Jacet Kansai J.12 (2010), 8‑19. c Kansai Chapter, JACETISSN 1880‑2281 Printed in Japan

Promoting2010

figurative creativityin EFL/ESL
Masumiclassrooms1

Azuma

Kobe Design University

Jeannette Littlemore
The Universityof Birmingham

ABSTRACTThis paper describes a small exploratory study into the relativeeffects of attribute‑matching andgestalt trainingon the abilityof EFL/ESL

learners of English (using Japanese learners of English as

subjects) to understand and produce figurative expressions in English, and on theirabilityto employ
figurative creativity in English. The
improvements

attribute‑matching training was found to lead to significant

in the students' ability to understand and produce figurative language, whereas

gestalt trainingproduced no significanteffect.Weof English to employ

conclude that itmay be useful for FL/SLtheteachers

attribute‑matching exercises if they want to help their students to understandand produce figurative language in English.

Keywords: language learning; metaphor; figurative creativity

I. INTRODUCTION
In English, figurative extensions
about

meaning'the first leg of a journey', 'breaking

to extend

word

meanings

about, thus improving
theyof wordneedlearnersin this way

have

directly fromhelp themrecourse

figurative

can widen

expressions,

and

with

produceWhenor an opportunity
can employ

range

a strong impact

on learning, especiallyutterances

and interpretations. It has beenacquisition

as it provides

the learner with

word

they

can produce

and Lowwhich

2006a,

p.25).

on his or her figurative

to test their hypotheses

1 This study was conducted as part of a research projectfunded by the DAIWA

will

in the L2 is likely tothat output plays a key role in second

opportunities

them,

transfer expressions

meaning

if a learner can obtain feedback

8with a situation whereimagery;(Littlemore

abilitylearner can talkof their existing vocabulary,of meanings

suggestedtalk figuratively

an exercise'. The

faced

where

mentalThis last strategy is of interest,as the ability to figuratively extend
havethrough

weof topics that a language

competence.

figurative extensions
a wider

For example,

and 'running

the range

to several strategies. They

their LI; or work

understanda promise'their level of communicative

to understandare common.

about

language
the target

Anglo‑Japanese Foundation.

Promoting

language(Swain2005,

existing vocabularymay

pp.478‑480).

will comelearners

wholearnersof English, who

pp.225‑246)
Japanese

promote

Azuma

2005,

empirically.

are not generally

pp.295‑308)
aim

figurative thinking
the aimpromoteofmightclasses. It would
as they would

variety of topics. A
in language

the study

described

be promoted

in Japanese

Ministryof communicative

the ability to use English

and

Low

of these techniques

2004,
help

is thusin language

suggested

2006a,

haveto investigate

not beenways

andclassrooms

that

pp.27‑36;
testedin which

is particularly

Culture, Sports, Science

competence(see Cookhas been

learners of English. Thisof Education,ofthen be able to use the vocabulary(Littlemore

in this papergroup

be beneficial if we could

range of techniques

classrooms

extendactivities are Japanese

to 'play' with the language

but to date the relative strengthsof the Japanesethe development

Developing

in figurative thinking

to discuss a wider

in figurative extension

encouraged

in their language

figurative thinking

The

it is unlikely that the ability to figuratively

find it particularly difficult to engage

learners to engage

might

However,classrooms

naturally to all types of learners in all learning settings. One

or to be experimental

that they possess

given

figurative creativity in EFL/ESL

timelyTechnology

throughout

creatively, flexibly and figuratively is likely to contributetoJapan.
to this

goal.

How

can we promote

figurative thinking?

To the best of our knowledge,

there have been no empirical studies to date of the relative strengthsof the differentways in which figurative thinking might be promoted

in language learners. However,there is one study, which was conducted with native speakers, whose findings might be applicable tothe second language‑learning context. Pitts et al.(1982, pp.356‑365)
productions of three groups of people, each of whomcompared

the novel

had received a differentset of instructions.Allof the participants were asked to think of a match for eight famous people from a set of pre‑chosen
categories. For example, they were asked to say what kind of animal they thought Dolly Parton
would

be if she were an animal, or what kind of building Mike

Tyson might be. The firstgroup wasinstructed to carry out thistask by identifying characteristicsthat both have in common
known(a procedure

as 'attribute‑matching').The second group was firstgiven a series of analogies to solve. For

example,they were asked 'As Jimmy

Carter is to other presidents,so what animal might he be to allother animals?' They were then instructed to use the same method

to try to form analogies between

the famous person and the category of items to be used for comparison. The third group was asked toperform

an increasingly non‑analytic series of gestaltreasoning tasks.They were firstasked to match

six mood

adjectives with a series of squiggles. Theysounds madewere then asked to produce linear patterns forby the experimenter. They were finallyasked to produce linear patterns for five people,

different from the eight people used in the actual experiment.
Pitts et al.(ibid.)found that the answers given by participantswho had received the gestalt training
were significantlymore original and apt than those given by participantswho had received the othertypes of training.The findings from this study suggest that if we want to encourage
experimentwith the figurative potential of the target language, then it may
9

our students tobe worth

employingMasumigestalt warm‑up

exercises

beforehand.

Azuma

On

a languagethat is not their first language,techniquesthat werecloser inspectionfew

differences

betweenwetherefore comparedjust two

this comparison,

Englishwhomatchedwerecreatively

interested

in whattheyfollowing

researchquestions:forms

condition

we

used

two

groupsthe impact

fromdescribed

themcondition.

conditionof Japanese

in response
genuineinclear that there are in fact very

and the analogies

and vocabularyin

one of the otherIn our study,

and a gestalt condition.

lower‑intermediatelevel. The

students ofstudents

were

given

in one groupgestalt training.

of this training on: their ability to understandin a slightly morethought

they are working

the basis of the studyof the Pitts et al article, it becomesin English; their ability to produce

figurative thinking

RQ

comparison

benefit moretraining and the students in the other groupinterested in assessing

expressions

learners wouldin terms of proficiency

given attribute‑matching

be that because

conditions: an attribute‑matching

to makeWe

language

the attribute‑matching

In orderwere

the other hand, it may

tested by Pitts et al. This

this paper. Upon

wereand Jeannette Littlemore

figurative

to a stimulus; and their ability to use

communicativeof the different types of training. The

setting. We
studysoughtwere

also

to answer

the1: Are attribute‑matching or gestalt trainingexercises better at helping Japanese learnersof English to understand figurative expressions in English?

RQ

2: Are attribute‑matching or gestalttraining exercises better at helping Japanese learnersof English to produce figurative expressions in English?

RQ

3: Are attribute‑matching or gestalt trainingexercises better at helping Japanese learnersof English to be figuratively creative in English?

RQ

4: Whichtype of trainingdo students believe to be more beneficial:attribute‑matching or

gestalt training?

II. THESTUDYThis study was conducted in 2007 at a private university in Western Japan. In the study, two groupsof lower intermediate, firstand second year students were used: an attribute‑matching training group(N=16)

and a gestalt training group (N=14). Efforts were madematchedin terms of proficiency (using the university's in‑house proficiency test).Research

shownthat of allthe components

metaphoric competence
matchedto ensure that these two groups wereof L2 proficiency, vocabulary size is the most likely to be relatedto(Azuma2005, pp.288‑299). We

therefore ensured that participants werein terms of vocabulary size, using Schmitt's (2000, pp. 192‑195) Vocabulary

Results from a Mann‑Whitney

has

U

Test showed

Levels Test.

that there was no significantdifference between

thetwo groups in terms of theirvocabulary levels,as we can see in Table 1.
All participantsin the study were given identicalpre‑ and post‑tests,as mentioned

earlier.Between

the administration of the pre‑ and post‑tests,one group received attribute‑matching training exercises
and the other group received gestalt training exercises. The
performancedifference between

was then calculated for each group and the statistical10

pre‑ and post‑testPromoting

figurative creativity in EFL/ESL

classrooms

significance of the difference between the two groups was measured. Becauseof the small numberofparticipants in the study, it must be viewed as exploratory.

Table 1. The homogeneity of the two groups (Mann‑Whitney U Test)
S

attribute/Gestalt

Attrbute1 Gestalt2 N Mean
Rank Sim1 16 15.844 253.500

of Ranks

2 14 15.107 211.500
Total 30
Attribute / Gestalt
ManrvWhitney
W

IcoxonU

106.500W

211.500Z‑0.229Asymp.

Sig. (2‑tailed)

0.818

Exact Sig.[2*(1‑tailedSig.)] 0.822(a) ^The

Not corrected for ties.

three pre‑ and post‑tests2

As we

saw

above, the participants were

given three pre‑tests,in order to test:their ability tounderstand figurative extensions of word meaning; their abilityto produce figurative extensions ofword

meaning; and their abilityto be figuratively creative.

Test 1In the testdesigned to assess theirabilityto understand figurative extensions of word meaning(Test1), participants were presented with a listof six short expressions, such as 'to pig out' or 'to horsearound' or 'to wolf down

food' and were asked to think what they might mean. The students wereasked to answer either in English or in Japanese.
The comprehensionof figurative language involves the psychological processes of: associative

fluency; analogical reasoning; and, in some
pp.45‑67). Of

cases, mental imagery(Littlemore andLow

2006a,

all the psychological processes involved in metaphor

comprehension,associative

fluency is the most directlyrelated to creativity (Pollio and Smith 1980, p.376), and is the process
most likely to be stimulated by the training exercises. The amountof contextual information in thetest items was therefore limited so that the range of interpretationswould not be restricted and thepotential for associative fluency would be maximised.
It was difficultfor us to establish straightforward scoring criteriafor this test.On the one hand, we
wantedto reward learners for their creativity,but on the other hand, given the EFL

study, we also wanted
which

to reward correct usage of English. We

participants were rewarded

context of ourtherefore adopted a hybrid system infor both creativity and for the production of correct usages ofEnglish. The participants'responses were thus scored as follows:
0 = The participant produces either no interpretation or an interpretation that is meaningless

2 The

three pre‑ andpost‑tests are shownin the Appendix.

11inMasumiEnglishand whichdoes not appear

squirrel one's money

whichof the source

term

2 = Thea wider

eat like a wolf

to relate to the source term(e.g., 'you can go anywhere'

an interpretation that is similar to the meaning

is fairly prototypicalfor 'toor conventional

in Japanesein English

but is not quite

relying on central attributes(e.g., 'to get fat' for 'to pig out').

participant producessuggests

and Jeannette Littlemore

away').

1 = The participant produces
as rich, andAzuma

an interpretation which

search of the sourcethat is searchingterm

is correct in English

or is creative in a way

thatcharacteristics has taken place (e.g., 'to be hungry

andfor its prey' for 'to wolf

down

food').

Test 2In the productive test (Test 2), participants were given a listof six body parts and asked to think ofany possible figurative extensions they might have in English. The domain of body parts was chosen
as these are figuratively productive in both English
open‑ended
rewardedtask, wehoped

to maximise

andJapanese. By

giving them

their creative productivity. Again,

such

an

participants werefor both creativityand appropriateness. The responses were scored in the following way:

0 = The participant produces either no expression, or an expression that is not at all figurative,or an
expression that is meaninglessin both English and Japanese (e.g.,'my best for hands' and 'herleg')
1 = The participant produces a figurativeexpression whose meaning

can be workedout by reference

to the central features of the body part in question, but which does not actually exist in English or
Japanese(e.g.,'stop your mouth').

2 = The participant produces a figurative expression that either exists in English or is a plausible
creative extension of the word that suggests a wider search of the characteristicsof the body part(e.g., 'win by a head').

Test 3In the third test,we aimed to investigate the extent to which participantscan use figurative thinking
to communicate
whethergenuine information. As we

wereparticularly interested to see

the participants were able to be figuratively creative in a moreother words, we wanted
meaningsaid above, we

communicative

setting.In

to assess whether they could use figurative creativity to communicate

via the use of figurative compensation

strategies.We

were

real

interested to see whether

participants could use these types of strategy,and whether the training would encourage them to use
themmore. We

therefore presented themwith five obscurepictures of things which

could bedescribed using figurative comparisons, and asked them to describe the pictures to an imaginary
English speaker. We

scored the responses for their explanatory capacity. We

found that the mostexplanatory utterances were often those that were most figuratively creative, but not always. The
scoring system used was as follows:
0 = The participant produces either no expression, or an expression that has no explanatory power
12Promoting

whatsoever
1 = Thefigurative creativity in EFL/ESL

classrooms(e.g.,'itis like my brother' for picture 2)

participant produces an expression that is somewhat

impoverishedexplanatory but whichis slightly(e.g.,'itis like a big apple' for picture 3)

2 = The participantproduces an expression that has good explanatory power (e.g.,'This is a big treethat looks like a wave' for picture 5).

The responses for allthree testswere scored by two independent judges (one English; one
Japanese). Discrepancies occurred in less than 10%of the cases and in these cases, agreement

wasreached through discussion. The test that caused the most difficulties
in scoring was test 3, as thejudges perceived different levels of explanatory power in the participants'responses, partly due totheir own levels of familiaritywith the items chosen for comparison. Generally, the more familiar thejudge

was with the item chosen, the less they were convinced by itsexplanatory power. The pre‑ andpost‑tests are reproduced in the Appendix.

The

training sessions

In the training session, the participantswere divided into two groups. The firstgroup was given theattribute‑matching training,and the second group was given the gestalt training.During the training
sessions, it was stressed to the participants that they should attempt to apply what they had learned
from the training in their subsequent English classes and tests.Commentsfromthe participants

themselves indicate that they were indeed able to see the benefits of the training sessions and thatthey attempted to apply what they had learned. Details of the training sessions for each of the groups
are presented below.

The

attribute‑matching

training

In this session, the students werein metaphor.
expression,

After

this, theyfor example,'mygiven a brief introduction to the idea of attributes and

were

asked

to think of all the attributes that mightteacher is a witch'. Next, they werewith a series of shapes, and to listthe reasons
their choices
designedwasdesignedto encourage

to match

for this exercise was
been

The

gestalt training

to think about

and food they wouldthat it gave

had

asked

them

three famousin thepeopleof the relevant attributes. It was

the three well‑known

be, and give reasonsthe opportunity

be activatedinstruction to list the reasons forthe students to take an explicit, analytical and objective

colour, animal

developed

for their choices. The

to activate detailed consideration

the third exercise, the students werefor each, what

askedof their role

to apply

approachpeopleto task. In

and to decide

for their choice. The

the attribute‑matchingthus

rationaletraining thatin the first two exercises.

The students in the gestalt‑traininggroup were given a similar set of exercises as those in theattribute‑matching group, but they were specificallyasked not to think about the reasons for their13

Masumichoices. Thus they were encouraged

Azuma

and Jeannette Littlemore

to rely mainly on intuition.First they were asked to match aseries of emotions with a series of shapes. They
further set of emotions

andsounds. Then

were then asked to draw their own

they were

given the sametwoshapes for a

exercises as theattribute‑matching group but they were not asked to explain their choices.

The

post‑tests

Three weeks after they had completed their respective training,the students were given the same
set of testsas they had received in the pre‑testsession. The aim was to compare

the scores on these

post‑tests with the scores they had received for the same testsbefore having received the training.We
were interested to see which of the two types of traininghad had a greater impact on the response
rates to the figurative thinking tests.

III. RESULTSAND

DISCUSSION

The resultsof the study, which are presented along with their corresponding research questions, aregiven below. Because
whetherof the small numbers

any of the levels of improvementof participants,non‑parametric testswere used to assess
were significanton any of the three tests,for either of thetwo groups.

RQ

1: Areattribute‑matchinglearnersof English

Mean

performances

2a, andto understandWilcoxon

SignedshowingRanks

test, which

the attribute‑matching

improvement
whereaswhetherand gestalt groups

on Test 1). It will be seen that meanbothfigurative

exercises

expressions

betterat helping

the improvementthat the attribute‑matching

the increases

in scores

weresignificant, are shown

measuredthe significanceand the gestalt group. However,group(p=0.003)

madein Tables

as we
was

found

training may

been

more

2b and 2c, thesignificant
These(p<0.05),findings

indicatebeneficial than the gestalt training in terms

figurative expressions

in English.

scores for attribute‑matching and gestalt groups on Test 1

Attribute‑matchinggroip (N=16)

4.2

5.3

Gestalt group (N= 14)

2.3

2.9

14

in the2b and 2c (the results of

to be

not significant (p=0.084).

Table 2a. Pre and post mean

students

can see in Tables

wasof itsability to help learners understandbyin Tablehigher than those on the pre‑test forin the gestalt grouphave

are presentedof the difference on pre‑ and post‑testscores on the post‑test werein the attribute‑matching

Japanese

in English?

on the pre‑ and post‑tests for figurative understanding

statistical analyses,

attribute‑matchingor gestalt training

Promoting

figurative creativity in EFL/ESL

classrooms

Table 2b. Pre‑ and post‑test on Test 1 Attribute‑matching group
Attributez

post ‑ Attrbutel pre‑2.941(a)Asymp. Sig.(2‑tailed) 0.003 a

Table

gased on negativeranks.

2c. Pre‑ and post‑test on Test 1 Gestalt groupGesfa/f 1post‑ Gestalt1prez‑1.725(a)Asymp. Sig.(2‑taiied) 0.084 g

RQ

2: Are attribute‑matchinglearners
Meanor gestalt training exercises better at helping Japaneseof English to produce
performances

gasecj on negatjveranks

figurative expressions in English?

on the pre‑ and post‑testsfor figurative production are presented in Table 3 a,and statisticalanalyses, showing

whetherthe increases in scores madeattribute‑matching and gestalt groups were significantare shown

Table 3a. Pre and post meanby

students in thein Tables 3b and 3c.

scores for attribute‑matching and gestalt groups on Test 2

Attribute‑matchinggroip
2.7

Gestalt group (N=14)

Table

3b. Pre‑ and post‑test on Test 2 attribute‑matching group
Attribute2
post‑ Attribute2
preZ ‑2.823(a)Asymp. Sig.(2‑taibd) 0005

a Based on negativeranks.

Table 3c. Pre‑ and post‑test on Test 2 gestalt group
Gestalt2z‑1.188(a)Asymp.

As

post ‑ Gestalt 2 preSig. (2‑tailed)

0.235

a Basedwe can see in the tables,the increase in the meangroup

on negative ranks.

score was significantfor the attribute‑matching(p=0.005), but not for the gestalt group (p=0.235). The

attribute‑matching training thus

appears to have been more beneficial than the gestalt training in terms of itsabilityto help learners
produceRQ3

figurative expressions in English.

:Are attribute‑matchinglearners

or gestalttraining exercises better at helping Japaneseof English to be figuratively creative in English?
15

Masumi

Mean

Azuma

and Jeannette Littlemore

performances on the pre‑ and post‑testsof figurativecreativityare presented in Table 4a, andstatisticalanalyses, showing

whetherthe increases

in scores

attribute‑matching and gestaltgroups were significant are shown

made

by

students

inthein Tables 4b and 4c.

Table 4a. Pre aridpost mean scores for attribute‑matching
and gestaltgroups on Test 3

Attribute‑matching groip
Gestalt group (N= 14)

Table 4b. Pre‑ and post‑test on Test 3 attribute‑matching group
Attribute3
post ‑ Attribute3
prez‑0.711(a)Asymp. Sig.(2‑tailed) 0477

a Based on negativeranks.

Table 4c. Pre‑ and post‑test on Test 3 gestalt group
Gestalt

3 post ‑ Gestalt 3 prez‑1.310(a)Asymp. Sig.(2‑tailed) 0.190

The

improvement

for this test was

the gestalt groupperformance(p=0.190).

not significant for either the attribute‑matchingThesefindings suggest

in the figurative creativity test. One

this test was very

different fromthe relevanceof the training.

RQ

type

4: Whichmatchinga Based on negativeranks.

the formatof training

wereinterested to see which

students. In order to find this out, we

reasonfor this could

believe to be morebe the fact that the format

beneficial:

type of training was

simply

asked

them

perceivedoffailed to see

attribute‑completeeachof the three exercises. The

and percentages)

are shownin Tables

to be more

to rate on a scale fromat all useful, 3 is neutral and 5 is very useful) the extent to which

numbersorthat neither type of training led to an improvedof the training sessions, and that the students

do students(p=0.477)

or gestalt training?

Finally, we

them

group

1 to 5 (where

Test 1
Test 2
Test 3

1

2

results of the perceived

effectiveness5a and 5b.

3 (+‑)
5(31.3%)5(++)
8(50%)

3(18.8%)1(6.3%)6(37.5%) 5(31.3%) 4(25%)
4(25%) 8(50%)
4(25%)

16

1 is notthey felt that the training had helped

Table 5a. Attribute‑matchingGroup (N=16)
Evaluation

beneficial by thepostive answers
11 (68.9%)
9 (56.3%)
12 (75o/0)

of training (rawPromoting

Table 5b. Gestalt GroupAs

wecan see in Tables

training more
(averagebreaksusefulfigurative creativity in EFL/ESL(N=14)

5a and 5b, the students in the attribute‑matching(averagepercent

percent of positive answers:
down

the process

is somewhatof positive answers:
59%).

in the attribute‑matchingof figurative thinking

peoplegroup

and why

into clear, manageablecommented

meanings

of wordwhen

student commented

writing in English, I have

if my imagination

wethat: 'It is hard

to knowin the gestalt groupthe words

as the attribute‑matchinggestalt training

about the training but those
that: 'It's fun
Ichiroperson. His hit is like a straightof a sword,

could

and shapes. I think it is useful but at the samethe testing sessions. One

thosestudents commented

to be a straightforward

interesting, because

to find thewith these people, for example

is cool; he gives us the image

that: 'It wasappeared

steps, whereas

positive comments

associate a certain shape

his image

AnothermadeI mightline. David

than

group

to be expectedparticularly positive. Several

is clean and he seems

Beckham,is perhaps

67%)

were

(a baseball player). He

becauseThisvague. The students in both groups

to think aboutclassrooms

seei.e. a manly‑image'.

somethinghiddentime interesting'. They
to write something

and think about

about

a sentencein thealso enjoyed
the picture,
structure, but

and writing go together, it is fun'.

IV. CONCLUSION
Althoughthis is a small, exploratory study whosefindings need to be treated with caution, it does

indicate that, of the two approaches, attribute‑matching appears to be moretraining in terms of itsability to aid the comprehension
second/foreign language learners. One
training makes
down

into manageable

and production of figurative language inreason for this may

the process of figurative thinking mucheffective than gestalt

more

have been that the attribute‑matching
explicitand transparent and breaks it

steps. In the attribute‑matching training sessions, the students were explicitly

told to think about the characteristicsof the source and target domain

terms, and to specifically

identify those that were transferable from one to the other.This is a strategy that they could perhaps
acquire more mechanically, and apply to other circumstances. The gestalttraining,on the other hand,is a moreintuitiveand much

Nothing

is really 'explained' to the students. They

unanalyzed

less tangible approach and does not involve a step‑by‑step procedure.

connections between

are therefore more

the shapes and the sounds. Morelikely to haveformedlongitudinal research into theeffects of the gestalt approach, and a greater understanding of the intuitive factors in language
learning may makestudents,teachers and researchers more aware of itspossible strengths. Neither of

the two types of trainingwas found to promote more general figurative creativity,as measured
pictures test. This could be because

the pictures test could be completed

by oureffectively without

MasumiAzuma

figurative

thinking, as students could simply

figurative

thinkingstyle is not always
Future

would

could

usefully

investigate

and production

limit the number
degreegoodin this activity is therefore a mattercomprehension

importantprovideliteralanswersof choice, andto the questions.

The use ofa student's preferred

thinking

related to their ability to think figuratively (Littlemore

research

metaphorand Jeannette Littlemore

whetherthe results foundin context. Althoughof interpretations

andcreative, they also need

to be aware

identified

by Deignan(2005).

that they

can use for more

It would

usagesusagesof language

forlimitations

it wouldadd

anuseful to teach students to beof figurative language

also be useful to teach themcreative or unusual

also holdof contextual

that are acceptable,

itis undoubtedlyof the conventional

p.485).

in this study

the presence

productionsof authenticity to the study. Although

2001,

appropriate(Cameronthat have been

signallinganddevices

Deignan2003,

p. 154).
A

final further step might

figurative
businesslanguageandsubstantial

be to investigate the ways

to negotiate

withothers, andpolitics, the ability to manipulate

contribution

training werebe able to use their English

more

graduates

languagecommunicate
figurative

to one's ability to perform

successful, university

in whichpersuasively.

languagethese functions

who

were

learners can be helped

has

been

(e.g. MorganIn

to usethe domains

found
1996,

of

to makeap. 10). If such

able to use figurative language

would

then

effectively in the global arena.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to thank the anonymous

reviewers for their insightfulcomments.

REFERENCES
Azuma,

M. 2005. Metaphorical

Cameron,L., &metaphor
Cook,

Deignan,in an EFL

A. 2003. 'Usingin spoken discourse' Metaphor

G. 2004. Language

Deignan,competence

play, language

A. 2005. Metaphor

Littlemore, J.,&

Publishing.

large and small corpora to investigate tuning devices aroundand Symbol

18 (3): 149‑160.

learning. Oxford: Oxford

and corpus linguistics.London:

Littlemore, J. 2001. 'Metaphoric
cognitive style?' TESOL

context. Tokyo: Toshindocompetence:

University Press.

John Benjamins.

a possible language learning strength of students with a holistic

Quarterly, 35 (3): 459‑491.

Low,

G. 2006a. Figurative thinking and foreign language

Low,

G. 2006b.

learning. Basingstoke:

Palgrave

MacMillan.
Littlemore, J., &'Metaphoriccompetence

andcommunicative

languageability' Applied

Linguistics 27 (2): 268‑294.
Morgan,G. 1996. Images

Pitts, M., Smith, M., &throughof organization. London:
Pollio, H. 1982. 'An

Sage Publications.

evaluation of three different theories of metaphor

production

the use of an intentional category mistake procedure' Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 11 (4):347‑368
Pollio, H., & Smith, M. 1980. 'Metaphoriccompetence

and complex

18

human

problemsolving'. In Honeck,

R.P.

Promoting

figurative creativity in EFL/ESL

classrooms& Hoffman, R.R. (eds) Cognition andfigurative language, Hillsdale:New

Jersey.

Schmitt, N. 2000. Vocabulary in language teaching.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Swain, M. 2005. 'The output hypothesis:Theory and research'.In Mahwah,

E.H. (ed.), Handbook

onresearch in second language teaching and learning,471‑484. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

APPENDIX

The pre‑ and post‑tests

In English, many
the wordaroundanimal nouns

her back). What

To dog someone

words

for body

can use the word

mountain).
some

Can

2.

3.

To monkey

To squirrel one's money

like a snake (he snaked

around 4.

To wolf down

Leg 3.

his arm

food

away

parts in English can be extended

to talk about things metaphorically. For example,'foot' figuratively to talk about the foot of a mountain(meaningwords

the bottom
mighthave to change the part of speech)?
Head

Test 3. Communicative
Describe

to curl round

you think of any possible figurative extensions that the following

cases you may

l.Handmeans

do you think the following expressions might mean?

5. To horse around 6.

weinto verbs, and take on a figurative meaning. For example,'snake' can form the verb 'to snake' which

1. To pig out 2.

Many

can be changed

to an imaginary4.

Eye 5.

Nose

6.

Mouth

competence
English‑speaking

listener what is in each of the following pictures.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

19

of a

have (in