Now, they were given the task to read a transcript excerpt from eighth-graders analysing a video of leaves miving in the wind from an energy perpective. In relation to the text, they were asked to note metaphorical expressions. Examples could be: "the leaves have energy" or "the leaves are pushed by energy".
In this clip, Debra has marked "They are pushed by energy" and "They have energy" as metaphorical. Debra comments that she does not think that the "push" expression, reflecting causation is metaphorical. They are more comfortable with the idea of that "they have energy" is metaphorical, and that it indicates possession. Julie concludes by generalising that they are assuming that "have" indicates metaphors. This parallels their previous discussion of whether "I have a headache" is metaphorical.
In the next clip, after some other discussions, Julie wonders how identifying students' metaphorical expressions can be used for teachers: "How do I catch it when they mean something?" Debra proposes that the word "have" is a buzzword indicating for instance mixing metaphors.
Julie comes back to the example of leaves being pushed by energy, but still cannot see why that is a metaphor. Debra explains by going back to the worksheet "Metaphors for Changes in Systems", looking at examples of causes. (There's the example that we have to push our students harder.) Julie sticks to her view that the leaves are physically pushed by the energy and they conclude, and Debra agrees: "OK, so that was not a metaphor."
This reluctance to seeing "the leaves are pushed by energy" may be due to the fact that it is part of another figure of thought (energy as an agent) than the one that has been adopted in the energy courses, i.e. that energy is substance-like. After class, they were given the text "Intuitive ontologies for energy in physics", which discusses that there are many different metaphors for energy, claiming that we combine them easily in our everyday language, but that the substance metaphor is deliberately favoured in the energy courses.
In the next clip, they keep picking up sentences, and Julie thinks that that "I mean the leaves have a source of energy" makes sense, i.e. she agrees that it is metaphorical. My interpretation is that it adheres to the substance view of energy, in that it constues energy as something that is contained in a source/well, from where it can be moved to the leaves.
In addition, Sid asks if "Leaves in the street" is metaphorical. Julie replies that there are literally leaves on the street. Sid counters that that is 'on' the street, it says 'in' the street. Rachel joins in and says that it is a literal description.
Even though Sid's example does not relate directly to energy, I think that her thought is interesting from a couple of points of view.
First, it shows how she is starting to look for gradually more subtle evidence for metaphors. When she picks up the nuances in "in" vs. "on", she has gone a far way from a traditional view of metaphors being an unnecessary ornament in poerty, to seeing that it grounds all language. In fact, Lakoff's hefty tome "Women, fire and dangerous things":
http://www.google.com/books?hl=sv&lr=&id=CfCnzSF9de8C&oi=fnd&pg=PT6&ots=x8ZX0Kwajz&sig=1Y9_SL1vBc_Vd5iR4XkESA2yAEA#v=onepage&q&f=false
devotes a large portion analysing different senses of the preposition "over".
Second, getting prepositions right is horrible in learning English as a second language (or any other language I have come across, perhaps except for Spanish?). In Swedish, we would say that the leaves are on the street. A word-by-word translation of "there are leaves in the street" would yield a thought of leaves having been mixed in with the asphalt or getting stuck in a pot hole.
No comments:
Post a Comment