Uso de las TIC en el aprendizaje de español como Lengua Extranjera

A very important reason for the difficulty that idioms pose for ESL learners concerns their conceptual nature. Kovecses and Szabco (1996) argued that idioms are “products of our conceptual system and not simply a matter of language” (p. 330), and as such are “conceptual, and not linguistic, in nature” (ibid). Kovecses (2010) further pointed out that idioms use conceptual metaphors to link source domain, “the conceptual domain from which we draw metaphorical expressions to understand another conceptual

domain” (p. 4), and target domain, “the domain that we try to understand through the use of the source domain” (ibid). For example, in the sentence Argument is war, argument is the target domain, and war is the source domain. To truly understand conceptual

metaphors, according to Kovecses, ESL learners need to establish “systematic correspondences between the source and the target (domains)” (p. 7) through a set of mappings. However, these mappings can be quite challenging. Boers, Demecheleer, & Eyckmans (2004b), for instance, suggested the use of etymological elaboration, the kind of pedagogy that facilitates ESL learners’ comprehension of the conceptual metaphor in an idiom through reference to its “origin or source domain, i.e. the context in which it was originally used in a literal sense” (p. 378). There are, nevertheless, two limitations of this approach. First of all, it seemed to be effective only with idioms “whose source domains are easy to identify and are sufficiently informative to figure out the

metaphorical sense” (ibid, p. 379), and therefore those opaque or pure idioms are more likely to be subject to non-comprehension due to ESL learners’ insufficient cultural and lexical knowledge. Second, even with idioms that are suitable for etymological

elaboration, ESL learners’ little familiarity with or misinterpretation of the meanings of the key words in the idioms, the lack of salience of a particular source domain in some cultures (ibid, p. 380), and ESL learners’ inability to pinpoint the precise conceptual metaphors of an idiom despite their identification of its source domain (Boers et al., 2009) can all hinder the success of mappings. This is compounded by findings from prior studies suggesting ESL learners’ native languages (L1s) might interfere with their

comprehension and retention of English idioms of similar source domains (e.g., Irujo, 1986). Since learners, in processing idioms, are not advantageous in terms of linking L2

lexical items to the concepts they denote (e.g., source domains) through the use of their L1s, as posited by the revised hierarchical model (Kroll & Stewart, 1994), it appears that the mappings that are required for understanding the conceptual metaphors of idioms might somehow detract from their learnability due to the cultural specificity of source domains.

Another reason relates to mental imagery of idioms. Boers et al. (2004a) made the claim that for idioms whose source domains are not culturally typical, the effectiveness of etymological elaboration can also be explained in light of the “dual-coding theory” (Clark & Paivio, 1991; Paivio, 1986) and “levels of processing theory” (Cermak & Craik, 1979; Craik & Lockhart, 1972). As they described it, “the activation of the literal or original sense of a figurative idiom is likely to call up a mental image of a concrete scene. Storing verbal information as a mental image is believed to pave an extra pathway for recall because the information is thus encoded in a dual fashion” (Boers et al., 2004a, p. 58). Furthermore, in linking mental images to the origins of the idioms, learners are likely to process them at a deeper level, which is conducive to retention. The results of research into the effectiveness of “dual-coding” and “levels of processing”, however, is

inconclusive. Some studies (e.g., Boers et al., 2008, 2009), for example, showed that mental images were only effective for the comprehension and retention of the meanings rather than linguistic form of idioms. Steinel, Hulstijn, and Steinel (2007) also found that idioms that are less transparent in meanings were less susceptible to visualization, and therefore led to less success in learning. Boers and Demecheleer (2001) similarly found that imageable idioms, “idioms that have associated conventional images” (p. 255, also see Lakoff, 1987, p. 447), might not call up the same conventional scene in ESL learners’

minds as they did in native speakers’ due to cross-linguistic and cross-cultural variation. As they put it, “Conventions differ across cultures, so that straightforward images in one culture need not be self-evident in another” (ibid, p. 256). Therefore, it seems that complexity of utilizing mental images for the acquisition of idioms may limit the usefulness of “dual-coding” and “level of processing”.

Metaphorical awareness is a third factor contributing to the difficulty of learning idioms. While metaphorical awareness was found in several studies to be beneficial for the understanding and retention of idioms (e.g., Boers, 2000; Guo, 2007), raising ESL learners’ metaphorical awareness is not so straightforward, for the content and form of metaphorical expressions differ across cultures (Deignan, 2003; Kovecses, 1995). A typical example is Deignan, Gabrys and Solska’s (1997) study that examined the variations in the metaphorical expressions of English and Polish and the consequent comprehension problems that Polish learners of English encountered in understanding English metaphors. Their results revealed that although Polish learners performed well on idiomatic expressions of the same conceptual metaphors and equivalent or different linguistic expressions, they had difficulty deciphering English idioms that used different conceptual metaphors, or words and expressions with similar literal but different

metaphorical meanings. Littlemore (2001) also found that L2 learners who had a holistic cognitive style were more advantageous over those with an analytic cognitive style in terms of processing metaphors. Littlemore argued that since analytic students are better at learning the literal meanings of English words and expressions, they might have

problems understanding the metaphorical meanings of idioms that involved creative thinking.

While metaphorical awareness is undoubtedly crucial for the development of ESL learners’ knowledge about idioms, their success in linking the literal meanings to the metaphorical or figurative meanings of idioms seems to be even more essential. A number of researchers (e.g., Matlock & Heredia, 2002; Kecskes, 2000; Liontas, 2002) found that, instead of directly retrieving the metaphorical meanings of idioms, ESL learners’ processing of the literal meanings of idioms usually preceded that of the figurative meanings, and they often resorted to the literal interpretation for the

comprehension of figurative meanings. Particularly Cieslicka (2006), based on her study on Polish ESL learners’ processing of 40 English idioms, made the claim that “literal meanings of L2 idiomatic items will continue to enjoy a more salient status than their figurative meanings, irrespective of whether an L2 idiom is highly familiar or less familiar to the L2 user” (p. 121). Cooper’s (1999) study also showed that in

comprehending an idiom, the strategies that ESL learners most frequently employed were discussing and analyzing the idiom and using the literal meaning of the idiom. Although the use of literal meanings for the understanding of figurative meanings seems to be fruitful for idioms of a high degree of transparency, that is, those of considerable “semantic overlap or similarity between the literal and the figurative meanings of an idiom” (Steinel et al., 2007, p. 478), for idioms that are opaque and non-compositional, a heavy reliance on the literal meanings can sometimes be counterproductive. Abel (2003), for instance, found that German ESL learners’ analysis of the individual constituents of opaque, non-compositional idioms in general led to the incorrect interpretation of their figurative meanings. Steinel et al.’s (2007) study further indicated that the high degree of transparency of idioms did not necessarily guarantee ESL learners’ better understanding

and retention. In sum, it seems safe to conclude that discrepancies in the processing of the literal and figurative meanings of idioms may add to the difficulty of grasping and

memorizing them.