Revisión Documentos Institucionales

Figure 3.21 and Figure 3.22 below show the level of variation in the MRW densities of each genre at each level.

124

Figure 3.21 Box-and-whisker plot showing variation in metaphoric density for each genre in writing produced by Japanese learners

Figure 3.22 Box-and-whisker plot showing variation in metaphoric density for each genre in writing produced by French learners

The large amounts of variation in MRW densities for each genre also deserve attention.

Such high levels are perhaps to be expected given the similar levels noted in Section 3.3, but they also provide a further warning against viewing genre as a defining factor in an essay’s

0 5 10 15 20

Describe Request M.A. Describe Request M.A. Article Letter Discuss Article Letter Discuss Article Letter Discuss

KET PET FCE CAE CPE

Metaphoric density %

CEFR level and genre

Variation in MRW densities for each genre - Japanese learners' writing

0 5 10 15 20

Describe Request M.A. Describe Request M.A. Article Letter Discuss Article Letter Discuss Article Letter Discuss

KET PET FCE CAE CPE

Metaphoric density %

CEFR level and genre

Variation in MRW densities for each genre - French learners' writing

125

MRW density. Again, these graphs suggest that metaphor use varies substantially between different learners, not only of the same level and language background, but also when producing the same text type.

The small size of the dataset and the blurred boundaries between genres, especially at the higher levels, are particularly problematic for this analysis. Further research could usefully focus on one level of the CEFR only and choose text types which are easier to distinguish in order to gain a better impression of the impact of genre on learners’ metaphor use.

However, despite these drawbacks, this analysis has confirmed the high levels of variation found in Section 3.3, suggesting that metaphor density varies significantly between individual learners and cannot be explained by text type alone.

3.9 Conclusions

This chapter has presented the results of a series of analyses designed to provide insights into the amount and type of metaphor French and Japanese learners of English use as they progress through the levels of the CEFR. These findings will now be briefly summarised and their implications on the research questions of this thesis discussed.

As was expected given the results of previous research into use of metaphor by learners of English (Littlemore et al., 2014), it was shown that on the whole, MRW density increased as learners progressed through the levels, as one would expect. The small decrease in the French MRW density between levels PET and FCE was unexpected, but statistically insignificant. However, while by level CPE the metaphoric densities produced by the two groups of learners was very similar (12.41% in the Japanese dataset to 12.59% in the French), the two groups of learners took very different paths to reach this point in terms of both the quantity and type of metaphors used. In Section 3.2, for example, the statistically significant

126

increases in metaphor density were found at different levels in the two groups: while both produced a significant increase between levels KET and PET, the Japanese learners also produced one between PET and FCE, the French between CAE and CPE. There is also variation in terms of the use of metaphor in clusters, with the French learners producing more clusters at PET level than their Japanese counterparts, although again, by CPE there is very little to distinguish the two groups’ uses of metaphor clusters. In terms of the distribution of open- and closed-class MRWs, also, the crossover point where learners produce more open-class than closed-class metaphor differed between the two sets of learners, occurring one level earlier in the French learners’ writing. A high degree of variation was observed in the MRW densities of individual essays, suggesting that metaphor use may develop differently according to the individual. Taken together, these findings should perhaps serve to discourage researchers in this field from making prescriptive judgements about the amount of metaphor a learner ‘should’ be using at a certain level, as while variation is observed in the process, the same end point is nonetheless reached by the more advanced levels.

In terms of the type of metaphor used, direct metaphors, implicit metaphors and possible personification were analysed separately, with relatively low levels of each being found.

However, the use of these different types of metaphor, especially personification, was the most noticeable after level FCE. By level FCE, too, both groups of learners had produced their largest increases in metaphoric density and cluster use, and open-class metaphor use had surpassed closed-class use. FCE is also the point at which text genre has a significant impact on metaphor use, suggesting a growing sensitivity to genre. This finding was not repeated in subsequent levels, however, perhaps due to the fuzzy boundaries between

127

genres in the later levels as discussed in Chapter 2. On the whole, however, FCE therefore can be considered to be a level where the language learners produce is qualitatively different to that of the lower levels, representing a noticeable break between the beginner and the more advanced levels.

The analyses reported in this chapter have given a general overview of metaphor development and can thus form the basis of a response to research question one. They have also formed the foundations for the studies in forthcoming chapters, particularly Chapter Four which looks more closely at the lexical development of metaphor alluded to in the TTR calculations reported in Section 3.7 above. Finally, the high levels of variation observed both between and within language backgrounds in terms of how metaphor use develops could serve as a cautionary note against overly generalising definitions of

‘metaphoric competence’, providing a first insight into research question four of this thesis.

This chapter can also serve to highlight two drawbacks to the dataset used in this thesis.

One is its size, which particularly impacted upon the investigation of the text genre’s effect on metaphor density. This was further hampered by the difficulties in distinguishing between genres at the higher levels. Second, the high levels of individual variation suggest that metaphoric competence might proceed very differently from learner to learner. A longitudinal study of the same small group of learners could therefore provide very interesting insights this dataset cannot. However, it is hoped that the dataset used in this thesis will still provide a valuable portrait of the development of metaphor use in learners of English to complement future longitudinal research.

128

4 A S

R

M

U

L

D

4.1 Introduction

Chapter Three enabled an overall impression of metaphor development, thus forming the basis for a response to Research Question One. This chapter further deepens the insights provided in Chapter Three and seeks to provide part of the answer to Research Question Two, concerned with how metaphor interacts with and contributes to other aspects of language development. More specifically, this chapter aims to explore the ways in which metaphor both contributes to, and is a fundamental part of, a learner’s lexical development.

The hypothesis tested in this chapter is that metaphor development will proceed along very similar lines to overall lexical development. A justification for this hypothesis is provided in Section 4.2 below.

This chapter is split into two subsections. The first refers to lexical breadth and metaphor’s relation to its development. The second does the same for lexical depth. However, this distinction is made with the recognition that it is perhaps problematic to investigate size/breadth and depth separately, given that the two areas have been shown to be linked (Read, 2004b), or even essentially non-distinguishable. For example, it is only through knowledge of the subtly different meanings of words in a semantic network (‘depth’) that a language user can express an individual word’s meaning (Vermeer, 2001). Tests of vocabulary size and depth have also shown a correlation between the two, for example those performed by Qian (1999) who found high degrees of correlation between size and depth in adult learners of English. This correlation has been shown to be especially strong in more advanced learners (Nurweni and Read, 1999); weaker correlation is observed in

lower-129

level learners, probably because the two domains do not develop concurrently (Akbarian, 2010). Nevertheless, drawing this distinction allows the focus to be placed on these two different facets of vocabulary development and metaphor’s relationship to them.