or output of our cognitive process (input). CL views language as a major means to manifest human cognitive process. In other words, the cognitive process is realized through language used: spoken or written language (Rudzka-Ostyn, 2003). Furthermore, CL asserts that language is part of a cognitive system which comprises perception, emotion, categorization, abstraction process and reasoning (Dirven & Verspoor, 2004, p.9). Within the framework of CL, language is considered as an integral part of the cognition system. Tyler (2008) summarizes that language is a reflection of general cognitive process p.12.Juchem-Grundmann (2009) outlines the three basic principles of explicit language teaching in the classroom namely (1) explicitly activating already acquired knowledge to make sense of the newly learned knowledge (2) showing possible links between the existing and new knowledge structure (3) encouraging the embedding of a new information into the existing web of knowledge. Metaphors lend themselves to teaching in the framework of the cognitive linguistic paradigm for several reasons (Grundmann, 2009) namely i) Metaphors are grounded in human socio-cultural experience, ii) Metaphors enable abstract events to be understood by means of understanding concrete events, iii) Metaphors are means to construct or reconstruct concrete knowledge structures in abstract domains.Boers (2000) reported a study on conceptual metaphor in specialized reading. The study focused on whether metaphor awareness made a difference in the students ability to decode and interpret the metaphorical words used in the expressions. In this experiment, two groups (N=85) were presented with a reading text. A vocabulary list which also incorporated explanations for the five metaphorical expressions had been explicitly put into the text for the purpose of the study. The control group was provided with a glossary list that gave explanations based on the context of economics. The experimental group was given the explanation based on the source domain. After having read the text, the students were tested on their comprehension by means of statements concerning the text content, which they had to agree or disagree with. The result of the study showed that the experimental group outperformed the control group in decoding and interpreting the inference in the texts. These findings provide empirical evidence for two aspects in favor of raising metaphor awareness namely that the students were able to successfully make the transfer from non metaphorical meaning to metaphorical meaning. Secondly, metaphor awareness might improve the ability to understand texts in detail (Boer, 2000). Three days after the reading comprehension was given, Boers administered a follow-up gap-filling test with which he researched the effect of unfamiliar vocabulary in the source domain context had on the retention of the five targeted items. He concluded that the subjects in the experimental group turned out to be more likely to reproduce at least one of the targeted metaphorical expressions. In other words, the metaphor awareness, which had supposedly been increased by presenting the vocabulary with the source domain explanation, might have significantly contributed to retention of vocabulary.Deignan, Gabry and Solska (1997) reported an experiment with 143 Polish students of English who had been asked to translate 68 English sentences into Polish. Students were informed not to do word by word translation but they were asked to do translation based on the whole meaning into Polish.The experiment did not aim to compare the different result of students after certain intervention but it addressed the issue of contrastive research as a necessity for gaining metaphor awareness. As a result of the study, four different types of cross-cultural metaphor variations used in the students translation were identified that required different degrees of contrastive research and metaphor awareness: (1) same conceptual metaphors and equivalent linguistic expressions (2) same conceptual metaphors but different linguistic expressions (3) different conceptual metaphors (4) words similar in literal meanings but different in metaphorical meanings (Deignan et al., 1997).On the basis of these four variations, Deignan et al. (1997) developed the awareness raising activities. The first task provided the students with a Polish text and its English translation in which the linguistic metaphors were enhanced in bold print. Students were simply asked to read the text and discus the highlighted expressions. In the second task, the students were provided with a set of six English sentences and source domain concepts (plants), they were asked to underline all words and phrases in the sentences to do with the source domain, define these words in the given context by consulting a dictionary and finally instructed to think about the concept of plant in their native tongue and whether the linguistic metaphors used in the English sentences could also be used in a Polish translation. The third task again provided students with six isolated English sentences. In this task the students were instructed to underline words for the same target concept, namely increase and decrease of economical key data such as prices, inflation or unemployment. Furthermore they were supposed to use a dictionary to find the literal meaning of the expressions and instructed to find the differences to the metaphorical context used in the examples sentences. This study provided insights on how to possibly deal with metaphors and draw attention to linguistic metaphors in the foreign language classroom. Most importantly, the main focus of Deignans study was to give the explicit guidance back to the literal meaning, the source domain and the comparison of the different meanings. Deignan et al. (1997) concluded that students found it easier to learn English metaphors if their awareness on metaphor were raised and they were asked to compare the use of metaphor in English and their mother tongue.Boers (2000) studied the benefits of metaphor awareness rising for productive language output with 73 French students of Business English. Provided with a list of vocabulary for up and downward movements and given 10 minutes to study the vocabulary items, students were presented with graphs depicting the growth of economic key data and asked to write a short essay describing the graphs. Although this general experimental set up was the same for both groups (experimental and control), the handout with the sample lexis varied in the last sentence of the instruction. The sample lexis in the experimental group focused on explicitly drawing students attention to the source domain of the targeted words, while the sample lexis in the control group was focused on the speed of development or change. The analysis of the students texts showed that the experimental group significantly outperformed the control group in productive usage of the targeted linguistic metaphors. In this study, Boers expanded the task from a mere receptive and analytical task to a productive and creative task. Indeed, in this study linguistic metaphors were explicitly taught to expand productive vocabulary and provide students with a tool to become more precise.Inspired by the earlier results, Boers (2000) carried out another experiment that explicitly taught linguistic metaphors. This was done by grouping them under the source domain headings. 118 Flemish secondary school pupils, subdivided into two groups, read a sample text dealing with emotions and received additional vocabulary notes. They were supposed to study for 10 minutes. Again, the additional vocabulary notes in the experimental group were sorted under the heading of source domains (e.g. anger welled up inside of me was grouped under anger as hot fluid in a container). The vocabulary utilized for the control groups were grouped along different pragmatic or functional lines (e.g. anger welled up inside of me was grouped under to describe anger as a process). Most importantly there were no written explanations or translations given, the vocabulary was only presented in groups. After the reading and subsequent study of vocabulary, the students were engaged in a guided discussion about anger and conflicts. There, they had the chance to make use of and try out their newly acquired vocabulary which was finally tested in a closed test. In this experiment, the students were explicitly encouraged to give alternative possibilities for the different gaps in order to offer more opportunities to make use of the targeted vocabulary. The output analysis of the targeted vocabulary compared between the two groups revealed significant differences in the scores. The experimental group was found to outperform the control group. Boers concluded that a basic awareness of the source domain behind the vocabulary could facilitate retention.Berendi (2005) conducted a similar experiment to Boers (2000) concerning the language material used as well as the teaching and testing procedure. In this study, students were confronted with a text filled with linguistic metaphors of anger and additional vocabulary notes that listed all targeted items but were asked to first read then translate the items. Afterwards, they were given some time to memorize the vocabulary and finally had to do a cloze test with the encouragement to list all alternatives for the individual gaps. Vocabulary for the control group was listed in order of appearance and for the experimental group the source domain was highlighted. Unlike Boers, Berendi differentiated four different groups. Apart from the regular control group (Group 1), Berendi distinguished three experimental groups that received different degrees of information on their handouts. The metaphor group (Group 2) received the vocabulary sorted by source domain. The metaphor finder group (Group 3) received the vocabulary similar to the control group sorted in order of appearance but was told about the four metaphoric themes prevalent in the text, and was instructed to identify these and group the vocabulary respectively (to give an example two of the four conceptual metaphors were already given). The last, the image group (Group 4), also received the vocabulary list in order of appearance but was additionally provided with illustrative drawings and further instructed to match the examples with the drawing. In addition to the four different sets of materials, Berendi also varied the degree of instructions. In the metaphor group, she started with a general discussion of idioms, activated students pre-knowledge, triggered their attitude towards idioms and explicitly introduced the idea of underlying metaphoric motivation followed by a discussion of the conceptual metaphor ANGER IS HOT FLUID IN A CONTAINER. The metaphor-finder group also started with a general discussion of idioms but did not go into details with the underlying metaphoric concepts. After the varied starters, the reading and the working with the vocabulary, all four groups had to translate the targeted items, which functioned as a analysis toll referred to as the comprehension of the figurative meanings check. Analyzing the quality of the translation, Berendi found out that the rate of misunderstanding was significantly lower in the metaphor group than in the control group. This provided evidence for the hypothesis that knowledge about the underlying conceptual metaphor facilitated understanding. The comprehension findings for the metaphor-finder group and the image group drew a different picture, which made Berendi concluded that only the explicit awareness raising was effective, the implicit attempt at the activation of metaphorical competence in the form of images and encouraging the self-reliant recognition of common sources without prior instruction was not (Berendi, 2005, p.15). Berendi concluded that the introduction to the conceptual framework in the introduction made all the difference as it encouraged students to realize the connection between source and target right from the start and to use these when decoding the expressions. Consequently, as far as comprehension is concerned, Berendi clearly argued in favor of explicit teaching, that is making metaphorical mappings the topic of teaching. Similar to Berendi (2005), Li (2002) reported on a program of explicit metaphor instruction trying out different methods of teaching. He conducted a series of experiments with 394 Chinese learners of English. The study involved testing for effective conceptual metaphor knowledge on vocabulary recall. Explicit guided class-room discussions, explicit application of conceptual mappings, and the use of visuals for mnemonic support constituted the experimental conditions. Li did not focus on familiarizing students with linguistic metaphors by introducing the conceptual metaphor. However, he used simple semantic sets as experimental condition. In this experiment, phrases were grouped under super ordinate terms, such as anger, insanity or revelation. In his experiment, Li intended to show that positive effects were mainly due to conceptual metaphor and not because of reasonable grouping. The other experimental condition explicitly addressed imaging in questioning the students what image they had in mind when processing the linguistic metaphors and what the implications were. This way, Li hoped to initiate visual processing. In other words, all three conditions made more or less use of concepts, only the degree of cognitive activation differed. In the experiments, the conceptual metaphor-group significantly outperformed the other groups in the post-test (Li, 2002). Lis experiment tackling linguistic metaphors of different degrees of complexity, that is from simple linguistic metaphors to multi-word idioms, suggested that a conceptual metaphor approach fostered meaning recall but did not significantly influence the recall of form as the results for the most complex category showed. Another interesting study similar to the ones discussed earlier is by Caballero-Rodriguez (2003). In this study, Caballero-Rodriguez investigated the teaching of metaphors to architects. Focusing on the analysis of specialized architecture discourse for the use of metaphors, Caballero-Rodriguez did not present an empirical study of teaching metaphors but rather suggested how to approach teaching on the basis of this experience. However, she highlighted some useful insights to the present study. According to her, explicit presentation and explanation of conceptual metaphors would be helpful for vocabulary learning. The success of metaphor teaching demands the active role of the learners in accomplishing both comprehension and production tasks (Caballero-Rodriquez, 2003). Hong-Mei (2010) in her recent study, suggests some insights on how metaphor awareness could be utilized in the English language classroom:1. Teachers should make their students aware of the ubiquity and significance of metaphors in their daily life. They should be made to understand the nature of conceptual metaphors, the differences between metaphoric expressions and conceptual metaphors in general and realize the significance of conceptual metaphors in language learning.2. Teachers can use conceptual metaphors to explain the existence of some word formations. According to Lakoff and Johnson (2009), the way the world is perceived is largely metaphorical and all concepts are structured on the basis of one experience. The experience is interactions between human and the physical environment or other people within their culture.3. Metaphors can be used to explain the reasonableness of the collocation of words. The structure of one concept can be used to form another concept. Therefore, many aspects of a word can be used to talk about another concept. For example, Time flows, current of history are derived from the same conceptual metaphor TIME IS RIVER. A variety of words originally used to talk about river can naturally be used to talk about time.Radden (1997) points out, the idea of combining the teaching of linguistic metaphors with insights into their cognitive stimulation results in insightful learning that is more successful than schematic rote learning. Indeed, elaborating on metaphoric motivation means asking the basic question of how humans, and in foreign language teaching, native speakers of the language, perceive and accordingly construe the world and in which way this is shown in language. Metaphoric motivation is mainly based in the underlying conceptual metaphors. Therefore, these concepts in their coherent structure, that is different mappings between source and target domain, should be made explicit in the foreign language classroom. Concepts become the organizing principle for vocabulary in order to create semantic webs that provide learners with vocabulary for at least two domains: the source and target domain. Vocabulary would not be learned twice in different contexts but simply reassigned, that is explicitly linked to another domain (Juchem-Grundmann & Krennmayar, 2009). The motivation of linguistic metaphors can be derived from the conceptual metaphor ACTIVE IS UP, INACTIVE IS DOWN and HEALTHY IS UP in simple statements the company set up a new business or the company had to close down a factory. By introducing the conceptual metaphor ACTIVE IS UP, INACTIVE IS DOWN and HEALTHY IS UP, students are not only enabled to recognize the metaphorical usage of language in to set up and to close down, but they also understand the choice of the particle. When they understand the conceptual metaphors, the old traditional habit of memorizing words in parrot-like fashion is substituted by the deeper understanding thus result in long term retention. Teachers should provide linguistic input or device exercises to activate familiar vocabulary of the same concept and in this way encourage linkage between the newly encountered metaphorical expressions and other already familiar linguistic instantiations. With insights into the conceptual motivation of metaphors, students will not only be able to decode several verbal expressions and understand their choices, but they will also be able to usefully organize the newly acquired expressions. Thus, acquiring concepts becomes the guiding tool towards learning as well as towards organizing this learning (Juchem-Grundmann, 2009).Littlemore (2009) claims that insights into the motivation of metaphors mainly serve language comprehension (p.13). What is in general claimed to assist language comprehension, namely teaching the decoding of metaphorical language by referring to the underlying concepts is implied to be expandable to language production. Insights into conceptual grounding paint a bigger picture namely the connection of whole concepts, and may thus facilitate language production as much as language comprehension (Juchem-Grundmann, 2009; Caballero, 2003).Exploiting conceptual metaphor for language production should be the next step in language teaching. Juchem-Grundmann (2009) suggests two strategies that need to be discriminated in language production namely making use of existing linguistic metaphors and extending metaphorical language within common conceptual frameworks. Boers (2004) states that metaphor provides learners with a tool to extend the meaning of simple and concrete words utilized to denote more complex and abstract concepts; concepts for which they have not yet acquired precise terms. Thus, students should apply previously acquired vocabulary to new domains in order to discern the unfamiliar. The following are guidelines for metaphor teaching in English language classroom (Juchem-Grundmann, 2009).1. Examine course book texts for linguistic metaphors. If necessary, design new or edit existing texts in order to systematically make use of linguistic metaphors and thus lend themselves more easily to teaching conceptual metaphors.2. Organize vocabulary learning along conceptual metaphors.3. Draw attention to type and function of metaphors.4. Conduct etymological and diachronic research for linguistic metaphors.5. Elaborate on cognitive motivation of metaphors.Most importantly, teachers should give an emphasis on teaching the concepts instead of teaching the expressions because concepts ease understanding, improve storage and retrieval and enable a creative application.

2.12 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKThe approach to metaphors in this study is based on Cognitive Linguistic Theory, henceforth (CLT) under the broader Constructivism theory. The constructivist approach looks at metaphors as being instrumental in constructing reality and is considered a phenomena of both language and thought. This approach has produced numerous theories concerning metaphor description, processing and production over the last two decades (Kittay, 1987; Lakoff, 1987; Turner, 1987; Johnson, 1988; Steen, 1994; Gibbs, 1994). CLT views language as part of the cognitive system which comprises perception, emotions, categorizations, abstraction process and reasoning (Dirven & Verspoor, 2004). In this view, cognitive process is manifested through language used: spoken and written. CLT exemplifies that metaphor plays a major role in the way human think, the way human speak, and the way human live. Constructivism views metaphor as a tool to construct reality, while CL under constructivism extends its view on metaphor as seeing one thing in terms of another or seeing abstract reality in terms of concrete reality (Nation, 2000; Verspoor & Lowie, 2003; Boers, 2004; Charteris-Black & Ennis, 2001; Csabi, 2004; Deignan, Gabrys & Solska, 1997; Herrera & White, 2000; Kondaiah, 2004; Cameron & Low, 1999; Cameron, 1999; Kovecses & Szabo, 1996; Lazar, 1996; Kalyuga & Kalyuga, 2008).The cognitive approach to metaphors was largely initiated by Lakoff and Johnson (1980). Lakoff and Johnson claim the metaphor is not only a poetic device, but it is also pervasive throughout everyday language. The ubiquity of metaphor structures not only govern how human talk, but also how they think and act. In this approach, the assumption that conventional language is essentially literal is seen as false; rather the essence of metaphors is seen as how one mental domain is conceptualized in terms of another (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980). Primacy is thus given to metaphors as a way of thinking about one idea in terms of another. For example; 1. He has a wealth of ideas 2. I see what youre saying According to Lakoff and Johnson (1980) wealth and see are the instantiations of the underlying conceptual metaphors. In this case, ideas are conceptualized as money and see is conceptualized as understanding as opposed to their entailed/literal meanings. A conceptual metaphor hence, is a unidirectional linking of two different concepts, where some of the attributes of one thing (money) are transferred to another (ideas). In this study, two important terms of conceptual metaphors and linguistic metaphors will be used widely. A conceptual metaphor refers to the thought or concept and is denoted by capital letters, for example, IDEAS ARE MONEY and UNDERSTANDING IS SEEING (these two are metaphoric because they refer to the concepts or thoughts of underlying meanings). Linguistic metaphors, on the other hand, are the realization of conceptual metaphors and refer to words, phrases, or sentences occurring in spoken language, or written texts (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980). The description of a metaphor in the present study is based on Lakoff and Johnsons (1980) comprehensive view of metaphors as conceptual and linguistic. Figure 2.2 illustrates the theoretical framework and the outcome of the present study.

The Summary of the thesis is illustrated in the diagram below: CONSTRUCTIVISM

Cognitive Linguistics (CL)

Conceptual Metaphor (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980)

Target DomainSource Domain

Linguistic Metaphor

Textual Analysis and Metaphor Awareness

Enhancement of reading comprehensionEnhancement of vocabulary

Figure 2.2: Theoretical Framework