This article was downloaded by: [Harvard College]On: 19 August 2013, At: 06:30Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

The Language Learning JournalPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rllj20

Metaphor awareness in teachingvocabularyMarika Kalyuga a & Slava Kalyuga ba Department of European Languages, Macquarie University, NorthRyde, Australiab School of Education, University of New South Wales, Sydney,AustraliaPublished online: 27 Oct 2008.

To cite this article: Marika Kalyuga & Slava Kalyuga (2008) Metaphor awareness in teachingvocabulary, The Language Learning Journal, 36:2, 249-257, DOI: 10.1080/09571730802390767

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09571730802390767

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Metaphor awareness in teaching vocabulary

Marika Kalyugaa* and Slava Kalyugab

aDepartment of European Languages, Macquarie University, North Ryde, Australia; bSchool ofEducation, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia

Patterns of language are usually perceived, learned and used as meaningful chunks thatare processed as a whole, resulting in a reduced learning burden and increased fluency.The ability to comprehend and produce lexical chunks or groups of words which arecommonly found together is an important part of language acquisition. This paperdemonstrates how an awareness of conceptual metaphor and grouping of various wordsand expressions in a metaphorical chunk may improve the process of vocabularyacquisition. Since words that appear in language as a result of metaphorical extensionsresemble other etymologically related words, this method may help learners inestablishing mental associations and speed up learning, especially if students alreadyknow words to which new vocabulary is related. In this way, learners’ prior knowledgewould assist in assimilating new information by reducing burden on limited-capacityworking memory. The current paper offers a specific example of implementing thisapproach, and demonstrates how Russian words and idiomatic expressions can be pres-ented in metaphorical chunks to facilitate cognitively efficient learning. It suggests that asimilar approach may potentially be extended to syntactic properties of words thatcould be explained via conceptual metaphors encoded in their origin. By exploring thisconnection, a metaphorical approach could also be used in teaching grammar.

Introduction

Vocabulary is one of the most complicated of all areas in the teaching and learning oflanguage. Until the 1980s, however, the learning of vocabulary was treated as an example ofrather simple (mostly rote) learning of the meaning of individual words. Even large listsof words were considered as instructional materials that could be learned one word at a timewithout relation to other words. Such materials were regarded as low in internal complexityor element interactivity and, therefore, causing low cognitive load. In contrast, the learning ofgrammar rules was considered as an example of learning highly interactive materials thatgenerate substantial cognitive demands and require methods for managing this load.

However, closer examination of the actual cognitive processes involved in vocabularylearning that results in fluent performance indicates that it is a more complicated andcognitively demanding activity than was previously assumed. Vocabulary learningincludes complex processes of acquisition of word pronunciation and meaning, as wellas their stylistic, morphological and syntactic properties. Considering the cognitive loadimplications of these processes and developing effective means of managing potentiallearner overload may improve instructional techniques used in teaching vocabulary.

*Corresponding author. Email: Marika.Kalyuga@humn.mq.edu.au

Language Learning Journal

Vol. 36, No. 2, December 2008, 249–257

ISSN 0957-1736 print/ISSN 1753-2167 online

� 2008 Association for Language Learning

DOI: 10.1080/09571730802390767

http://www.informaworld.com

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Har

vard

Col

lege

] at

06:

30 1

9 A

ugus

t 201

3

During the 1980s and 1990s, the research of Sinclair (1987), Nattinger (1988), Nattingerand DeCarrico (1992), Willis (1990), Lewis (1993, 1997a, 1997b) and others challenged theview of vocabulary as a collection of separate words with set meanings. Their researchsuggests that patterns of language are perceived, learned and used as meaningful lexicalchunks or phrases that are processed as a whole, resulting in a reduced learning burden andprocessing time, as well as in increased fluency. In the teaching of a second language, thisapproach has recently become popular as an alternative to grammar-based approaches.Subsequent studies have emphasised that an important part of language acquisition is theability to comprehend and produce lexical chunks or groups of words which are commonlyfound together (e.g. Nation 2001;Willis 2003). In her comprehensive review of the field,Wray(2002) organised and synthesised recent work on the lexical chunks (formulaic sequences)that are stored and retrieved as whole units from memory.

The aim of this paper is to show how an awareness of conceptual metaphor (e.g. therelationships expressed, in Russian, in the verbs ‘to give’ or ‘to teach’) and grouping ofvarious words and expressions in a metaphorical chunk according to a sharedmetaphorical theme may improve the process of vocabulary acquisition. The paper startswith a brief overview of how the cognitive system works and what aspects of it should betaken into consideration in order to create more effective ways to teach vocabulary(‘Human cognitive architecture’ section). It continues by outlining some advantages ofusing the theory of conceptual metaphor in teaching and learning foreign languages(‘Using metaphor awareness in vocabulary teaching’ section). As a specific example ofimplementing this approach, we will demonstrate how Russian words and idiomaticexpressions can be presented in metaphorical chunks so as to facilitate cognitively efficientlearning (‘Metaphorical chunks’ section).

Human cognitive architecture

The understanding of the mechanisms of our cognitive system is important for developingeffective approaches to teaching vocabulary. The human cognitive system includes severalbasic components that are essential in learning processes: sensory memory, workingmemory and long-term memory. Working memory is the major conscious cognitiveprocessor involved in constructing and integrating mental representations and short-termmaintenance of the relevant information (Baddeley 1986). Working memory is extremelylimited in capacity and duration when dealing with unfamiliar information. For example,we can hardly recall more than approximately seven serially presented random words(Miller 1956). Even this limited number of items would be lost within a few seconds, unlessthey were intentionally rehearsed.

Our long-term memory stores learned information in the form of organised domain-specific knowledge structures and is virtually unlimited both in capacity and duration. Anorganised knowledge structure (schema) allows us to encapsulate many related elements ofinformation into a single chunk. Since working-memory capacity is measured by the numberof processed chunks (seven plus or minus two, according to Miller (1956)), the chunkingmechanism effectively reduces capacity demands on working memory by treating incominginformation in terms of larger units. Therefore, working-memory limits are of much lessconcern to learners with a larger and better organised knowledge base in a specific domain.

Chunking is essential for the comprehension and production of different levels ofwritten and spoken language. Common combinations of lower-level language componentsare chunked and processed efficiently as higher-level units. For example, with increasinglanguage-mastery levels, written letters are processed as units (chunks) rather than as

250 M. Kalyuga and S. Kalyuga

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Har

vard

Col

lege

] at

06:

30 1

9 A

ugus

t 201

3

separate strokes; morphemes are processed as chunks rather than as sets of separateletters; words are processed as units rather than as sets of morphemes; collocations areprocessed as units rather than as groups of separate words, etc. (Ellis 2001; Nation 2001).For a novice in a foreign language, a printed text might look like a collection of unfamiliarsymbols, while fluent native readers would be able to make sense of the whole text. Theywould treat whole words and combinations of words as single chunks.

Available knowledge structures in long-term memory also provide the necessaryguidance during high-level cognitive processes such as problem solving or languagecomprehension. Without such guidance, we have to resort to a random search forsolutions or meanings, which is cognitively inefficient and time-consuming and mayimpose a heavy working-memory load that interferes with learning. In contrast, whendealing with familiar situations, we rapidly retrieve appropriate previously acquiredknowledge structures from long-term memory and apply them in a cognitively efficientway (Kintsch 1998). Due to the available long-term memory knowledge base, experts inspecific domains are able to avoid cognitively inefficient mental processes and carry outsuch processes with greater accuracy and lower cognitive loads.

In the area of vocabulary learning, the concept of the learning burden of a word wasdefined as the amount of mental effort required to learn the word (Nation 1990, 2001). Itwas determined that the level of learners’ prior knowledge and familiarity with relatedsimilar patterns (e.g. similar sounds, spellings or grammatical patterns in the firstlanguage, similar collocations and constraints) was the most important factor influencingthe learning burden. It could be substantially reduced by drawing learners’ attention tosystematic patterns, analogies and connections between the second and first languages(Laufer 1997; Nation 2001). Thus, by combining multiple elements of information into asingle chunk in working memory, long-term-memory knowledge structures allow us toavoid processing overwhelming amounts of information and to eliminate effectivelypotential working-memory overload. Human cognitive architecture has evolved in such away that information processing changes significantly as this information becomes morefamiliar to an individual (Sweller 2003).

Cognitive load theory (for overviews, see Kalyuga (2006) and Sweller, vanMerrienboer and Paas (1998)) is based on the assumptions that schema acquisition isthe major goal of learning, and that the limited capacity of working memory maydramatically influence the effectiveness and efficiency of instructional methods. Reducingexcessive working-memory loads and an appropriate allocation of cognitive resources isessential to learning. Effectively connecting newly learned information with available priorknowledge structures is a major means of improving instructional techniques.

Using metaphor awareness in vocabulary teaching

Since vocabulary learning is a cognitively demanding process capable of causing highlevels of working-memory load, specific approaches are needed to reduce potentialcognitive overload and associated learning burdens. In recent years, studies in cognitivelinguistics have been successfully adapted to facilitate foreign language vocabularyacquisition. In particular, steps have been taken to find out how metaphor awareness canincrease the speed of vocabulary learning. A number of studies have demonstrated thatknowledge of conceptual metaphors has a positive effect on a student’s ability to acquirepolysemantic words and idiomatic expressions (e.g., Boers 2004; Charteris-Black andEnnis 2001; Csabi 2004; Deignan, Gabrys and Solska 1997; Herrera and White 2000;Kondaiah 2004; Kovecses and Szabo 1996; Lazar 1996). The other application of

Language Learning Journal 251

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Har

vard

Col

lege

] at

06:

30 1

9 A

ugus

t 201

3

metaphor awareness is that it may encourage students to figure out idiomatic expressionswithout the teacher’s assistance and therefore help foster the development of learningindependence and problem-solving skills (e.g. Lennon 1998). Moreover, the understandingof common metaphorical extensions in vocabulary may facilitate students’ understandingof cross-cultural differences in metaphor usage and help to avoid errors caused by theinterference of their mother tongue (Boers 2003; Kovecses 2003).

Research has also suggested that introducing new words and expressions in chunks onthe basis of a shared metaphoric theme would create mental associations and improvelearning outcomes (e.g. Boers 1997a, 1997b, 2004; Evans and Evans 1989; MacLennan1994; Nattinger 1988). Presenting new words and expressions in chunks on the basis oftheir simultaneous occurrence, semantic similarity or contrast, as well as morphemicresemblance, is a common teaching technique used to help students to remember wordsand expressions. Grouping new words and expressions according to a shared metaphoricaltheme is another way to introduce vocabulary and to speed up vocabulary learning. Inaddition, learners’ awareness of common metaphors not only helps them to understandthe meanings of idiomatic expressions and polysemantic words, but also assists them inremembering words that are etymologically related to other words via metaphors.Etymologically related words are often similar in sound and syntactic use. Therefore,introducing these words together aids the process of their acquisition. Related vocabularyitems that are mentally grouped together and associated with established schematicknowledge structures could be stored in long-term memory more effectively.

Metaphorical chunks

In this section, we will use examples of Russian words and idiomatic expressions withmeanings related to understanding, learning and teaching. In Russian, there are a largenumber of common idiomatic expressions with such meanings: for example, xvatat’/sxvatit’ (sxvatyvat’) na letu �cto-libo (‘to understand quickly’), idti dorogoj znanij (‘toeducate oneself’), perexodit’ v drugoj klass v skole, na drugoj kurs v universitete (‘to move upto the next year at school or at university’), etc. The explanations of metaphors, on whichthe meanings of these expressions are based, can help to group them together, as well asmaking it easier to understand and remember them.

Russian synonyms with the meaning ‘to teach’ are also difficult to acquire, since theygovern different cases (prepodavat’ governs the dative to denote a person taught and theaccusative to denote knowledge taught, while u�cit’ governs the accusative to denote aperson taught and the dative to denote knowledge or skill taught). Their usage in thelanguage can also be explained through metaphorical extensions. We will demonstrate thisin the examples of two groups of metaphorical mappings: ‘understanding and learning istaking’ and ‘teaching is giving’ or ‘understanding and learning is moving towardsknowledge’ and ‘teaching is leading or helping to move’.

In many languages, understanding is commonly conceptualised as ‘taking’ or‘grasping’ (Fortescue 2001, 20–21). Such metaphorical conceptualisation of under-standing, as well as learning, is reflected in a number of Russian words and expressions.Expressions like xvatat’/sxvatit’ (sxvatyvat’) na letu �cto-libo (‘to understand quickly’, lit.‘to grasp things quickly’) or ulavlivat’/ulovit’ smysl (‘to catch the meaning’), refer to thisimage. To help students understand these idiomatic expressions, they can be compared tocorresponding English idioms and words (see Table 1).

Consider the English ‘to grasp’, ‘to catch the meaning of’ and ‘to take in a lecture’, as wellas ‘to apprehend’, which goes back to the Latin apprehendere (‘to take hold of, grasp’) (Online

252 M. Kalyuga and S. Kalyuga

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Har

vard

Col

lege

] at

06:

30 1

9 A

ugus

t 201

3

etymology dictionary, hereafter OED; http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?l). If ‘tounderstand’ is conceptualised as ‘to take’ and ‘to misunderstand’ as ‘to mis(take) (wronglytake)’, ‘to teach’ is metaphorically described as ‘to give knowledge’. This can be seen in theoriginal meaning of prepodavat’ (‘to teach’). The verb prepodavat’ had the meaning (‘to give’)(Tiblen 1972, 3, 946), which was not inherited by contemporary Russian.

It is important to explain to students the etymology of prepodavat’ since it connects thisverb to the very common davat’ (‘to give’), which is familiar even to beginners. If studentsalready know the verb davat’ (‘to give’) and its syntactic properties, it would help them tolearn prepodavat’ (‘to teach’), which appeared in language as a result of a metaphoricalconceptualisation of teaching as ‘giving knowledge’. The word prepodavat’ (‘to teach’)resembles davat’ (‘to give’) in sound and syntactic properties because they areetymologically related. Effectively using learners’ prior knowledge in long-term memorymay simplify and accelerate learning vocabulary. Connecting new vocabulary items tostudents’ prior knowledge structures may facilitate vocabulary learning and improve theretention of the learned information in long-term memory.

Between the different groups of metaphors for understanding, learning and teaching,the metaphors ‘understanding and learning is moving towards knowledge’ and ‘teaching isleading’ are also among the most common. According to Lakoff, in English culture long-term purposeful activities are metaphorically conceptualised as a journey (Lakoff 1993,223). In Russian, as in English, such activities, including teaching or studying, are alsostructured as a journey. The word doroga refers to ‘path’ or ‘road’, as well as to ‘a way toachieve a goal’ (Evgen’eva 1981, 1, 432); for example: doroga k znaniju (‘the road toknowledge’). Since the process of the achievement of a goal can be conceptualised asmotion towards the goal, the study-as-journey metaphor is a typical one. The process oflearning is associated with ‘moving along the path of knowledge’. The expression idtidorogoj znanij means ‘to walk along the path of knowledge’. Different stages of study are

Table 1. Comparison of English and Russian idioms and words.

Metaphors Russian examples English examples

1(a). Understandingand learning istaking

ulavlivat’/ulovit’ smysl ‘to catch the meaningof’; xvatat’/sxvatit’ (sxvatyvat’) na letu�cto-libo ‘to understand quickly’, lit. ‘tograsp things quickly’.

to grasp, to catch themeaning of; to take in alecture; to apprehend(Latin apprehendere ‘totake hold of, grasp’).

1(b). Teaching isgiving

prepodavat’ ‘to teach’ (Old Russian ‘togive’).

2(a). Understandingand learning ismoving towardsknowledge

doroga k znaniju ‘the road to knowledge’; idtidorogoj znanij ‘to walk along the path ofknowledge’; eto my ne proxodili ‘we havenot studied it’, lit. ‘we have not passed it’.

to learn (Old Englishleornian ‘to follow’ or ‘tofind the track’); to study(Latin studere ‘to bepressing forward’).

2(b). Teaching isleading or helpingto move

nastavit’ na pravil’nyj put’ ‘to set somebody onthe right path’; podgonjat’ ‘to help or toforce to study’, lit. ‘to drive on’; tas�cit’ za usi‘to help or to force to study’, lit. ‘to pull bythe ears’; brat’ na buksir ‘to help to study’,lit. ‘to take in tow’; nastavnik ‘mentor’,‘teacher’ or ‘instructor’ (Old Russian ‘aguide’ or ‘a person who helps one to reach adestination by giving directions’).

to set somebody on the rightpath to train (Old Frenchtraıner, ‘to drag’ or ‘todraw’); to educate (Latin�educ�ere ‘to bring out’).

Language Learning Journal 253

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Har

vard

Col

lege

] at

06:

30 1

9 A

ugus

t 201

3

like stages of the journey. The Russian eto my ne proxodili (‘we have not studied it’) istranslated literally as ‘we have not passed it’.

In the metaphor for ‘study’, a learner is rendered as a traveller who moves along a pathor is understood as being an object that is moved along the path by some force. A learnercan walk perexodit’ from one grade or year of study to another perexodit’ v drugoj klass vskole, na drugoj kurs v universitete (‘to move up to the next year at school or at university’).A poor learner is portrayed in Russian as one who has problems in moving: who limps onboth legs (xromaet na obe nogi) or lags behind (otstaet). Such a learner has to be helped,which is metaphorically described as ‘to drive on’ (podgonjat’) or ‘to pull by the ears’(tas�cit’ za usi) or ‘to take in tow’ (brat’ na buksir). Consider also the expression ‘to setsomebody on the right path’ and its Russian equivalent nastavit’ na pravil‘nyj put’.

The close connection between ‘teaching’ and ‘leading’ is also apparent in the Englishaphorism: ‘education makes a people easy to lead, but difficult to drive’ (Brougham,quoted in Ramsey 2001, 38). Some English words are also based on this metaphor. Forexample, the meaning of the verb ‘to train’ goes back to ‘to pull’ or ‘to draw’ (Skeat 1901,151). The original meaning of the English ‘to learn’ is akin to the Old English leornian,which originally meant ‘to follow’ or ‘to find the track’ (OED). Moreover, the Latin�educ�ere (‘to bring out’) is the source of the English ‘educate’, while the Latin studere (‘to bepressing forward’) is akin to the English ‘study’ (OED).

The domain of teaching as giving directions could be further compared to the domainof teaching as forcing. Accordingly, teaching is metaphorically described as guiding orforcing a learner to move. Since the common semantic source for teaching is forcing,words for ‘one having authority’ came to mean ‘teacher’. The word nastavnik has themeanings of ‘mentor’, ‘teacher’ or ‘instructor’, whereas in Old Russian it also had themeaning ‘a guide’ or ‘a person who helps one to reach a destination by giving directions’(Filin 1983, 10, 265). The verb nataskivat’ (‘to help somebody to learn some skills’)originally had the meaning ‘to drag somebody’ (Tiblen 1972, 3, 866). The English ‘master’goes back to the Latin magister (‘chief’, ‘head’ and ‘teacher’).

The teaching-as-leading metaphor can be combined with the orientational metaphor andteaching-as-forcing metaphor. According to the orientational metaphor formulated byLakoff and Johnson, most of our fundamental concepts are spatially orientated. Forexample, good is conceptualised as up, and bad as down (Lakoff and Johnson 1980, 16). Ifthe meaning of ‘to teach somebody something’ is described as ‘to move somebody towardssomething’ (for example, privazivat’ k (‘to accustom to’; literally, ‘to bring towards’)), themeaning ‘to break somebody’s habit’ is described as ‘to move somebody away fromsomething’ (for example, otvazivat’ ot (‘make stop’; literally, ‘to lead away from’)). The proto-Slavic verb *ouk-ei-timeans ‘a forced action’, a causative to the verb ‘accustom’ (Cyganenko1970, 285). The modern Russian u�cit’ (‘to teach’), obu�cat’ (‘to teach’), priu�cat’ (‘to accustom’)and otu�cat’ (‘to disaccustom from’) came from this verb. According to the case patterns andthe use of prefixes, the verb priu�cat’ (‘to accustom’) refers to the understanding of teaching as(‘bringing towards’), while otu�cat’ (‘to disaccustom from’) refers to the understanding ofteaching as ‘leading away from’.

Introducing similar words like u�cit’, obu�cat’, priu�cat’, otu�cat’, privazivat’ and otvazivat’together can help students to memorise these words and understand their usage in thelanguage. Contrasting them with verbs that appeared in language as a result of differentmetaphorical extensions may also assist in the explanation of their specific syntacticproperties. For example, since metaphorical conceptualisation of teaching can influencethe choice of cases and prepositions, it may help students to see why words with similarmeanings (e.g. prepodavat’ (‘to teach’) and u�cit’ (‘to teach’)) govern different cases. It

254 M. Kalyuga and S. Kalyuga

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Har

vard

Col

lege

] at

06:

30 1

9 A

ugus

t 201

3

shows that when teaching is conceptualised as giving, the person taught is in the dative (thecase used to mark a receiver) and when teaching is conceptualised as forcing to move orleading, the person taught is in the accusative (the case used to mark an object thatundergoes direct action).

The acquisition of vocabulary implies not only memorising the pronunciation andmeanings of words and expressions but also their grammatical features. Therefore, thepresentation of vocabulary in chunks united by metaphorical themes would not only assistin creating mental associations and explaining idiomatic figurative expressions, but also inexplaining syntactic properties of words and idioms. Thus, metaphor awareness mayfacilitate comprehension of meanings of words and idiomatic expressions, as well as theirgrammatical properties, and therefore help to reduce learners’ cognitive load.

Conclusion

Many researchers have highlighted the importance of organising and presenting wordsand expressions in chunks on the basis of a shared metaphoric theme, rather than usingalphabetical word order. The presentation of vocabulary in chunks united by the samemetaphorical themes can create a mental link and enhance learning by reducing a potentialcognitive overload and the associated learning burden. Moreover, since words that appearin language as a result of metaphorical extensions resemble other etymologically relatedwords, this method may help learners in establishing mental associations and speed uplearning, especially if students already know words to which new vocabulary is related.Thus, learners’ prior knowledge would assist in assimilating new information by reducingburden on limited-capacity working memory.

Because the suggested method requires extensive use of learners’ prior knowledge baseand experience with the patterns of the first language as well as certain analytical abilities,it may be more suitable for older, post-childhood students, i.e. high-school and universitystudents rather than primary-school pupils. For example, the method has been successfullyused by the first author in teaching Russian as a foreign language to English-speakinguniversity students.

In further research, a similar approach needs to be extended to syntactic properties ofwords that could be explained via conceptual metaphors encoded in their origin. Even ifwords undergo semantic changes, their syntactic use in language may still reflect theirconnection to the original source model. By exploring this connection, a metaphoricalapproach could also be used in teaching grammar.

References

Baddeley, A.D. 1986. Working Memory. New York: Oxford University Press.Boers, F. 1997a. ‘No pain, no gain’ in a free-market rhetoric: A test for cognitive semantics?

Metaphor and Symbol 12: 231–41.———. 1997b. Health, fitness and mobility in a free-market ideology. In Voices of Power:

Co-operation and Conflict in English Language and Literatures, ed. J.P. van Noppen, andM. Maufort, 89–96. Liege: Liege University Press.

———. 2003. Applied linguistics perspectives on cross-cultural variation in conceptual metaphor.Metaphor and Symbol 18: 231–8.

———. 2004. Expanding learner’s vocabulary through metaphor awareness: What expansion, whatlearners, what vocabulary? A cognitive linguistic view of polysemy in English and its implicationfor teaching. In Cognitive Linguistics, Second Language Acquisition, and Foreign LanguageTeaching, ed. P. Jordens, 211–32. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Charteris-Black, J., and T. Ennis. 2001. A comparative study of metaphor in Spanish and Englishfinancial reporting. English for Specific Purposes: An International Journal 20: 249–66.

Language Learning Journal 255

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Har

vard

Col

lege

] at

06:

30 1

9 A

ugus

t 201

3

Csabi, S. 2004. A cognitive linguistic view of polysemy in English and its implication for teaching. InCognitive Linguistics, Second Language Acquisition, and Foreign Language Teaching, ed.P. Jordens, 232–56. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Cyganenko, G.P. 1970. Etimologi�ceskij slovar’ russkogo jazyka [Etymological dictionary of theRussian language]. Kiev: Radjanska skola.

Deignan, A., D. Gabrys, and A. Solska. 1997. Teaching English metaphors using cross-linguisticawareness-raising activities. ELT Journal 51: 352–60.

Ellis, N.C. 2001. Memory for Language. In Cognition and Second Language Instruction, ed.P. Robinson, 33–68. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Evans, R., and G. Evans. 1989. Cognitive mechanisms in learning from metaphors. Journal ofExperimental Education 58: 5–20.

Evgen’eva, A.P., ed. 1981. Slovar’ russkogo jazyka v �cetyrex tomax. Vol. 1. Moskva: Russkij jazyk.Filin, F.I. 1983. Slovar’ Russkogo Jazyka 11–17 vekov. [Dictionary of the Russian language of 11th

to 17th centuries]. Moskva: Nauka, Vol. 10.Fortescue, M. 2001. Thoughts about thought. Cognitive Linguistics 12: 15–45.Herrera, H., and M. White. 2000. Cognitive linguistics and the language learning process: A case

from economics. Universidad Complutense de Madrid Estudios Ingleses de la UniversidadComplutense 8: 55–78.

Kalyuga, S. 2006. Instructing and Testing Advanced Learners: A Cognitive Load Approach. NewYork: Nova Science.

Kintsch, W. 1998. Comprehension: A Paradigm for Cognition. New York: Cambridge University Press.Kondaiah, K. 2004. Metaphorical systems and their implications to teaching English as a foreign

language. Asian EFL Journal 6, no. 1. Art. 3.Kovecses, Z., and P. Szabo. 1996. Idioms: A view from cognitive semantics. Applied Linguistics 17:

326–55.Kovecses, Z. 2003. Language, figurative thought, and cross–cultural comparison. Metaphor and

Symbol 18: 311–20.Lakoff, G., and M. Johnson. 1980. Metaphor We Live By. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.———. 1993. The contemporary theory of metaphor. In Metaphor and Thought, ed. A. Ortony,

2nd ed., 202–51. New York: Cambridge University Press.Laufer, B. 1997. What’s in a word that makes it hard or easy: Some intralexical factors that affect

the learning of words. In Vocabulary: Description, Acquisition and Pedagogy, ed. N. Schmitt, andM. McCarthy, 140–55. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Lazar, G. 1996. Using figurative language to expand students’ vocabulary. ELT Journal 50: 43–50.Lennon, P. 1998. Approaches to the teaching of idiomatic language. International Review of Applied

Linguistics in Language Teaching 36: 11–30.Lewis, M. 1993. The Lexical Approach: The State of ELT and the Way Forward. Hove, UK:

Language Teaching Publications.———. 1997a. Implementing the Lexical Approach: Putting Theory into Practice. Hove, UK:

Language Teaching Publications.———. 1997b. Pedagogical implications of the lexical approach. In Second Language Vocabulary

Acquisition: A Rationale for Pedagogy, ed. J. Coady, and T. Huckin, 255–70. Cambridge, UK:Cambridge University Press.

MacLennan, C. 1994. Metaphors and prototypes in the learning and teaching of grammar andvocabulary. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 32: 97–110.

Miller, G.A. 1956. The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity forprocessing information. Psychological Review 63: 81–97.

Nation, I.S.P. 1990. Teaching and Learning Vocabulary. New York: Newbury House.———. 2001. Learning Vocabulary in Another Language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University

Press.Nattinger, J. 1988. Some current trends in vocabulary teaching. In Vocabulary and Language

Teaching, ed. R. Carter, and M. McCarthy, 62–82. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Nattinger, J., and J. DeCarrico. 1992. Lexical Phrases and Language Teaching. Oxford, UK: Oxford

University Press.Ramsey, R.D. 2001. Well Said, Well Spoken: 736 Quotable Quotes for Educators. Thousand Oaks,

CA: Corwin Press.Sinclair, J.M., ed. 1987. Looking Up: An Account of the COBUILD Project in Lexical Computing.

London: Collins COBUILD.

256 M. Kalyuga and S. Kalyuga

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Har

vard

Col

lege

] at

06:

30 1

9 A

ugus

t 201

3

Skeat, W. 1901. Etymological Dictionary. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.Sweller, J. 2003. Evolution of human cognitive architecture. In The Psychology of Learning and

Motivation, ed. B. Ross, 43, 215–66. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Sweller, J., J. van Merrienboer, and F. Paas. 1998. Cognitive architecture and instructional design.

Educational Psychology Review 10: 251–96.Tiblen, N.L., ed. 1972. Slovar’ cerkovno-slavjanskogo i russkogo jazyka v �cetyrex tomax [Dictio-

nary of the Church Slavic and the Russian languages in four volumes]. 2nd ed. Leipzig:Zentralantiquariat der Deutschen Demokratischen Republik.

Willis, D. 1990. The Lexical Syllabus: A New Approach to Language Teaching. London: CollinsCOBUILD.

———. 2003. Rules, Patterns and Words: Grammar and Lexis in English Language Teaching.Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Wray, A. 2002. Formulaic Language and the Lexicon. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Language Learning Journal 257

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Har

vard

Col

lege

] at

06:

30 1

9 A

ugus

t 201

3