Stylistic techniques in modern English-language literature: perception of metaphors by students of linguistic specialties
How to cite
Abstract
The article is devoted to the study of the perception of metaphors in modern English-language literature by students of linguistic disciplines. The purpose of the work is to identify the peculiarities of interpretation and evaluation of metaphorical expressions depending on the level of linguistic competence and literary training of respondents. The methodology includes linguistic analysis of texts, psycholinguistic experiment (semantic scaling), statistical data processing. The empirical basis was based on the results of a survey of 120 Russian university students. It is established that the interpretation of metaphors is determined by the interaction of linguistic and extralinguistic factors. Significant differences in the perception of metaphors between elementary and senior students are revealed. There is a positive correlation between the level of literary training and the ability to recognize non-obvious metaphorical connections. The results of the research contribute to the theory and practice of linguistic education, and open up prospects for optimizing the teaching of stylistics and text interpretation. The vectors of further interdisciplinary research at the intersection of linguistics, literary studies and pedagogy are outlined.
Keywords
References
Boers F. Cognitive semantic ways of teaching figurative phrases: An assessment // Review of cognitive linguistics. 2011. № 9(1). рр. 227-261.
Boers F. Expanding learners' vocabulary through metaphor awareness: What expansion, what learners, what vocabulary // Cognitive linguistics, second language acquisition, and foreign language teaching, 2004. pp. 211-232.
Deignan A., Littlemore J., Semino E. Figurative language, genre and register. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013. 341 p.
Doiz A., Elizari C. Metaphoric competence and the acquisition of figurative vocabularyin foreign language learning // Estudios de lingüística inglesa aplicada, 2013. № 13. рр. 47-82.
Gibbs Jr.R.W. The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008. 566 p.
Glucksberg S. How metaphors create categories-quickly // The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought. 2008. pp. 67-83.
Kövecses Z. Conceptual metaphor theory // The Routledge handbook of metaphor and language. 2016. pp. 13-27.
Lakoff G., Johnson M. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago press, 2008. 256 р.
Littlemore J. Applying cognitive linguistics to second language learning and teaching. Cham: Springer, 2009. 212 p.
Littlemore J., Chen P., Barnden J., Koester A. Difficulties in metaphor comprehension faced by international students whose first language is not English // Applied linguistics. 2011. № 32(4). рр. 408-429.
Littlemore J., Low G. Metaphoric competence, second language learning, and communicative language ability // Applied linguistics. 2006. № 27(2). рр. 268-294.
MIP: A method for identifying metaphorically used words in discourse // Pragglejaz Group. Metaphor and symbol. 2007. № 22(1). рр. 1-39.
Nacey S. Metaphors in learner English. Vol. 2. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing, 2013. 290 p.
Semino E. Metaphor in discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008.
Steen G.J., Dorst A.G., Herrmann J.B., Kaal A., Krennmayr T., Pasma T. A method for linguistic metaphor identification: From MIP to MIPVU. Vol. 14. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing, 2010.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
Metrics
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.