RIESGO POR CONTAMINACIÓN

To begin with, metaphor can be a challenge for students purely from a linguistic perspective. Learners must first decide whether a term or phrase is being used literally or metaphorically, which is not always easy to do in their second language (Low, 1998, p. 136). In addition, the complete meaning of a metaphorical expression may not be transparent from the context, making it even more difficult for learners to process (Littlemore & Low, 2006a, p. 5). Moreover, learners may encounter the figurative meaning of a word before learning the literal meaning, and learners who are unfamiliar with the more basic meanings of words in a

27

metaphorical expression will certainly struggle to interpret its metaphorical meaning (Low, 1988, p. 136). Finally, compared with native speakers, learners often lack a repertoire of familiar, prefabricated figurative expressions and this lack of language knowledge contributes to the difficulties they have interpreting metaphorical language in their L2 (Littlemore & Low 2006a, p. 6).

At the same time, Trim (2007) acknowledges that due to the embodied nature of many conceptual metaphors, a great deal of universality exists in conceptualizations from a variety of languages, especially those related to the body and spatial orientation (pp. 30-33). This is because people around the world experience the same reactions to certain events as they

experience the world in their daily life. For example, anger is often expressed through metaphors related to heat since increased pulse rate and raised skin temperature correlate with being angry. The conceptual metaphor ANGER IS HOT FLUID/GAS IN A CONTAINER can be found in English, Japanese, and Chinese (Trim, 2007, p. 32). In this case, L2 English learners from China and Japan should be able to understand the underlying conceptual metaphor and would only need to learn the English vocabulary and linguistic expressions for articulating it.

However, even when languages share the same metaphorical concepts, there is still a large amount of cross-cultural variation in the ways metaphorical thought is both conceptualized and linguistically expressed (Kövecses, 2005). For instance, the range of the target domain and the scope of the source domain can lead to a great amount of variety in the way conceptual metaphors are realized linguistically in different languages (Kövecses, 2005, pp. 70-79). In addition, as there are a number of different source domains that can be mapped onto a particular target domain, two languages or cultures may also show a preference for one conceptual

28

(Kövecses, 2005, pp. 82-86). For example, when both Americans and Hungarians were asked to write about life, the top ten most commonly used metaphors for both groups included four of the same source domains, as shown in Table 1 below. However, speakers of the two different languages showed different preferences for the source domains, and used some more frequently in one language than in the other (Kövecses, 2005, pp. 83-85). In addition, cross-cultural

variation can arise through different construals of the same conceptual metaphor through different mappings, entailments, and blending (Kövecses 2005, p. 118), or through variation in linguistic expression caused by differing degrees of linguistic elaboration, different kinds of linguistic expression, degrees of conventualization, degrees of specificity, scope of metaphor, and degrees of metaphorical transparency (Kövecses, 2005, pp. 151-155). This means that regardless of whether or not two languages share the same conceptual metaphor, comprehending and using the specific linguistic expression of that concept in the second language may still be difficult for L2 students.

Table 1: Life Metaphors for Americans and Hungarians (cited in Kövecses, 2005, p.84)

Source: Kövecses, 2002

29

Indeed, Falck (2012) observed that cross-linguistic transfer occurs even when two languages share the exact same underlying primary and conceptual metaphors. Falck (2012) found that, compared to native English speakers, Swedish students of English metaphorically used “way” more often than “road” and “path” and also focused more on manner than motion when speaking English (p. 130). As one’s native language influences how metaphors are learned and used in the L2, even advanced learners conceive and talk about concepts differently in the L2 than native speakers (Falck, 2012, p. 131).

Moreover, linguistic factors affect not only metaphor, but also metonymy. For example, while body parts are used metonymically in many different languages, there is extensive variation in the way they are metonymically chained (Littlemore, 2015, p. 140). For instance, while ‘ear’ often refers to hearing, in some languages the ‘ear’ metonymy is also chained to refer

to paying attention or being obedient (ibid). Moreover, metonymic uses in one language may have a broader, more inclusive meaning than in another, possibly leading to misunderstandings in cross-linguistic communication (Littlemore, 2015, p. 142). Other research has found cross- linguistic variation in the syntax of metonymical expressions (Littlemore, 2015, p. 141). This means that L2 students may inadvertently transfer the syntax from their L1 when using

metonymy in their L2. Littlemore (2015) concludes that subtle yet consequential differences in metonymy across languages may “present a challenge to language learners and may explain some of the ‘foreign-sounding’ expressions” that learners occasionally produce (p. 143).

These studies show that linguistic factors contribute to difficulties L2 students face when interpreting metaphor and metonymy in their second language. Learners may struggle with determining whether or not a term or phrase is literal or metaphorical, may not know the basic meanings of words, and might lack a repertoire of familiar metaphorical expressions in their L2.

30

Furthermore, variation in the preferences for different conceptual metaphors and differences in the way similar conceptual metaphors are linguistically expressed in various languages can exacerbate this problem. In addition, these linguistic challenges extend not only to metaphor but also to metonymy as cross-linguistic variation in the way metonymy is expressed, the extent to which specific metonymic expressions are used, and its accompanying syntax can all pose challenges for L2 learners (Littlemore, 2015). As this study involved students speaking a number of different first languages, linguistic challenges could make it more difficult for them to

correctly understand, interpret, and use both metaphor and metonymy in their L2.