The Use of Visual Metonymy in English Textbooks for Young Learners: Evidence From Croatia
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.1302.03Keywords:
conceptual metonymy, young learners, multimodality, cognitive developmentAbstract
Multimodal communication is found in modern discourse types, including textbooks, influencing the attitude and motivation in message interpretation. The paper will explore instances of visual metonymy in English textbooks for young learners (grades 1-4) approved by the Ministry of Science and Education in the Republic of Croatia. Metonymy is qualitatively simpler than conceptual metaphor (Rundblad & Annaz, 2010), requires less cognitive effort to process and is, therefore, more salient in textbooks for children. Previous studies (Guijarro, 2015; Littlemore, 2009) indicated its important role in both these fields of authors' interest. The occurrences of visual metonymy in the approved textbooks will be collected, analysed and grouped according to the metonymic target (actions, emotions, occupations, etc.). The results will show which concepts appear most commonly as metonymic targets in the visual form in the textbooks and attempt to determine their appropriateness for the chronological, mental and cognitive age of children. Also, the functions of visual metonymies will be identified.
References
Acredolo, L., & Goodwyn, S. (1998). Symbolic gesturing in normal infants. Child Development, 59, 450–466.
Ban, S., & Blažić, D. (2013). Dip In 4. Školska knjiga.
Ban, S., Žepina, A., Reić Šućur, D., & Mimica Tudor, H. (2020). Tiptoes 3. Udžbenik za engleski jezik s dodatnim digitalnim sadržajima u trećem razredu osnovne škole. Treća godina učenja. Školska knjiga.
Barcelona, A. (2002). Clarifying and Applying the Notions of Metaphor and Metonymy within Cognitive Linguistics: An Update. In: R. Dirven & R. Parings (Eds.), Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast (pp. 207-277). Mouton de Gruyter.
Barcelona, A. (2010). Metonymic inferencing and second language acquisition. AILA Review 23, 134-154.
Cortés de los Ríos, M. E., & Alonso, P. F. (2017). A multimodal analysis of cognitive tools portraying terrorist affairs. Revista de Lenguas para Fines Específicos, 23(2), 359-383.
da Costa, E. P. M., & de Barros, C. G. P. (2012). Multimodal genres in textbooks: are students being schooled for visual literacy? Bakhtiniana, 2(7), 38-56.
Covill, C., Charrington, M., & P. Shipton. (2019). Let's Explore 1. Class Book. Oxford University Press.
Covill, C., Charrington, M., & P. Shipton. (2020): Let's Explore 2. Class Book. Oxford University Press.
Čajo Anđel, K., & Knezović, A. (2014). New Building Blocks 3. Profil Klett.
Čajo Anđel, K., & Knezović, A. (2014). New Building Blocks 4. Profil Klett.
Čajo Anđel, K., Domljan, D., Knezović, A., Singer, D., Gustović Ljubić, H., Sertić, M., & Rezo, N. (2019). New Building Blocks 2. Profil Klett
Ding, F. (2012). Metaphor and Metonymy in Emotion Category. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 2(11), 2384-2397.
Dooley, J. (2019). Smiles 1 New Edition. Alfa.
Dooley, J. (2019a). Smiles 2 New Edition. Alfa.
Dooley, J. (2020). Smiles 3 New Edition. Alfa.
Dooley, J., & Evans, V. (2013). Smileys 4. Alfa.
Džeba, B., & Živković, V. (2019). Dip in 1. Školska knjiga.
Džeba. B., & Mardešić, M. (2020). Dip in 2. Školska knjiga.
Falkum, I. L., Recasens, M., and Clark E. V. (2017). The moustache sits down first': on the acquisition of metonymy. Journal of Child Language, 1(44), 87-119.
Forceville, C. (2009). Metonymy in visual and audiovisual discourse. In E. Ventola & A. J. Moya Guijarro (Eds.), The World Told and the World Shown: Issues in Multisemiotics (pp. 56-74). Palgrave Macmillan.
Frisson, S., & Pickering, M. J. (1999). The processing of metonymy: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 6(25), 1366–1383.
Gentner, D., & Markman, A. B. (1997). Structure mapping in analogy and similarity“. American Psychologist 52(1), 45–56.
Gibbs, R. W. (1984). Literal Meaning and Psychological Theory. Cognitive Science, 3(8), 275-304.
Gibbs, R. (1990). The process of understanding literary metaphor. Journal of Literary Semantics, 19, 65-94.
Gibbs, R. (2002). A new look at literal meaning in understanding what is said and implicated. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 457-486.
Giora, R.(2002). Literal vs. figurative language: Different or equal?. Journal of Pragmatics, 34. 487–506.
Gustović Ljubić, H., Jeren, M., Rezo, N., Čajo Anđel, K, Fomljan, D., Knezović, A., & Singer, D. (2019). New Building Blocks 1. Class Book. Profil Klett.
Klepousniotou, E., & Baum, S. (2007). Disambiguating the ambiguity advantage effect in word recognition: An advantage for polysemous but not homonymous words. Journal of Neurolinguistic, 20, 1–24.
Köder, F., & Falkum, I. L. (2020). Children's metonymy comprehension: Evidence from eye-tracking and picture selection. Journal of Pragmatics, 156, 191-205.
Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (2001). Multimodal Discourse: The Modes and Media of Contemporary Communication. Arnold.
Laing, C. E. (2014). A phonological analysis of onomatopoeia in early word production. First Language, 34(5), 387-405.
Lakoff, G. (1987). Cognitive models and prototype theory. In U. Neisser (Ed.), Concepts and conceptual development: Ecological and intellectual factors in categorisation (pp. 63–100). Cambridge University Press.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live By. University of Chicago Press.
Lauder, N., Torres, S., & Shipton, P. (2020). Let's Explore 3. Class Book. Oxford University Press.
Littlemore, J., & Low, G. (2006). Metaphoric competence and communicative language ability. Applied Linguistics, 27(2), 268-294.
Littlemore, J. (2009). Applying Cognitive Linguistics to Second Language Learning and Teaching. Palgrave Macmillan.
Littlemore, J. (2015). Metonymy: Hidden Shortcuts in Language, Thought and Communication. Cambridge University Press.
Mardešić, M. (2020). Dip in 4. Školska knjiga.
McElree, B., & Nordlie, J. (1999). Literal and figurative interpretations are computed in equal time. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 6(3), 486–494.
Mimica Tudor, H., Reić Šućur, D., Žepina, A., & Ban. S. (2019). Tiptoes 1. Udžbenik engleskog jezika u prvom razredu osnovne škole. Prva godina učenja. Školska knjiga.
Mimica Tudor, H., Reić Šućur, D., Žepina, A., & Ban. S. (2020). Tiptoes 2. Udžbenik engleskog jezika s dodatnim digitalnim sadržajima u drugom razredu osnovne škole. Druga godina učenja. Školska knjiga.
Moya, A. J. (2011). Visual metonymy in children’s picture books. In M. J. Pinar, (Ed.), Multimodality and Cognitive Linguistics. Special issue of Review of Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 336–352). John Benjamins,
Moya Guijarro, A. J. (2015). Visual metonymy in children's picture books. In M. J. P. Sanz, (Ed.) Multimodality and Cognitive Linguistics. (pp.115-130). John Benjamins.
Moya Guijarro, A. J. (2019). Textual functions of metonymies in Anthony Browne's picture books: A multimodal approach. Text and Talk, 39(3), 389-413.
de Mendoza, R. F. (2011). Metonymy and cognitive operations. In R. Benczes, Barcelona, A., & de Mendoza Ibáñez F. J. R., (Eds), Defining Metonymy in Cognitive Linguistics. (pp. 103-124). John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Nerlich, B., & Clarke, D. D. (1999). Semantic fields and frames: Historical explorations of the interface between language, action and cognition. Journal of Pragmatics, 3(2), 125-150.
Nunberg, G. (1979). The non-uniqueness of semantic solutions: Polysemy. Linguistics and Philosophy, 3, 143-184.
Panther, K.-U. (2005). Metonymy inside and outside language. In A. Makkai, W. J. Sullivan, & A. R: Lommel (Eds). LACUS Forum XXXI: Interconnections (pp. 15-32). The Linguistic Association of Canada and the United States.
Papafragou, A. (1996). On metonymy. Lingua, 99, 169-195.
Piaget, J. (1977). Origins of intelligence in the child. Penguin Books.
Piquer Píriz, A. M. (2008). Reasoning figuratively in early EFL: Some implications for the development of vocabulary. In F. Boers, & S. Lindstromberg (Eds.). Cognitive Linguistic Approaches to Teaching Vocabulary and Phraseology. (pp. 219-240). Mouton de Gruyter,
Radden, G., & Z. Kövecses (1999). Towards a theory of metonymy. In U.-K. Panther, & G. Radden, (Eds.). Metonymy in language and thought (pp. 17-59). John Benjamins.
Rezo N. (2014). New Building Blocks 2. Class Book. Profil Klett.
Rundblad, G., & Annaz, D. (2010). The atypical development of metaphor and metonymy comprehension in children with autism. Autism. 14(1), 29-46.
Smith, M. (1995). Engaging characters: fiction, emotion, and the cinema. Clarendon Press.
Sobrino, P. P. (2017). Multimodal Metaphor and Metonymy in Advertising. John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1985/6). Loose talk. In S. Davies, (Ed.). Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society LXXXVI (pp. 153-71). Aristotelian Society.
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Harvard University Press.
Turner, N. E., & Katz, A. (1997). Evidence for the availability of conventional and of literal meaning during the comprehension of proverbs. “Pragmatics and Cognition, 5, 203–237.
Van Herwegen, J., Dimitriou, D., & Rundblad G. (2013). Development of novel metaphor and metonymy comprehension in typically developing children with Williams syndrome. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 34(4), 1300-1311.
Warren, B. (2006). Referential metonymy. Almqvist & Wiksell International.
