23.2825, FYI: Call for Book Chapters: Elicited Metaphor Analysis

[linguist at linguistlist.org]

LINGUIST List: Vol-23-2825. Mon Jun 25 2012. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.

Subject: 23.2825, FYI: Call for Book Chapters: Elicited Metaphor Analysis

Moderators: Anthony Aristar, Eastern Michigan U <aristar at linguistlist.org>
            Helen Aristar-Dry, Eastern Michigan U <hdry at linguistlist.org>

Reviews: Veronika Drake, U of Wisconsin Madison
Monica Macaulay, U of Wisconsin Madison
Rajiv Rao, U of Wisconsin Madison
Joseph Salmons, U of Wisconsin Madison
Anja Wanner, U of Wisconsin Madison
       <reviews at linguistlist.org>

Homepage: http://linguistlist.org

Do you want to donate to LINGUIST without spending an extra penny? Bookmark
the Amazon link for your country below; then use it whenever you buy from
Amazon!

USA: http://www.amazon.com/?_encoding=UTF8&tag=linguistlist-20
Britain: http://www.amazon.co.uk/?_encoding=UTF8&tag=linguistlist-21
Germany: http://www.amazon.de/?_encoding=UTF8&tag=linguistlistd-21
Japan: http://www.amazon.co.jp/?_encoding=UTF8&tag=linguistlist-22
Canada: http://www.amazon.ca/?_encoding=UTF8&tag=linguistlistc-20
France: http://www.amazon.fr/?_encoding=UTF8&tag=linguistlistf-21

For more information on the LINGUIST Amazon store please visit our
FAQ at http://linguistlist.org/amazon-faq.cfm.

Editor for this issue: Brent Miller <brent at linguistlist.org>
================================================================  


Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 12:26:53
From: Wan Wan [wan.wan at york.ac.uk]
Subject: Call for Book Chapters: Elicited Metaphor Analysis

E-mail this message to a friend:
http://linguistlist.org/issues/emailmessage/verification.cfm?iss=23-2825.html&submissionid=4548722&topicid=6&msgnumber=1
 
Call for Book Chapters
Deadline for Abstracts: 16 November 2012
Elicited Metaphor Analysis in Educational Discourse 

Editors:

Graham Low (The University of York, UK)
Wan Wan (The University of York, UK)

General Description:

Scholars of metaphor have for several years collected evidence for the 
important claim that the use of elicited metaphor, as a research tool 
can be helpful in raising reflection and consciousness among students 
and teachers, uncovering belief systems/conceptualisations of their 
learning and/or teaching practices and ultimately in predicting 
behaviours likely to follow from them (e.g., de Guerrero & Villamil, 
2002; Jin & Cortazzi 2011; Oxford et al., 1998; Zapata & Lacorte, 
2007). Over the last few decades, a large number of published 
metaphor studies have examined teachers' and students' metaphors 
with regard to their teaching and/or learning experiences, which are 
normally either collected from analogical statements in conversation or 
writing (e.g., interviews or personal narratives) or via completion of a 
sort of sentence-completion task involving thinking of a metaphor or 
simile in what is often called an 'X is (like) Y' structure (e.g., Learning is 
like…, Teaching is like…). The majority of these studies employ some 
version of Conceptual Metaphor Theory (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980) and 
Vygotskyan notions of the interactive nature of language (i.e., 
metaphor) and thought (Vygotsky, 1978) within Sociocultural Theory, 
whereby metaphor is seen as both a cognitive and social phenomenon 
(Littlemore & Low, 2006), with language as one of several means of 
expressing it. Metaphor can accordingly act as a mediational tool 
whereby interpretations are constructed from accounts (preferably 
multiple accounts) given by people in specific social environments 
(Lantolf & Thorne, 2006).

Among these metaphor studies in education, an extremely small 
proportion has started to investigate participants' academic literacies 
(e.g., Armstrong, 2007, 2008; Davis, 2009; Hart, 2009; Paul & 
Armstrong, 2011; Villamil & de Guerrero, 2005), examine the 
relationships between participants' metaphorical conceptualisations 
and their associated actual practices (e.g., Wan, Low & Li, 2011), as 
well as explore the integration of metaphors within/between levels in an 
educational setting (e.g., Hart, 2009). Methodologically, although a few 
recent studies have reported the proportion of unsuccessful answers to 
this type of elicited metaphor task, and identified a number of issues 
connected with task difficulty indicating that the challenge of finding 
their own working metaphors can be very difficult for some people, 
there appears to be little published work that has seriously addressed 
the validity of the method used and suggested possible solutions (e.g., 
Armstrong, Davis & Paulson, 2011; Wan, 2011). In addition, although 
metaphor researchers have provided a general guide to metaphor 
analysis that involves ''collecting examples of linguistic metaphors used 
to talk about the topic…generalising from them to the conceptual 
metaphors they exemplify, and using the result to suggest 
understandings or thought patterns which construct or constrain 
people's beliefs or actions'' (Cameron & Low, 1999, p. 88), it seems 
that specific procedures for analysing informants' metaphors once 
collected are less often explicitly described (Armstrong, Davis & 
Paulson, 2011). One common criticism of the analysis (of both elicited 
and spontaneous metaphors) is that accurate determination of the 
conceptual metaphors via the investigation of linguistic metaphors 
given by the participants suffers from all the problems of the 
researcher's 'subjectivity' involved in the interpretation. Moreover, the 
researcher cannot make assumptions that his/her interpretations of the 
participants' metaphoric language are accurate depictions of their 
original meaning. However, the very fact is that very few metaphor 
studies discuss in any real detail the trustworthiness of their research 
findings.

The Overall Objectives of the Book:
 
The core aim of this proposed volume is to remedy these oversights in 
the elicited metaphor studies and to resolve the problems with validity 
of the metaphor elicitation techniques used. The essential research 
questions for this edited volume are as follows:

Q1. What is the current state of elicited metaphor research? 
Q2. How far can the informants' elicited metaphors be used to uncover 
their conceptualisations of their academic literacy practices? 
Q3. What is the relationship between informants' metaphorical 
conceptualisations about teaching/learning and their associated actual 
practices? 
Q4. What happens when differential metaphors are used as 
groups/levels interact with each other in educational discourse? 
Q5. Are there any possible solutions to improve the validity of metaphor 
elicitation techniques?  		      
Q6. Are there any possible ways to establish trustworthiness of elicited 
metaphor research? 		  

We hope the proposed volume can be one of the first to
(a) offer an overview of the current state of elicited metaphor research 
and of the gaps/problems for scholars concerned with the use of 
elicited metaphor in educational discourse;
(b) serve as a resource book utilized by both undergraduate and 
postgraduate courses in the area of first/second language acquisition, 
educational linguistics and learner beliefs about language education; 
(c) present quality reports of research studies that serve as useful 
models for PhD students,  academics and professionals; 
(d) suggest possible solutions to improve the validity of metaphor 
elicitation techniques and establish the trustworthiness of the research. 

Recommended Topics:

The papers in this collection will represent a shift in metaphor studies 
beyond using elicited metaphors to gain insights into informants' belief 
systems/conceptualisations about general teaching and learning. Given 
the goals of the volume, empirical studies, review articles and state-of-
the-art articles are all welcome on any of the following areas, but not 
limited to: 

(a) Conceptualisations of informants' academic literacy practices
(b) The relationship between informants' beliefs/
conceptualisations and their associated actions in the classroom 
contexts 
(c) The applications of findings concerning the interaction of differential 
metaphor use within/between levels in educational discourse 
(d) Methodological issues in doing elicited metaphor studies 
(e) Strategies of establishing the trustworthiness in elicited metaphor 
research
(f) Theoretical framework used in doing elicited metaphor research in 
education

Contributing authors are encouraged to contact the editors before 
submitting a chapter proposal to determine whether the proposed 
submission is within the scope of this book.

Submission Procedure:

Potential authors are invited to submit a maximum of two-page chapter 
proposals (including a few lines about the author(s)) in English to both 
editors by 16th November 2012 (graham.low at york.ac.uk and 
wan.wan510 at yahoo.co.uk). The proposal should clearly state the 
objectives of the intended chapter and its contents, as well as how the 
chapter fits into the overall objectives of the proposed book. 
Submissions should be made electronically in Microsoft Word Format. 
Authors of accepted proposals will be notified by latest 31st Jan 2013. 
Upon acceptance of their proposals, authors will have to submit full 
chapters of up to 8,000 words by May 17th 2013. Guidelines for 
preparing the chapters will be sent upon acceptance of proposals. 
Inquiries and proposal submissions can be forwarded electronically to 
both editors. The book is scheduled to be published in spring/summer 
2014 by an international publisher. All submitted chapters will be 
reviewed on a double-blind review basis. Contributors may also be 
requested to serve as reviewers for this book project. 

Selected References:

Armstrong, S. L. (2007). Beginning the literacy transition: 
Postsecondary students' conceptualizations of academic writing in 
developmental literacy Contexts. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, 
University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio. 

Armstrong, S. L. (2008). Using metaphor analysis to uncover learners' 
conceptualizations of academic literacies in postsecondary 
developmental contexts. The International Journal of Learning, 15(9), 
211-218. 

Armstrong, S. L., Davis, H., & Paulson, E. J. (2011). The subjectivity 
problem: Improving triangulation approaches in metaphor analysis 
studies. International Journal of Qualitative Methods 10 (2), 151-163. 

Cameron, L., & Low, G. D. (1999). Metaphor. Language Teaching, 32, 
77-96. 

Davis, H. S. (2009). Student and teacher conceptualisations of reading: 
A metaphor analysis study of scripted reading interventions in 
secondary classrooms. Unpublished PhD dissertation. University of 
Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio. 

de Guerrero, M. C. M., & Villamil, O. S. (2002). Metaphorical 
conceptualization of ESL teaching and learning, Language Teaching 
Research, 6 (2), 95-120.

Hart, G. A. (2009). Composing metaphors: Metaphors for writing in the 
composition classroom. Unpublished PhD thesis. Ohio University, Ohio. 

Jin, L., & Cortazzi, M. (2011). More than a journey: learning in the 
metaphors of Chinese students and teachers. In: Jin, L., Cortazzi, M. 
(Eds.), Researching Chinese learners: Skills, perceptions and 
intercultural adaptations (pp.67-92). Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan. 

Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: 
University of Chicago Press.  

Lantolf, J. P., & Thorne, S. L. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the 
genesis of L2 development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.  

Littlemore, J., & Low, G. D. (2006). Figurative thinking and foreign 
language learning. New York: Palgrave McMillan. 

Oxford, R., Tomlinson, S., Barcelos, A., Harrington, C., Lavine, R. Z., 
Saleh, A., & Longhini, A. (1998). Clashing metaphors about classroom 
teachers: Toward a systematic typology for the language teaching field. 
System, 26(1), 3-50. 

Paulson, E. J., & Armstrong, S. L. (2011). Mountains and pit bulls: 
Students' metaphors for college reading and writing. Journal of 
Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 54(7), 494-503. 

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind and society: The development of higher 
mental processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 

Villamil, O. S., de Guerrero, M. C. M. (2005). Constructing theoretical 
notions of L2 writing through metaphor conceptualization. In: Bartels, 
N. (Ed.), Applied linguistics in language teacher education (pp.79-90). 
New York: Springer. 

Wan, W., Low, G. D. & Li., M. (2011). From students' and teachers' 
perspectives: Metaphor analysis of beliefs about EFL teachers' roles. 
System, 39(3), 403-415. 

Wan, W. (2011). An examination of the validity of metaphor analysis 
studies: Problems with metaphor elicitation techniques. Metaphor and 
the Social World, 1(2), 262-288.

Zapata, G. C., & Lacorte, M. (2007). Preservice and inservice 
instructors' metaphorical constructions of second language teachers. 
Foreign Language Annals, 40(3), 521-534. 



Linguistic Field(s): Applied Linguistics
                     Discipline of Linguistics
                     Discourse Analysis
                     Language Acquisition





 






----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-23-2825	
----------------------------------------------------------