RESEARCH PAPER
Exploring Italian High School Students’
Metaphors of Language Learning
Luciano Mariani, Freelance, Milan, Italy
This paper reports the results of a survey I carried out on the beliefs and attitudes held by Italian upper-secondary
school students about foreign language learning. The survey was prompted by my experience in teacher training
courses, where teachers often wondered what factors were responsible for unsatisfactory learning outcomes,
even in contexts where teaching strategies and materials seemed to be grounded on sound methodological choices. This led me to consider aspects of learning which lie “below the surface” of students’ behaviour, and in particular the role that their beliefs and attitudes play in explaining how a curriculum is perceived, interpreted, and implemented in a school context. In this paper I will first illustrate the cognitive nature of beliefs, their corresponding
affective component (i.e., attitudes), and their influence on the learning process. I will then introduce the use of
metaphors as a useful tool for probing learners’ beliefs and attitudes, and outline how the research was designed
to explore students’ conceptualisations of both the knowledge of foreign languages and the process of language
learning. Results show that students tend to describe language knowledge in terms of motivation, interculturalcommunicative competence, affective implications, mastery of a system, equivalence of L1 and L2 learning, andsimilarity with other skills. Language learning is mainly seen in terms of a very demanding task, which is perceived
either as a productive experience or as a (nearly) impossible undertaking, but also as “learning from scratch” andas a game and pleasant experience. I conclude by considering ways in which these insights can be used by teachers to address their students’ “hidden agenda” and highlighting the role that an increased awareness of beliefs
and attitudes can play in the language classroom.
本稿はイタリア人高校生を対象に実施した外国語学習に関するビリーフと態度に関するアンケート調査結果である。本調査は教員養成課
程を担当する筆者自身の経験に端を発しているが、確固たる方法論に基づく教授法や教材を用いた学習環境に於いてさえ、望ましくない
学習成果を生み出す要因について教員たちは日々考えを巡らせている。そして筆者自身、生徒の行動の「水面下にある」学習に関する側面、特にカリキュラムに対する生徒と教員の認識や解釈とその実施におけるビリーフと態度が及ぼす影響ついて考えるに至った。そこで本稿ではまず、認知的要素に関わるビリーフ、そしてその対である情意（態度）とそれらの学習プロセスへの影響を解説する。次にビリーフと態度の両方を明らかにする効果的なツールである比喩の使用に関して詳説し、外国語の知識と言語学習過程に対する生徒の概念を解明することを目的とした本調査のリサーチデザインを概観する。本調査の結果、生徒たちはモチベーション、異文化間コミュニケーション能力、情意的側面、システムの熟知、第１言語と第２言語の同等性、そしてスポーツなど他のスキルとの類似性の観点から言語学習について述べる傾向が見られた。また、生徒たちは言語学習を非常に苦労するものであると主に捉えているため、言語学習に対する認識が、実り多い学習経験または（ほぼ）不可能なもののどちらかであることが明らかになった。一方で言語学習を「ゼロからの学習」、またゲームや楽しい経験として認識されていることも示された。最後に、本研究で得られた知見から「生徒の隠れたアジェンダ」を明らかにする方法を考察し、語学教室でのビリーフや態度の認識の高まりがもたらす影響も明らかにする。

Keywords
beliefs, attitudes, metaphors, motivation, language learning process

キーワード
ビリーフ、態度、比喩、モチベーション、言語学習過程

T

his paper reports on the first stage of a survey carried out in Italian upper-secondary
schools on the beliefs and attitudes held by students about foreign language learning ina school context I was prompted to arrange the survey by the frequent dissatisfaction
shown by teachers in training courses, when they often complained that students’ responses to their strategies and materials were not what they expected At the same time, teachers
were unable to identify factors which would explain the “gap” between their expectations andthe actual learning outcomes To address this issue, I turned my attention to aspects of the“hidden curriculum” which are rarely investigated, such as students’ beliefs and their influ-

44

Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 1 • November 2017

Luciano Marianience on the learning process The issue is particularly relevant for Italian secondary school
language teachers, who in the past few years have had to face several (often confusing) syllabus changes, on the one hand, and an increasing emphasis on the “products” of learning, interms of external exams and certifications, on the other. At such a time, I thought that going
beyond questions of methodology, and probing what lies behind students’ reactions to teachers’ demands, would throw some light on the actual learning processes taking place in theclassroom In search of possible instruments to use in the survey, I found metaphors a particularly productive and dynamic tool In this paper, after briefly recalling why beliefs and attitudes are so important in (language) learning, I will describe the research design of my project, report on some of the most significant results so far, and use the knowledge thus gained
to make some concluding remarks on the role that an increased awareness by both students
and teachers of beliefs and attitudes can play in the language classroom

Beliefs and Attitudes and Their Role in Language Learning
Beliefs and attitudes towards language learning, or what teachers and students think and feel
when engaged in the task of teaching/learning a foreign language (L2), are an important partof what has been called the “hidden,” “covert,” or “implicit” curriculum (Margolis, 2001),
i.e., factors like learning preferences, aptitudes, beliefs, attitudes, and motivations. Such factors heavily impact the way that the “overt” or “explicit” curriculum, made up of syllabuses,
activities, materials, and assessment procedures, is perceived, interpreted, and implemented
by all the parties concerned This view of the curriculum is best appreciated through the “iceberg metaphor” (see Figure 1).

Figure 1. The Importance of the “Hidden” Curriculum
In contrast to visible and explicit performance, the underlying, invisible competence isheavily influenced by what the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (Council of Europe, 2001) calls existential competence (“savoir être”)—the individual differences that
affect how knowledge (“savoir”) is acquired and skills (“savoir faire”) are developed.
Teachers and students hold quite definite beliefs and attitudes about what they teach/learn(the subject matter, in our case language, communication, and culture), how language is besttaught/learnt (the process of teaching/learning), and who is involved in this task (their own
selves as teachers and learners, including the roles they play in the process). These dimensions are interrelated (see Figure 2) and have a strong influence on the choices and decisions
Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 1 • November 201745

Exploring Italian High School Students’ Metaphors of Language Learningthat people make and, ultimately, on their behaviour in the language teaching/learning task
(Mariani, 1999; Barcelos, 2000; Bernat & Gvozdenko, 2005; Gabillon, 2005; Huang, 2006;
Mercer, 2008).

Figure 2. Areas of Beliefs and Attitudes and Their Integration.
For example, if a student thinks that language is essentially made up of words, that learning a language implies memorizing words, and that s/he has a poor memory, all this will
inevitably shape her/his view of the learning task and probably impact on the way s/he willreact to the teaching activities, especially if her/his teacher holds a different view of the same
factors As a matter of fact, teachers’ and students’ conflicting beliefs and attitudes have proven to affect how aims, objectives, activities, and assessment procedures are interpreted, accepted, or refused in the classroom (Horwitz, 1988; Cotterall, 1995; Nunan, 1995; Peacock,1998; Wan, Low, & Li, 2011).
To explain the impact of such factors on the learning process, it is crucial to clarify thenature of beliefs and their relations to attitudes. With teachers in mind, Richards (1994, p. 5)
referred to beliefs as “the informational attitudes, values, theories and assumptions aboutteaching and learning which teachers build up over time and bring with them to the classroom”—but this definition could reasonably be extended to students. Victori and Lockhart(1995, p. 224) identified beliefs as “general assumptions that students hold about themselves
as learners, about factors influencing language learning, and about the nature of language
learning and teaching.” Thus, to use other metaphors, beliefs could be seen as a filter throughwhich experience is given meaning and value, or to a pair of glasses through which peopleinterpret the world around them and inside them (Arnold, 1999).
Beliefs can best be seen as a cognitive construct, i.e., what a person knows (or believes s/he
knows), and have also been variously referred to as mini-theories, learning cultures, suppositions, implicit theories, and self-made representational systems (Holec, 1996; Doly, 1997;
Barcelos, 2000; Bernat & Gvozdenko, 2005). However, the impact of beliefs cannot be fully
appreciated without considering how such cognitive structures are accompanied by an affective dimension, which is largely responsible for their role in learning. Wenden (1991, p. 52)
clarified the relationship between beliefs and attitudes in this way:
Attitudes have been referred to as “learned motivations”, “valued beliefs”, “evaluations”,“what one believes is acceptable” or “responses oriented towards approaching or avoiding”. Implied in these various definitions, are three characteristics of attitudes: 1. attitudes
always have an object; 2. they are evaluative; 3. they predispose to certain actions.

46

Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 1 • November 2017

Luciano Mariani

The cognitive, affective, and evaluative components are thus strictly linked to the behaviouralcomponent: beliefs influence attitudes and these, in turn, affect decisions and behaviour.

The Use of Metaphors to Explore Beliefs and Attitudes
The use of metaphors in exploring aspects of (language) learning and teaching is well documented in the literature (e g , Elliott, 1984; Munby, 1986; Thornbury, 1991; Scott, 1994; Cortazzi & Jin, 1999; de Guerrero & Villamil, 2002; Berendt, 2008; Gibbs, 2011; Farjami, 2012).
Metaphors are not just an alternative to answering questions, providing definitions or taking
part in an interview. Prompting a student to complete a definition (e.g., Learning a language is/means …) is fundamentally different from asking her/him to write a metaphor (e.g., Learninga language is like …), for several different reasons. Firstly, definitions are by their very nature
analytical and thus tend to appeal more to systematic, convergent learners, while metaphorsallow for more creative insights and more global perceptions, and thus tend to appeal more to
intuitive, synthetic, divergent learners Secondly, metaphors prompt learners to focus moreon similarities and analogies than on oppositions and differences. And finally, metaphors lendthemselves well to further elicitation and elaboration. Ortony (1993) summarizes the main
characteristics of metaphors as vividness, compactness, and expressibility
However, creating and using metaphors can also have a strong influence on the way one
conceives and deals with reality—by giving structure to experience:
New metaphors have the power to create a new reality This can begin to happen when
we start to comprehend our experience in terms of a metaphor, and it becomes a deeper
reality when we begin to act in terms of it. (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980, p. 145)
For example, referring to teacher training by using alternatives such as teacher education,teacher learning, or teacher development points to very different ways of conceptualizing thisactivity Thus, “A metaphor can easily be seen as a bridge, etymologically ‘carrying over’ fromone side to another. It links and comprises the known and the unknown, the tangible andthe less tangible, the familiar and the new” (Cortazzi & Jin, 1999, p. 149), “a bridge enabling
passage from one world to another” (Shiff, 1979, p. 106), “windows” for examining the cognitions and feelings of learners (Ellis & Barkhuizen, 2005).

Aims and Research Questions
The literature on beliefs and attitudes outlined above, and the use that metaphors have been
put to in previous research, helped me to specify in more detail both the kinds of informationthat I would be investigating and the tools that I would be using in the process It seemed
clear to me that the crucial aspects of language learning at a time of change in secondary
schools and with teachers facing increasingly diversified groups of students could be described both in terms of how students make sense of language as the object of learning andin terms of how they approach the process of learning itself This led me to formulate my two
research questions:1

How do students conceptualize the knowledge of a foreign language, i e , what do theymean by “knowing a foreign language”?

2

How do students conceptualize the process of learning a foreign language, i e , what dothey mean by “learning a foreign language” in a school context?

Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 1 • November 201747

Exploring Italian High School Students’ Metaphors of Language Learning

Participants
The participants were 612 students studying foreign languages (English, French, German, andSpanish) as part of their school curriculum in seven academically oriented upper-secondary
schools located in small or medium-sized towns in Northern Italy The survey was carriedout across all the five school grades (students’ age range 14-19), with language levels startingfrom a post-elementary level—or Level A2 of the Common European Framework of Reference for
Languages (Council of Europe, 2001)—for English, and from a beginner level for all the otherlanguages in Grade 1, and reaching an upper intermediate level—or Level B2/C1 of the Framework–for English at Grade 5.

MethodStudents were invited to complete two metaphors in writing, in their mother tongue (Italian),by referring to their overall experience of foreign language learning at school:ʶ“To know” a foreign language is like …

ʶLearning a foreign language is like …

Teachers introduced the scope of the survey and how it would be carried out Students were
not given any examples of the actual metaphors they were invited to produce, but in orderto make them familiar with the task, teachers elicited a few metaphors on other topics, e.g.,
Winning a football match is like … or Getting back to school in September is like …, briefly commenting on the value of metaphors as a way of exploring and sharing our thoughts and feelings
about an experience
The collected metaphors were analysed by the author with the purpose of identifying thematic categories which would help to map out the students’ meanings into recurring structures that
gradually emerged from the data itself (Cameron & Low, 1999). In some studies such structures
are described in terms of concrete images. For example, Ellis (2002) reports and elaborates onfive conceptual metaphors for learning: learning as a journey, as a puzzle, as work, as suffering,
and as struggle; while Bas and Gezegin (2015) report and elaborate on 10 groups of metaphorsfor English learning process: task, journey, period of life, progress, competition, enjoyable
activity, torture, unending process, engraving process, and nurturing process In my survey,
however, an effort was made to directly link the recurring structures (as emerging from all thestudents’ metaphors) to some basic L2 pedagogical frameworks, i.e.,ʶ

for Research Question 1: motivation; intercultural communicative competence; personalcognitive and affective implications; mastery of a system; equivalence of L2 knowledge
and L1 knowledge; equivalence of knowing an L2 and any other school subject; and similarities with other skills or competences;ʶ

for Research Question 2: a very demanding, even dangerous, but productive experience;a very demanding but (nearly) impossible undertaking; a game, a pleasant experience;
similarities with other skills and competences; integration of some sort of “language
mechanism” within one’s mind; and equivalence of learning an L2 and other school
subjects.

The main problem experienced in the analysis of the metaphors was the fact that in several
students’ responses the two questions seemed to overlap, i e , they tended to equate language
and language learning. This important issue is reflected in the cross-references between thetwo questions shown in the Results below

48

Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 1 • November 2017

Luciano Mariani

Responses were then used to elaborate on the implications that students’ conceptualizations
may have on their approach to language learning and on their response to language teaching(see the Discussion below). The second phase of this research, which for different reasons wasdelayed and is therefore still in its early stages, will invite teachers to feed back these findings
to their students and to use them for individual and group reflection and discussion. A few
early samples of teachers’ reactions are provided in Teachers’ Feedback below

Results
The major descriptive categories of beliefs identified in this survey are presented in Tables 1
and 2 They are illustrated with representative samples of the students’ metaphors and areaccompanied by comments on the major entailments for the emerging conceptions of language and language learning. (Notice that the English translations are just approximate versions of the original Italian metaphors and often do not do justice to the highly imaginative
language, sometimes heavily loaded with idiomatic expressions and cultural references, usedby the students.)
Table 1. Conceptualizations of the Knowledge of a Foreign Language
Descriptive category

Representative samples of metaphors

1. Motivation

1

making an effort to pass my exams

2

doing something useful, because you can use a foreign language …
not like, for instance, maths, which is of no use to me in my freetime

3having a key which can open many doors

4

having a six-speed gearbox on my moped

5

arriving at a new school and already knowing the names of yourclassmates

6

making a long-term investment

7

belonging to a group of people who communicate through the samelanguage

8

being able to become “a foreigner” and being considered as such

9changing my nationality, therefore I should know a language perfectly

10 becoming another person, almost changing your personality andway of being; being two people at the same time interpreting roles,
becoming a little actor for a moment; changing one’s voice and wayof thinking (I think like a German, a Frenchman, an Englishman)
The knowledge of a foreign language is seen in terms of the purposes which it might serveor the benefits it might provide, both at the present time and in the future, and which in turnfuels students with the will and skill to learn. This corresponds roughly to various kinds of
instrumental motivation. This broad concept of instrumental motivation can also be seen in terms
Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 1 • November 201749

Exploring Italian High School Students’ Metaphors of Language Learningof its extrinsic value. However, different degrees of extrinsic motives can be perceived along
the extrinsic vs intrinsic continuum: while the most external forms of regulation (e g , punishments and rewards from teachers or parents) are not mentioned, various forms of interiorization, identification and integration clearly are, from passing exams (1) to securing a better
future (7), with a general perception of acquiring a powerful tool (3-4) and useful starting
opportunities (5).
Within the broad concept of integrative motivation, the desire to become part of the culture(s)mediated by the target language(s) (7) can be linked to subtle questions of individual identity,
and can imply a change in one’s image and perception of one’s individual and social self (8).
This can imply an unrealistic expectation of the level of competence to be reached to achieve
such ambitious results (9). Knowing a language sometimes seems to imply a deeper change
in one’s personality, almost leading to a “split personality” (10); at other times, the change isperceived as a more “superficial” playing of a role (11).
2. Intercultural

12 a passport, a key to be able to interact with other people

communicative

13 opening my mind to new realities, being able to compare themcompetence

14 having more elements of certainty, i e managing to express myself
and communicate with people of different languages and cultures
15 adjusting to other people’s ways of communicating, respecting theirculture, thus indirectly favouring cultural mediation

Students seem to be well aware of the implications of learning a foreign language in termsof acquiring a complex competence, which has both communicative and intercultural connotations. This awareness also implies the realization of the close links between languages andcultures (12-13). This competence can be seen both as relevant in private domains (14) and asa more “public” commitment to contribute to intercultural mediation (15).
3. Personal cogni- 16 learning to live in a different way than one usually lives; having ative and affective
second life to live
implications
17 air: it is something absolutely necessary to life
18 being a butterfly which flies to different places
19 thinking through a different system
20 having a master-key in a hotel, being able to go into any room withno effort at all, adjusting to the type of room I’m going to find21 proving to myself that nothing is impossible and one can learn everything
22 being able to walk without anybody’s help; widening my personal
knowledge so as to be more autonomous in the world
having a degree of freedom which you can’t reach in any other way
Still within the issue of identity, the emphasis in this case is more on the effects thatknowing a foreign language in itself can have on one’s overall personality, without or beyond
the desire to integrate into a target community and/or to acquire a tool for personal and intercultural communication. What is stressed is the potential of language to offer opportunities
for change, not just in terms of acquiring alternative ways of thinking (19), but also as a way

50

Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 1 • November 2017

Luciano Marianiof experiencing new dimensions of one’s personality, like being born again (16).
The implications of learning a foreign language can reach out into the realm of self-esteem
This is supported by the perception of developing a new flexible competence (self-efficacy)(20-21), the perception of increasing personal autonomy and independence (22) as well as amore general sense of freedom from constraints (23).
4. Mastery of asystem24 knowing many words of a language and knowing how to correctly
pronounce them all!
25 mastering lexis and structures so that you don’t give a strong impression of being a foreigner
26 being a computer with many data in it

Some students stress the mastery of the language system as the key feature of knowing
a foreign language (cf. No. 6 in Table 2 below). This can apply to pronunciation, lexis, andgrammar (24-25), and can be extended to the metaphor of knowing a language as data-processing by a computer (26). Even in this case, though, “perfect” mastery is seen as necessary
in order to conceal one’s own identity as a foreigner and thus be taken as a “native speaker”(25), much in the same way as in (9) above.
5. Equivalence ofL2 and L1 knowledge

27 being able to express myself as in Italian
28 studying Italian but in another language with other verb forms
29 speaking two kinds of Italian because it means speaking it reallywell
30 speaking it as well as my mother tongue
31 knowing it as if I were a mother-tongue speaker

Some students are very explicit in equating the knowledge of a foreign language with theknowledge of their mother tongue (Italian). Especially in the early grades, their reference
seems to be “ideal native speakers”: little or no consideration is given to different levels ofcompetence and to the idea of progress in learning This can lead to unrealistic expectations,both in terms of learning outcomes and in terms of the amounts of time and effort required.
6. Equivalenceof knowing an
L2 and knowing
any other school
subject

32 “doing” the other school subjects
33 studying all the other subjects, but speaking in a different way andenjoying myself more
34 knowing another school subject, but often a more important one
35 going to school: it may not be enjoyable, but makes life better

Also in the early grades, some students seem to perceive language as a “disciplinary subject,” i.e., they do not exhibit any special relationship with language as opposed to any otherform of content to be learnt in the curriculum (cf. No. 7 in Table 2 below). This is sometimes
associated with a perception of studying a subject which is somehow “different” from theother ones, either because of its “importance” (34) or because it implies more enjoyable activities (33).
Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 1 • November 201751

Exploring Italian High School Students’ Metaphors of Language Learning

7. Similarities
with other skills
or competences

36 knowing how to play a musical instrument
37 being able to fly
38 cycling with your eyes closed, driving a vehicle, skiing, swimming

Some students compare knowing a foreign language to mastering other skills or sports (cf.
No. 5 in Table 2 below).
A widespread belief among students views language learning both in terms of the effort
required and in terms of the highly satisfying nature of the task. Interestingly, the emphasis is not so much on how a language is learnt but on how deeply involved one can become inlearning it, i.e., on the (positive) affective implications of the task.
What strikes most in these metaphors is the perception of the highly demanding natureof the learning task (40-42). However, the perception of the value of the task, together withthe expectancy of success, seem to provide the relevant personal motivation This perception isoften accompanied by the awareness of the obstacles involved and the need to be patient andpersistent. Also, setting a clear target seems to provide the necessary energy (43-44). The
learning task itself is conceptualized as a route which calls for flexibility, the ability to learn
to manage situations and be resilient in the face of difficulties (45-46); a route which implies
a step-by-step approach and a firm foundation at the start (47-48).
Table 2. Conceptualizations of Learning a Foreign Language
Descriptive category

Representative samples of metaphors

1. A very demand- 40 climbing the Everest would be easiering, even danger- 41 landing on the moonous, but produc42 walking on a long and winding path, which will soon give way to ative experience
wonderful place
43 engage in a long-distance race: I will be tired out, I will be thirsty
but in the end I will reach the finish line and thus my target
44 crossing a river: I will find some obstacles but when I get to theother bank I will be satisfied
45 seafaring: you need to manage the situations in which you findyourself
46 surfing – at the start you slip on the board but after some hard work
you can surf the wave
47 reaching the top of a mountain You proceed step by step
48 building a house, being careful to lay sound foundations; having
built a house little by little, laying every single brick in the right way

52

Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 1 • November 2017

Luciano Mariani

2. A very demand- 49 knowing everything about football, all the players’ faces ... it’s iming but (nearly)
possible
impossible under- 50 walking on the water ... impossible
taking51 learning to play chess with your eyes closed
52 being under a terrible hail storm with 2 sq cm hail stones which
won’t allow you to see
53 running barefoot on stones
54 playing chess without the chessboard
55 go on a military campaign with very little probability of winning
56 having to learn something which has nothing to do with me
Another widespread belief emphasizes the feeling of failure associated with engaging inlanguage learning, i.e., the (negative) affective implications of the task. What is stressed isthe actual impossibility of language learning (49-51), with strong emotional implications(52-53). This may imply the perception of lacking the necessary tools (54), a low expectancy
of success (55), and can even lead to a feeling of unrelatedness, as if no connection could beestablished between learning and one’s self (56)—a state which is very close to demotivation
3. A game, apleasant experience

57 listening to a song; playing an instrument, it’s amusing and you do
it with extreme pleasure
58 playing football – absolutely necessary
59 being on a merry-go-round because after learning something I feelsatisfied
60 going on a trip, because it’s enjoyable, amusing, and at the sametime interesting
61 studying the rules of a similar game, which has different rules
62 playing with a puzzle, where every word corresponds to a piece andthe possible combinations are endless; solving a riddle
63 picking a rose. You have to be careful with thorns, but this is no
problem compared with its beauty and scentThis category is the one which most closely approaches the construct of intrinsic motivation—or engaging in learning for its own right, for the pleasure it gives, with no particularother purpose (either instrumental or integrative) involved. This is associated with a feelingof self-assurance as a result of the activity (59) and an intrinsic interest in it (60). Learninga language is also often compared to solving a puzzle or a riddle In this case the focus seems
to be more on the cognitive challenge, in which language is seen as a series of elements which
can be combined in endless ways (61-62).
Notice that these first three categories of metaphors closely resemble those found in thealready mentioned studies by Ellis (2002) and Bas and Gezegin (2015).

Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 1 • November 201753

Exploring Italian High School Students’ Metaphors of Language Learning

4. Learning a lan- 64 a child starting primary school, in the sense that when I was in theguage as starting
first grade I learned Italian, now it is as I started again in anotherfrom scratch
country
65 learning to speak my language again ... but, compared with when
we were children, it’s much more difficult
66 going back to being a small child who has to learn everything to express herself and make herself understood
67 when as a child I learned to walk - step by step, with no hurry;
growing up a second time
In this case students express the perception that learning a language implies a completely
new task, where previous experiences have little or no relevance. There are several important implications in this view of L2 learning First, there is no distinction between L1 and L2
learning, the only difference being the fact that the latter involves a higher degree of difficulty (65); in other words, natural acquisition of the L1 seems to be perceived as very similar
to later (school) learning of the L2. Second, no importance seems to be given to contextual
or other factors that may influence learning as a (young) adult. And finally, the L2 learner isseen as a small child who must once again go through all the stages of “growing up” without
relying on any previously acquired knowledge or skills (66-67).
5. Similarities
with other skills
or competences(cf. No. 7 in Table
1 above)

68 learning to play football (I hate football)
69 swimming – it’s tiring but stimulating
70 learning to play a musical instrument
71 singing, not everybody can do it …
72 learning to cycle. At the start it may seem difficult, but one you’ve
grasped how it works, it turns out to be much easier than you
thought
73 knowing how to bake a cake, after learning the procedure and having all the ingredients; cooking: the recipe is not enough74 driving your car, knowing its reactions
75 learning a mathematical formula by heart, but using your reasoning
ability; doing a maths exercise, if you know the formulae
76 growing a plantStudents seem to be aware of the complexity of language learning as a competence, which
implies the acquisition of knowledge as well as the development of skills, as in complex skills
such as sports (68-69), playing music or singing (70-71), and driving a car (74). Some students seem to be aware of the process involved in learning, like understanding “how it works”(72), learning the “procedure” (73), and knowing the “formulae” (75). On the one hand, youneed all the ingredients; on the other, you need a “recipe”, which in itself is not enough (73).
Also, learning is seen as active mental processing (“reasoning ability”) rather than simple
memorization (75). Notice that (71), by mentioning the fact that not everybody can be successful, refers to the question of inborn aptitude, while (74) highlights the importance of being aware of one’s own strengths and weaknesses.

54

Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 1 • November 2017

Luciano Mariani

6. Development
and integrationof some sort of“language mechanism” within
one’s mind

77 being a dictionary
78 being a good linguist
79 doing a sort of a revision of Italian, because if you don’t have asound foundation of Italian grammar you can’t hope to know theforeign one
80 putting a small translating machine into my headThis category has to do with the formal aspects of the language system: vocabulary (77),grammar (79), and translation (80), thus stressing the value of knowing the system andcomparing oneself to a training “linguist” (78) (cf. No. 4 in Table 1 above).
7. Equivalence oflearning an L2and learning anyother school subject

81 studying all the other subjects, only speaking in a different way andenjoying myself more
82 studying any other subject, perhaps this is more useful than others
83 studying any other subject but committing oneself more because you
have to concentrate in order to understand the differences between
our language and the foreign language

Some students do not seem to be particularly aware of the originality of language learning,although they sometimes seem to find it more enjoyable (81) and more useful (82) than otherschool subjects. They also realize the complexity and commitment demanded by a contrastive(L1 vs L2) view of learning (83) (cf. No. 6 in Table 1 above).

Discussion
I used the results of this survey to elaborate on the implications that students’ conceptualizations of “knowing a foreign language” and “learning a foreign language” can have on
their approach to learning and on their response to teaching These implications can be summarised as follows

1. Motivational Constructs.
The meanings that students attach to both the outcome of language learning and the process oflearning itself are clearly linked to motivational issues: instrumental vs integrative (Gardner &Lambert, 1972; Gardner, 1985, 2010), intrinsic vs extrinsic (Deci & Ryan, 1985, 2002):
ʶ

instrumental motivation appears mostly as internal, rather than external, regulation, i e ,not related to rewards or punishments, but more as the perception of the opportunities
that knowing a language can offer, especially in the long term;ʶintegrative motivation seems to be quite strong too, with students often wishing to become part of the target language community and even to identify with its speakers,or, more often, with a global community of speakers of a lingua franca (Dörnyei, 2010;
Dörnyei & Ushioda, 2010). This hints at subtle questions of individual and collective
identity, since the knowledge of a foreign language often seems to imply personalitychanges or at least the commitment to “play a role” in intercultural communication
Sometimes this is associated with unrealistic images of the level of competence required
to play such a role, i.e., an idealized native speaker level;
Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 1 • November 201755

Exploring Italian High School Students’ Metaphors of Language Learningʶ

intrinsic motivation is revealed by students seeing language learning as an enjoyable
game, an interesting puzzle, and a generally pleasant experience

These strong cognitive and affective implications underlie other important motivational constructs: the perception of developing a new competence enhances self-efficacy and self-esteem(Bandura, 1997; Guthrie et al., 1999), and increases a sense of autonomy and independence,
often expressed through a feeling of freedom from constraints, which is particularly meaningful
and relevant for adolescents and young adults

2. Challenging Nature of the Learning Task.
Despite showing positive attitudes, students do not underestimate the highly demanding nature of the task involved in language learning. They seem to be well aware of a special, even
exceptional, enterprise, which demands an equally extraordinary expenditure of time andeffort and a high degree of persistence. Combining the perceived value of the task and a highexpectancy of success provides students with the necessary level of commitment and resiliencein the face of difficulties (Pekrun, 1993; Cole, 2002; Schunk, 2003; Brophy, 2004).
However, this is clearly not so for everybody The challenges inherent in language learning
are not always associated with positive feelings of self-efficacy and high expectations. In fact,
several students seem to stress not just the difficulty of the task, but even the impossibility ofcarrying it out. Unclear objectives, associated with low feelings of self-efficacy and expectancy of success, produce correspondingly low levels of motivation to learn
All in all, the strong emphasis on personal constructs underlying the beliefs of these students
confirms the importance of the existential competence (or “savoir-être”), which, as we havealready mentioned, the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (Council of Europe, 2001) recognizes as a fundamental language user/learner’s competence affecting communicative competence alongside with knowledge and skills. This also sounds as a reminder
to teachers of the impact that social and emotional learning has on competence development(Payton, Weissberg, Durlak et al., 2008).

3. Language as Communication vs Language as a System.
Most students expressed a view of language as a tool for communication and a bridge to intercultural understanding (Byram, 1997; Byram, Gribkova, & Starkey, 2002). Some were also
aware of the potential of their developing intercultural communicative competence not only
for personal purposes but also as a tool for intercultural mediation In contrast, some students
stressed the view of language as a system of sounds, lexis and grammar and a view of language learning as mastery of such a system These two contrasting conceptions of language
have emerged in other studies (e.g., Kolb, 2007).

4. Relationship Between L1 and L2.
Especially in the early grades, some students tended to equate the knowledge of the L2 withthe knowledge of their mother tongue. Their reference seems to be the native speaker, withlittle or no consideration for possibly different levels of proficiency in different languages orin different skills within the same language, or for the relevant amounts of time and effort
required. At the same time, many students (and not just in the early grades) seem to believethat learning a language implies starting from a “zero” level and taking once again the same
cognitive and affective route they covered to learn their L1. In other words, there seems to be

56

Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 1 • November 2017

Luciano Marianino clear perception of the difference between “natural” L1 acquisition and L2 “school” learning, with no role assigned to the contribution that prior knowledge and previous experiencesof language learning (including their L1) can make to the development of L2 proficiency. Thiscan pose significant problems to teachers wishing to make students capitalize on the knowledge gained in their previous language learning experiences, at a time when research is proving that acquiring more than two language systems leads to the development of new skills
like learning to learn, thus facilitating further language learning (Herdina & Jessner, 2002).
Research has also shown that linguistic awareness is both a feature and a powerful aid in
multilinguals (Jessner, 2006), so that tertiary language learning (e.g., German after English)
can greatly benefit the cause of plurilingualism (Hufeisen & Neuner, 2004).

5. Analogies With Other Learning Experiences.
Different kinds of complex skills were mentioned as a metaphor of language learning (e.g.,sports, playing music, driving a car, cooking). Especially interesting is the awareness that
language competence does not imply only knowledge (of a system), but also the ability to“orchestrate” that knowledge in terms of communicative skills. Students also stress the importance of mastering the procedure, the “formulae”, the “rules”: in other words, they seemto be aware that complex skills cannot be acquired by lower-level reasoning (e.g., mechanicalrepetition, rote memorization) but demand higher cognitive operations (i.e., active mental
processing). In contrast with this view, which stresses the specificity of language learning,some students, particularly in the early grades, expressed a sort of “generic” view, i e , a conception of language learning as the study of any other school subject. This view was sometimes tempered by a recognition that learning a language can be different because it can be
more useful and/or more enjoyable, as well as requiring more commitment and concentration.

Teachers’ Feedback
As already mentioned, the results of the survey will also be used to draw “profiles” of thebeliefs and attitudes held by particular classes Teachers will then discuss the implications ofsuch class profiles as the first step in feeding the data back to their students to stimulate reflection and discussion in class. Further elaboration of the metaphors by the students will include reasons for choosing a particular metaphor, their intent in using it, and comparing thedifferent meanings that the same metaphor carries for individual students. Also, I will invite
teachers to compare the data emerging from the metaphors both with their own knowledgeof the classes (often derived from classroom observation), and with the further elaborationand clarification of the metaphors by the students themselves, thus improving data validation through a process of triangulation (Burns, 1999; Murphey & Falout, 2010). Teachers havealready suggested possible ways to feed back the data to their classes, e.g.,ʶhanding out a synthesis or posting it on the school’s web site or blog platform;ʶ

leading a whole-class discussion;ʶ

asking groups of students to discuss the data and report and compare their findings in aplenary session;ʶleading group interviews or focus groups on specific issues as emerged from the data;ʶ

discussing the teaching/learning implications: this can take the form of ideas and suggestions leading to possible changes in objectives, methodologies, tasks, activities, materials, and assessment procedures

Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 1 • November 201757

Exploring Italian High School Students’ Metaphors of Language Learning

Some teachers’ early comments on the results of feedback to the students are reported as
examples of the kind of data that will hopefully emerge from the second stage of this survey:
1“Since my students are studying different languages, and are therefore exposed to different teaching methods, I would be interested in checking whether their beliefs change
according to each language This does not emerge from their general metaphors ”

2“I think that I need to stress the metacognitive component in my teaching, to makestudents aware, for example, of how the knowledge of an L2 can be helpful in learning
an L3 ”

3

“The data from my class clearly point to a rather confused idea of what it means tolearn a language at a certain level of competence Students need to have clear, sharedobjectives right from the start.”

4“A student in my class argued that discussing what students think about learning
methods is somehow irrelevant because there is just “one” method …”

5“One of my students found the discussion about ways of learning a foreign language a
bit useless, since she thinks that at high school all this should be considered as a prerequisite for students coming from middle schools ”

6“I have a feeling that there is a sort of a gap between my beliefs and my students ” A
considerable number of students said that they start “from scratch” when they first engage in learning a foreign language. I always try to build their skills taking into accountwhat they already know and can do, but that doesn’t seem to be perceived by students.”

Limitations of the Present Study and Implications for Further Research
The sample of students involved in this survey attend academically-oriented high schools,
where foreign languages represent a valued and consistent part of the curriculum, and wherelanguage learning plays a major role and has therefore high status. This may in part explain
the emerging generally positive beliefs and attitudes, which cannot be expected and indeed
were not found in other parts of this research project (which were targeted at vocational
schools). More generally, this can point to the need to link students’ data with the specificfeatures of each context, taking into account, e.g., different school environments or different
languages studied as part of the curriculum
Other useful projects could involve gathering data from the same students at different timesof their “learning career,” to evaluate the development of beliefs and attitudes over time, or
focusing more specifically on single skills/communicative activities like reading or writing, oron particular aspects of competence (e.g., grammar, lexis). It would also be useful to explore
correlations between beliefs/attitudes and other factors like age, gender, school grades, andlevels of proficiency.
As metaphors are rich, vivid images of the underlying beliefs and attitudes, their ambiguity is at the same time their value and their limitation As a result, they often need to be disambiguated by asking students to elaborate on what they really meant when using a certain
metaphor, thus providing “narrative” clues to the students’ intent and scope This process
would best be developed in close sequence, with teachers asking for and providing feedback
within a reasonable time sequence This may require considerable time and energy resources (teachers’ busy time schedules and the frequent teacher turnover typical of Italian schools
have resulted in serious constraints in the actual implementation of the present survey).
Another interesting development of this survey would be to ask teachers to provide theirown metaphors, which would add a further dimension to the variables involved A prelim-

58

Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 1 • November 2017

Luciano Mariani

inary study of such teachers-students comparisons (Mariani, 2013) has yielded intriguing
results and would provide a more balanced view of the “classroom culture” where different,
and sometimes conflicting, beliefs and attitudes coexist and where dynamic relationships arecontinually evolving
As a general concluding remark, probing the “hidden curriculum” means providing a space(both physical and psychological) for people to share their perceptions, become aware of thereal forces that are at work in classroom learning, and perhaps start mediating and negotiating—a way to work towards students’ and teachers’ awareness and autonomy.

References
Arnold, J. (1999). Affect in language learning Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: W. H. Freeman.
Barcelos, A. M. (2000). Understanding teachers’ and students’ language learning beliefs in experience:
A Deweyan approach (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa.
Bas, M., & Gezegin, B. B. (2015). Language learning as losing weight: Analysing students’
metaphorical perceptions of English learning process Procedia - Social and Behavioral
Sciences, 199, 317-324
Berendt, E. A. (Ed.) (2008). Metaphors for learning: Cross-cultural perspectives AmsterdamPhiladelphia: John Benjamins.
Bernat, E., & Gvozdenko, I. (2005). Beliefs about language learning: Current knowledge,
pedagogical implications, and new research directions TESL-EJ 9(1), 1-21.
Brophy, J. E. (2004). Motivating students to learn. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Burns, A. (1999). Collaborative action research for English language teachers Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press
Byram, M. (1997). Teaching and assessing intercultural communicative competence. Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters
Byram, M., Gribkova, B., & Starkey, H. (2002). Developing the intercultural dimension in language
teaching: a practical introduction for teachers. Strasbourg/Graz: Council of Europe/ECML.
Cameron, L., & Low, G. D. (1999). Metaphor. Language Teaching, 32(2), 77-96.
Cole, J. E. (2002). What motivates students to read? Four literacy personalities. The Reading
Teacher, 56(4), 326-336.
Cortazzi, M., & Jin, L. (1999). Bridges to learning: Metaphors of teaching, learning andlanguage. In G. Low & L. Cameron (Eds.), Researching and applying metaphor (pp. 149-176).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Cotterall, L. S. (1995). Readiness for autonomy: Investigating learner beliefs. System 23(2),195-205
Council of Europe (2001) Common European Framework of Reference for Languages Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior.
New York: Plenum.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (Eds.) (2002). Handbook of self-determination Rochester, NY:
University of Rochester Pressde Guerrero, M. C. M., & Villamil, O. S. (2002). Metaphorical conceptualizations of ESL
teaching and learning Language Teaching Research, 6(2), 95-120.
Doly, A. M. (1997). Métacognition et médiation à l’école [Metacognition and mediation at
school]. In M. Grangeat (Ed.), La métacognition: Une aide au travail des élèves [Metacognition:
A guide for students] (pp. 17-61). Paris: ESF.
Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 1 • November 201759

Exploring Italian High School Students’ Metaphors of Language Learning

Dörnyei, Z. (2010). Researching motivation: From integrativeness to the ideal L2 self. In S.
Hunston & D. Oakey (Eds.), Introducing applied linguistics: Concepts and skills (pp. 74-83).
London: Routledge
Dörnyei, Z., & Ushioda, E. (2010). Teaching and researching motivation Harlow: Longman
Elliott, R K (1984). Metaphor, imagination and conceptions of education. In W. Taylor (Ed.),
Metaphors of education (pp. 38-53). London: Heinemann.
Ellis, R. (2002). A metaphorical analysis of learner beliefs. In P. Burmeister, T. Piske, & A.
Rhode (Eds.), An integrated view of language development: Papers in honor of Henning Wode (pp163-179). Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag
Ellis, R., & Barkhuizen, G. (2005). Analysing learner language Oxford: Oxford University Press
Farjami, H. (2012). EFL learners’ metaphors and images about foreign language learning.
Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 2(1), 93-109.
Gabillon, Z. (2005). L2 learner’s beliefs: An overview. Journal of Language and Learning 3(2),233-260
Gardner, R. C. (1985). Social psychology and second language learning: The role of attitudes andmotivation London: Edward Arnold,
Gardner, R. C. (2010). Motivation and second language acquisition: The socio-educational model
New York, NY: Peter Lang.
Gardner, R. C., & Lambert, W. E. (1972). Attitudes and motivation in second-language learning.
Rowley, MA: Newbury House
Gibbs, R. W. (2011). Evaluating conceptual metaphor theory. Discourse Processes, 48(8), 529-562.
Guthrie, J. T., Wigfield, A., Metsala, J. L., & Cox, K. E. (1999). Motivational and cognitive
predictors of text comprehension and reading amount Scientific Studies of Reading, 3(3),231-256
Herdina, P., & Jessner, U. (2002). A dynamic model of multilingualism: Perspectives of change in
psycholinguistics Clevedon: Multilingual Matters
Hufeisen, B., & G. Neuner (Eds.) (2004). The plurilingualism project: Tertiary language learning –German after English. Graz: European Centre for Modern Languages.
Holec, H. (1996). Self-directed learning: An alternative form of training. Language Teaching,29, 89-93
Horwitz, E. (1988). The beliefs about language learning of beginning university foreign
language students Modern Language Journal, 72, 283-294
Huang, Z. (2006). Learner beliefs of language learning revisited. Sino-US English Teaching, 3(3)(Serial No. 27), 62-67.
Jessner, U. (2006). Linguistic awareness in multilinguals Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press
Kolb, A. (2007). How languages are learnt: Primary children’s language learning beliefs.
Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 1(2), 1-15.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by Chicago: University of Chicago Press
Margolis, E. (Ed.) (2001). The hidden curriculum in higher education. New York & London: Routledge.
Mariani, L. (1999). Reshaping the curriculum: The role of motivation. Perspectives. A Journal of
TESOL Italy, 35(1-2), 92-110.
Mariani, L. (2013). Convinzioni e atteggiamenti verso l’apprendimento delle lingue: insegnantie studenti a confronto [Convictions and attitudes towards language learning: Teachers andstudents compared] Babylonia, 1, 70-74
Mercer, S. (2008). Learner self-beliefs. ELT Journal, 62(2), 182-183.
Munby, H. (1986). Metaphor in the thinking of teachers: An exploratory study. Journal ofCurriculum Studies, 18(2), 197-201.

60

Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 1 • November 2017

Luciano Mariani

Murphey, T., & Falout, J. (2010). Critical participatory looping: Dialogic member checking
with whole classes TESOL Quarterly, 44(4), 811-821.
Nunan, D. (1995). Closing the gap between learning and instruction. TESOL Quarterly, 29(1),133-158
Ortony, A. (Ed.) (1993). Metaphor and thought Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Payton, J., Weissberg, R. P., Durlak, J. A., Dymnicki, A. B., Taylor, R. D., Schellinger, K. B.,& Pachan, M. (2008). The positive impact of social and emotional learning for kindergarten toeighth-grade students: Findings from three scientific reviews Chicago, IL: Collaborative for
Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning
Peacock, M. (1998). Exploring the gap between teachers’ and learners’ beliefs about “useful”
activities for EFL International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 8(2), 233-250.
Pekrun, R. (1993). Facets of adolescents’ academic motivation: A longitudinal expectancy
value approach. In P. Pintrich & M. Maehr (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement:
Vol. 8 (pp. 139-189). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Richards, J. (1994). The sources of language teachers’ instructional decisions. Perspectives. A
Journal of TESOL Italy, 20(2), 5-22.
Scott, M. (1994). Metaphors and language awareness. In L. Barbara & M. Scott M. (Eds.),
Reflections on language learning (pp. 89-104). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Shiff, R. (1979). Art and life: A metaphoric relationship. In S. Sacks (Ed.), On metaphor (pp105-120). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Schunk, D. H. (2003). Self-efficacy for reading and writing: Influence of modeling, goal
setting, and self-evaluation Reading and Writing Quarterly, 19(2), 159-172.
Thornbury, S. (1991). Metaphors we work by: EFL and its metaphors. ELT Journal, 45(3), 193200
Victori, M., & Lockhart, W. (1995). Enhancing metacognition in self-directed language
learning System, 23(2), 223-234.
Wan, W., Low, G. D., & Li, M. (2011). From students’ and teachers’ perspectives: Metaphor
analysis of beliefs about EFL teachers’ roles System, 39(3), 403-415.
Wenden, A. (1991). Learner strategies for learner autonomy Hemel Hempstead: Prentice-Hall

Review ProcessThis paper was open-reviewed by the following members of the Learner Development Journal Review Network: Steve Brown and Jo Mynard. (Contributors have the option of open or blind
review.)

Author Bio
Luciano Mariani is a teacher, teacher trainer, materials writer, and researcher based in Milan,
Italy. He has published widely on autonomy and related topics, such as study skills, learning and teaching styles and strategies, language learning motivation, and learner and teacher
beliefs and attitudes More recently, he has investigated the role of strategic and pragmaticcompetence in learner autonomy. He runs a bilingual (English-Italian) website (www.learningpaths.org), specifically devoted to learner education and teacher development for learnerautonomy Email: luciano mariani@iol it

Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 1 • November 201761