METAPHORS IN EDUCATIONAL DISCOURSE

The American Heritage Dictionary (1983) defines metaphor as follows: “a figure of speech in
which a term that ordinarily designates an object or idea is used to designate a dissimilar object or
idea in order to suggest comparison or analogy, as in the phrase, evening of life.”1

We are taught in elementary school that metaphor is a literary tool, to be trotted out for use in
poetic expression. However, Lakoff and Johnson (1980) stated that nearly all our constructs of
reality are metaphoric. They suggested that reality is constructed by creating shared meaning and
our metaphoric language reflects these constructions. For example, when we say things as basic
as, “that idea just won’t sell” or “it’s important how you package your ideas,” we are implying that
ideas are commodities. When we say, “that idea went out of style years ago,” or “linguistics has
become very chic,” we refer to ideas as fashion. Lakoff and Johnson successfully illuminate the
depth and breadth of our metaphoric use of language. They also provide a distinction between two
types of metaphors, conventional metaphor, as described above, and novel metaphors that are
capable of creating new meaning.

It is reasonable to wonder why the metaphors that we select to describe such concepts as teaching,
learning, and knowing really matter. After all, by their very nature, metaphors are intended to be
nonliteral (see Lakoff & Johnson, 1980). And yet, the metaphors that we select and use do matter,
because they reflect underlying beliefs and attitudes and, even more, because the metaphors
themselves take on significant pedagogical power. There is a wealth of metaphorical language in
the discourse of classroom teachers that relates directly and indirectly to pedagogy and pedagogical
issues. As Miller and Fredericks (1988) argued, the use of metaphors is a worthwhile topic for our
attention because, “Metaphorical expressions are so pervasive in ordinary and academic life …
they must reflect a ‘fundamental core’ of shared meaning. By using these expressions, people must
assign meaning. Metaphors are not simply random events but are ways of “structuring” and
extending experience” (pp. 263–264).

Metaphors and metaphorical language, in short, function at least in part to structure the individual’s
construction of reality, as well as to mediate his or her experiences with underlying, and often
implicit, assumptions, values, and beliefs. As Lakoff and Johnson (1980) suggested, “Metaphors
may create realities for us, especially social realities. A metaphor may thus be a guide for future
action. Such actions will, of course, fit the metaphor. This will, in turn, reinforce the power of the
metaphor to make experience coherent. In this sense metaphors can be self-fulfilling prophecies”
(p. 156).

If it is indeed the case that metaphors not only play a role in the way in which individuals construct
their realities, but also serve as guides for practice, then it would seem to be evident that the study
of the kinds of metaphors and metaphorical language employed by teachers and other educators
about teaching and learning ought to be of considerable concern to anyone interested in
understanding and improving educational practice (see Nattinger, 1993). Siegelman (1990), for

1
American Heritage Dictionary, 1983. Dell Publishing, New York.
instance, believed that metaphors have the potential to generate new ideas and meanings between
listener and speaker. Thus, if the goal is to help people better communicate their personal realities,
metaphors can provide an infrastructure for supporting shared cultures (see Nuessel, 2000b).

An interesting and significant feature of much educational discourse is the use of language in
nonliteral but nonetheless meaningful ways. The use of metaphors (including the use of similes
and other sorts of metaphorical language use) is perhaps the best example of nonliteral language
use. Metaphors are widely used in education and in other kinds of public discourse, and often play
key roles in discussion and debates. Green (1971) suggested that, “Indeed, it may be that metaphors
are necessary if we are to think about important matters at all. No major philosopher in the history
of the subject has escaped their use and no major field of knowledge in the modern world can do
without them” (p. 56).

Metaphors, at root, are basically unstated analogies, involving the implicit comparison of two
different kinds of things, one of which is intended by the speaker to be taken literally, the other
figuratively. Examples of common educational metaphors would include the claims that
“education is growth,” “critical thinking is a tool,” and “teachers mold and shape children.” Taken
literally, each of these claims is clearly not only false, but absurd (see Scheffler, 1960, pp. 49–59;
see also Scheffler, 1979). However, it is nevertheless true that we do in fact understand each of
these statements quite clearly in the non-literal way in which each is intended. Metaphors, in short,
are used because they have value to us. As Green (1971) noted, “The main virtue of the metaphor
is that it calls our attention to certain similarities between two things. It carries the mind over from
one thing to another by calling attention to resemblances. In other words, a metaphor is a way of
establishing ‘thought-full’ relations between things” (p. 57).

The analysis of metaphors in educational discourse often provides us with important insights, and
the use of metaphors can help us to develop clearer understandings and appreciations of complex
issues and concepts. Consider the kinds of metaphors that are often used by teachers. In a
fascinating study of classroom teacher discourse, Miller and Fredericks (1988) found that five
broad families of metaphors were commonly used:

• teaching as a conduit
• teaching as a biological process
• teaching as a process of building
teaching as war
• teaching as the manifestation of emotional responses

The metaphor used to describe the classroom in fact tells us a great deal about the teacher. The
frequent use of war or military metaphors (“in the trenches,” and so forth), for instance, suggests
that the teacher perceives the classroom as something of a battleground. Insofar as this is the case,
we would expect (and indeed would be likely to find) that concerns of classroom management and
control are at the top of such a teacher’s worries. This, in turn, will be reflected in the approach to
students taken by the teacher.
With this brief background in mind, we turn now to a discussion of one of the more powerful
contemporary metaphors for teaching and learning—constructivism, both as a learning theory and
as an epistemology.

Common source and target domains

In this chapter, we have surveyed that some of the most common source and target domains include
HUMAN BODY, HEALTH AND ILLNESS, ANIMALS, MACHINES AND TOOLS, BUILDINGS AND
CONSTRUCTION, PLANTS, GAMES AND SPORT, COOKING AND FOOD, ECONOMIC TRANSACTIONS,
FORCES, LIGHT AND DARKNESS, HEAT AND COLD, MOVEMENT AND DIRECTION. The common targets
include EMOTION, DESIRE, MORALITY, THOUGHT, SOCIETY, RELIGION, POLITICS, ECONOMY, HUMAN
RELATIONSHIPS, COMUNICATION, EVENTS AND ACTIONS, TIME, LIFE AND DEATH. These findings provide
overwhelming evidence for tie view that conceptual metaphors are unidirectional: they go from concrete
to abstract domains; the most common source domains are concrete, while the most common targets are
abstract concepts. In this way, conceptual metaphors can serve the purpose of understanding intangible,
and hence difficult-to-understand, concepts.

Metaphors can be conceptual and linguistic.

Conceptual metaphors involve two concepts and have the form A is B, where concept A is understood in
terms of concept B.

Linguistic metaphors, or metaphorical linguistic expressions, are linguistic manifestations of conceptual

metaphors.

Metaphors can be classified in many ways. Four of these are especially relevant to the cognitive linguistic
view of metaphor; classification according to the conventionally, function, nature, and level of generality
of metaphor. Both linguistic and conceptual metaphors may be highly conventionalized or they may be
unconventional, or novel. We have seen that a highly conventional conceptual metaphor may receive
expression by means of a highly unconventional metaphorical linguistic expression. According to their
cognitive function, conceptual metaphors can be of three kinds:

Structural
Map the structure of the source domain onto the structure of the target and in this why allow speakers
to understand one domain in terms of another.

Orientational
have primarily an evaluative function. They make large groups of metaphors coherent with each other.

Ontological
Provide extremely fundamental but very crude understanding for target concepts. These fundamental but
crude understandings often serve as the basis of structural metaphors.

Conceptual metaphors may utilize not only (propositional) knowledge but also images of various kinds
(including not only visual images). Images that have extremely general schematic structure are called
image-schemas. Image-schemas of various sorts, such as the container or force schemas, structure many
abstract concepts metaphorically. Images that are not based on recurrent experience with a generic
structure but capture a specific experience are called one-show images. This can also participate in
metaphorical understanding.

Conceptual metaphors can also be specific-level and generic-level. More conceptual metaphors are at the
specific level, in that they employ concepts that are at a specific level of generality. Some conceptual
metaphors are generic-level, such as EVENTS ARE ACTIONS and ACTION IS SPECIFIC. Generic level
metaphors have special jobs designed for them in the working of our metaphorical conceptual system.

Examples of Conceptual Metaphor

STATES ARE SHAPES

What shape is the car in? He doesn’t fit in.
I’m out of shape. She’s a square peg.
Prison reformed me. Shape up!

SEEING IS TOUCHING / EYES ARE LIMBS

I can’t take my eyes off her. His eyes are glued to the TV.
I can pick out every detail. He ran his eyes over her body.

LOVE IS MADNESS
I’m crazy about her. You’re driving me out of my mind.
He always raves about you. I’m just wild about Harry.

INTIMACY IS WARMTH / LACK OF INTIMACY IS COLDNESS

She finally warmed up to him. He is a cold person
I treated her very coldly. Those two are hot for each other.

INTIMACY IS PROXIMITY / LACK OF INTIMACY IS DISTANCE

I feel very close to you. Her manner is very distant.
We’re drifting apart. He is very unapproachable.

AN ARGUMENT IS A BUILDING
That supports what I’m saying. The evidence buttresses my statement.
Your argument is crumbling. I’m building up evidence for my claim.

AN ARGUMENT IS A JOURNEY
What are you driving at? I want to take that point a little further.
I don’t follow you. That leads to the following conclusion.
I’m not with you. You’ve lost me.
LOVE IS A JOURNEY
– Look how far we’ve come.
– They went their separate ways.
– We’re at a crossroads.
– This relationship isn’t going anywhere.
– We can’t turn back now.
– It’s been a long bumpy road.
– We’re just spinning our wheels.
– Our marriage is on the rocks.
– So where are we?

Mapping Example: LOVE IS A JOURNEY

Source: JOURNEY Target: LOVE
– the travelers the lovers
– the vehicle the love relationship itself
– the journey events in the relationship
– the distance covered the progress made
– the obstacles encountered the difficulties experienced
– decisions about which way to go the choices about what to do
– the destination of the journey the goal(s) of the relationship

ANGER IS A HOT PRESSURIZED FLUID IN A CONTAINER

Source: HOT FLUID UNDER Target: ANGER

PRESSURE IN A CONTAINER
– the fluid anger
– the container one’s body (or one’s head)
– the heat the intensity of the anger
– the pressure one’s control over the anger
– bursting/overflow of the container loss of control over the anger

COMMON SOURCE DOMAINS COMMON TARGET DOMAINS

– The human body – Emotion
– Health and Illness – Desire
– Animals – Morality
– Plants – Thought
– Buildings and Construction – Society / Nation
– Machines and Tools – Politics
– Games and Sport – Economy
– Money and Business – Human Relationships
– Cooking and Food – Communication
– Heat/Cold/Light/Darkness – Time
– Forces – Life and Death
– Movement and Direction – Religion
Lakoff (1987), who analyzed metaphorical expressions referring to anger, and identified one group
of expressions as deriving from the source domain of fire

Those are inflammatory remarks.

She was doing a slow burn.
Your insincere apology just added fuel to the fire.
After the argument, Dave was smoldering for days.
(Lakoff 1987:388)

The underlying metaphor for these expressions is: Anger is Fire. Correspondences were mapped
from the conceptual domain of Fire: the 'source domain' to the conceptual domain of anger: the
'target domain'. Below are a few of the correspondences as analyzed by Lakoff:
Source Domain Target Domain
Fire Anger
The thing burning The angry person
The intensity of the fire The intensity of the anger
Physical damage to the thing burning Mental damage to the angry person
(ibid., p. 389)

Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, fire and dangerous things: What categories reveal
about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

 Metaphors are pervasive in our life; we speak of, write about, and depict the world through
metaphors.
 In everyday language we use a large number of conventional metaphorical expressions,
which form patterns;
 Conventional patterns shape metaphorical thought and create conceptual metaphors
Conceptual metaphor
 LOVE IS A JOURNEY (small capitals)*: love is often understood in terms of a journey
Mappings
 LOVE = target domain
 JOURNEY = source domain
 domain A (TARGET) is understood in terms of a domain B (SOURCE)
LOVE IS A JOURNEY conceptual metaphor
Possible metaphorical linguistic expressions:
 Look how far we’ve come
 We are at crossroads
 We’ll just have to go our separate ways
 I don’t think this relationship is going anywhere
 Target domain usually refers to abstract, complex, unfamiliar, subjective areas of
experience, such as life, love, etc.
 Source domain matches concrete, simple, and more familiar experience, such as physical
objects, bodily phenomena,etc.
 Source domain
 “the conceptual domain from which we draw metaphorical expression to understand
another conceptual domain is called source domain” (Kövecses, 2010:4)
 Target domain
 “the conceptual domain that is understood this way is the target domain” (Kövecses,
2010:4)