Metaphors in Child Discourse: Interpretive Research from a Participatory Perspective
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.12775/PBE.2022.018Abstract
This article presents the study results of an educational project focused on visual metaphor in initiated child discourse. The objective of the study was to assess the knowledge of children between the ages of 9 and 10 years old regarding the target domain of metaphorical projection (concerning togetherness) and children’s metaphorisation skills in the area of recognising similarities and differences between the target domain and the source domain of visual metaphor in an artistic picture book. In the designed didactic intervention activities, the research material originated from participant observation, focus interviews,
and analysis of children’s creations (graphic visualisations). The research was conducted on two groups of third graders in selected primary schools in the metropolitan environment of Łódź, Poland. The results illustrate children’s preferences for translating one domain of
metaphor with another, as well as the strategies for constructing children’s knowledge with respect to life in a relationship. Furthermore, they point towards the need for expanding the educational environment in Polish educational culture.
References
Angrosino, M., & Perez, K. (2000). Rethinking Observation: From Method to Context. In: N.K. Denzin, & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 673–702). 2nd Ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Angrosino, M., & Rosenberg, J. (2011). Observations on Observation: Continuities and Challenges. In: N.K. Denzin, & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Monika Wiśniewska-Kin Metaphors in Child Discourse Qualitative Research (pp. 467–478). 4th Ed. Los Angeles–London–New Delhi– –Singapore–Washington: Sage.
Cameron, L. (2003). Metaphor in Educational Discourse. London: Continuum.
Chmielewska, I. (2014). Dwoje ludzi [Two People]. Poznań: Media Rodzina.
Klus-Stańska, D. (2010). Dydaktyka wobec chaosu pojęć i zdarzeń [Didactics Amidst the Chaos of Concepts and Events]. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Akademickie Żak.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Move By. IL: University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the Flesh. NY: Basic Books, New York.
Langacker, R.W. (1995). Symboliczny charakter gramatyki [The Symbolic Nature of Grammar]. In: H. Kardela (Ed.), Wykłady z gramatyki kognitywnej [Lectures on Cognitive Grammar]. Lublin: Wydawnictwo UMCS.
Ortony, A. (1975). Why Metaphors Are Necessary and Not Just Nice. Educational Theory, 25(1), 45–53.
Özçalişkan, Ş., (2005). On Learning to Draw the Distinction Between Physical and Metaphorical Motion: Is Metaphor an Early Emerging Cognitive and Linguistic Capacity? Journal of Child Language, 32(2), 291–318, doi: 10.1017/ S0305000905006884.
Özçalişkan, Ş. (2007). Metaphors We Move By: Children’s Developing Understanding of Metaphorical Motion in Typologically Distinct Languages. Metaphor & Symbol, 22(2), 147–168, doi: 10.1080/10926480701235429.
Piekarski, J. (2011). Estetyzacja praktyki akademickiej – głos w dyskusji na temat perspektywy uczestniczącej [Aestheticizing Academic Practice – A Voice in the Discussion on Participatory Perspective]. In: J. Piekarski, & D. Urbaniak-Zając (Eds.), Innowacje w edukacji akademickiej. Szkolnictwo wyższe w procesie zmiany [Innovations in Academic Education. Higher Education in the process of change] (pp. 235–251). Łódź: Wydawnictwo UŁ.
Wiśniewska-Kin, M. (2009). Miłość jest jak wiatrak, czyli o poznawczej naturze metafor dziecięcych [Love is Like a Windmill: The Cognitive Nature of Children’s Metaphors]. Łódź: Wydawnictwo UŁ.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Monika Wiśniewska-Kin
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Stats
Number of views and downloads: 349
Number of citations: 0
