Когнитивные исследования в педагогике: концептуальная метафора в предметно-языковом интегрированном обучении студентов-экономистов

   Статья посвящена актуальному направлению современных исследований в русле использования достижений когнитивной лингвистики в педагогике. Данная работа преследует триединую цель. Во-первых, провести обзор научной литературы, посвящённой применению в педагогике когнитивных исследований и теории концептуальной метафоры (CMT), в частности, так как изучение концептуальной метафоры − это широкое направление когнитивистики,
которое обещает открыть новые подходы в методологии преподавания и изучения различных предметных областей и профессиональных дискурсов, включая экономику, известную широким использованием научных метафор. Во-вторых, ставится задача сделать обзор научных публикаций, посвящённых использованию достижений когнитивной науки и теории концептуальной метафоры при осуществлении предметно-языкового интегрированного обучения (CLIL), в рамках которого познание / когниция признаётся одним из ключевых компонентов, необходимых для координации предметного и языкового содержания обучения.

   Цель статьи на этом этапе состоит в том, чтобы выяснить, играют ли исследования концептуальной метафоры какую-либо роль в практике предметно-языкового интегрированного обучения и используется ли педагогический потенциал метафоры как средства создания новых экономических теорий и понятий и их вербализации.

   В-третьих, в статье делается попытка аргументировать важную роль концептуальной метафоры в интегрированном изучении английского языка и предмета экономики. Исследование показывает, что концептуальная метафора как свойство языка и мышления обеспечивает совпадение когнитивных механизмов изучения этих дисциплин. Однако приём обучения на основе метафоры ещё не нашёл достаточного применения в практике предметно-языкового интегрированного обучения. В работе постулируется наличие когнитивного интерфейса между экономическим языком и содержанием, который обеспечивает их интеграцию в процессе предметно-языкового обучения. Предлагаются некоторые пути использования концептуальной метафоры и её моделей при предметно-языковом интегрированном обучении английскому языку и экономике.

1. Alejo-González, R., & García-Bermejo, V. “The Manage of Two Kingdoms Must”: An Analysis of Metaphor in Two CLIL Text-books. In Ana María Piquer-Píriz & Rafael Alejo-González (Eds.), Metaphor in Foreign Language Instruction [Applications of Cognitive Linguistics [ACL], 42. De Gruyter Mouton. 2020, pp. 241–262. doi: 10.1515/9783110630367. (Accessed 12 Sept. 2022).

2. Andryukhina, T. V. Metaphor Variation in Economic Discourse. Professional Discourse & Communication. 2021. 3 (4): 9-20. doi: 10.24833/2687-0126-2021-3-4-9-20. (Accessed 12 Sept. 2022).

3. Andryukhina, T., & Kochkina, O. Second language cognitive-linguistic and discourse competences improvement through raising metaphor awareness. ICERI2018 Proceedings, 2018, pp. 8126-8135. doi: 10.21125/iceri.2018. (Accessed 12 Sept. 2022).

4. Beger, A., & Jakel, O. The cognitive role of metaphor in teaching science: examples from physics, chemistry, biology, psychology and philosophy. Philosophical Inquiries, 3 (1), 2015, pp. 89–112. doi: 10.4454/philinq.v3i1.116. (Accessed 12 Sept. 2022).

5. Beliaevskaya, E. G., & Levkovskaya, N. A.. The method of cognitive modeling in teaching English as a second language. In D. A. Kryachkov, E. B. Yastrebova, O. A. Kravtsova (Eds.), The Magic of Innovation: New Techniques and Technologies in Teaching Foreign Languages (pp. 257-274). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2015.

6. Birdsell, B. J.. Exploring Cognition in CLIL: Creativity, Metaphors and Economics. The Journal of the Japan CLIL Pedagogy Association, 1, 2019, pp. 119-136.

7. Boers, F. Cognitive semantic ways of teaching figurative phrases. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 9 (1), 2011, pp. 227–261. doi: 10.1075/rcl.9.1.11boe. (Accessed 12 Sept. 2022).

8. Boers, F. (). Cognitive Linguistic approaches to teaching vocabulary: Assessment and integration. Language Teaching, 46 (2), 2013, pp. 208-224. doi: 10.1017/S0261444811000450. (Accessed 12 Sept. 2022).

9. Boers, F. & Lindstromberg, S. How cognitive linguistics can foster effective vocabulary teaching. In F. Boers, & S. Lindstromberg (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistic Approaches to Teaching Vocabulary and Phraseology. Mouton de Gruyter, 2008a, pp. 1-64. doi: 10.1515/9783110199161.1.1. (Accessed 12 Sept. 2022).

10. Boers, F., & Lindstromberg, S.. From empirical findings to pedagogical practice. In F. Boers, & S. Lindstromberg (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistic Approaches to Teaching Vocabulary and Phraseology. Mouton de Gruyter, 2008b, pp. 375-393. doi: 10.1515/9783110199161. (Accessed 12 Sept. 2022).

11. Burgers, C. F., & Ahrens, K. Change in metaphorical framing over time: Metaphors of TRADE in 225 years of State of the Union addresses (1790-2014). Applied Linguistics, 41 (2), 2020, pp. 260–279. doi: 10.1093/applin/amy055. (Accessed 12 Sept. 2022).

12. Cameron, L., et al. The discourse dynamics approach to metaphor and metaphor-led discourse analysis. Metaphor and Symbol, 24 (2), 2009, pp. 63–89. doi: 10.1080/10926480902830821. (Accessed 12 Sept. 2022).

13. Canado, M. L. P., Marsh, D., & Padilla, J. R. CLIL in Action: Voices from the Classroom. Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2015.

14. Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. Content and Language Integrated Learning. Cambridge University Press, 2010.

15. Dale, L., & Tanner, R. CLIL Activities with CD-ROM: A Resource for Subject and Language Teachers. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2012.

16. Dalton-Puffer, C. Discourse in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) Classrooms. John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2007. doi: 10.1075/lllt.20. (Accessed 1 Sept. 2022).

17. Dalton-Puffer, C. Content-and-Language Integrated Learning: From Practice to Principles? Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 2011, pp. 182–204. doi: 10.1017/S0267190511000092. (Accessed 1 Sept. 2022).

18. Dalton-Puffer, C. A construct of cognitive discourse functions for conceptualising content-language integration in CLIL and multilingual education. European Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1 (2), 2013, pp. 216–253. doi: 10.1515/eujal-2013-0011. (Accessed 1 Sept. 2022).

19. Dalton-Puffer, C., Nikula, T., & Smit, U. (). Language use and language learning in CLIL: Current findings and contentious issues. In C. Dalton-Puffer, T. Nikula, & U. Smit (Eds.), Language Use and Language Learning in CLIL Classrooms. John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2011, pp. 279-291. doi: 10.1075/aals.7.14dal. (Accessed 1 Sept. 2022).

20. Davidko, N. “Mechanical” Metaphors and Theory Formation: a Cognitive- Historical Analysis of Economic Discourse. Studies About Languages. Kalbų Studijos, 2013 (22), pp. 86-97. doi: 10.5755/j01.sal.0.27.13744. (Accessed 1 Sept. 2022).

21. Hellekjaer, G. O. Language matters: Assessing lecture comprehension in Norwegian English-medium higher education. In C. Dalton-Puffer, T. Nikula, & U. Smit (Eds.), Language use and language learning in CLIL classrooms. John Benjamins, 2010, pp. 233–258. doi: 10.1075/aals.7.12ole. (Accessed 1 Sept. 2022).

22. Herrera-Soler, H., & White, M. (Eds.). Metaphor and Mills: Figurative Language in Business and Economics. Mouton de Gruyter, 2012a. doi: 10.1515/9783110274585. (Accessed 1 Sept. 2022).

23. Herrera-Soler, H., & White, M. Metaphor and Mills. Figurative language in business and economics. In H. Herrera-Soler, & M. White (Eds.). Metaphor and Mills. Figurative language in business and economics. Mouton de Gruyter, 2012b, pp. 1-23. (Accessed 1 Sept. 2022).

24. Herrmann, J, & Sardinha, T.B. Metaphor in Specialist Discourse. In J. Berenike Herrmann, & Tony Berber Sardinha (Eds.), Metaphor in Specialist Discourse. John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2015, pp. 3-14. doi: 10.1075/milcc.4.01her (Accessed 1 Sept. 2022).

25. Hijazo-Gascón, A. & Llopis-García, R. Applied cognitive linguistics and foreign language learning. Introduction to the special issue. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 57 (1), 2019, pp. 1-20. doi: 10.1515/iral-2018-2004. (Accessed 1 Sept. 2022).

26. Kövecses, Z. Where Metaphors Come From: Reconsidering context in metaphor. Oxford University Press, 2015.

27. Kövecses, Z. “The Power (and Problem) of Money,” Society and Economy, Akadémiai Kiadó, Hungary, 40 (3), 2018, pp. 365-376. doi: 10.1556/204.2018.40.3.4. (Accessed 1 Sept. 2022).

28. Kövecses, Z. Extended Conceptual Metaphor Theory. Cambridge University Press, 2020.

29. Lakoff, G., & Johnsen, M. Metaphors we live by. The University of Chicago press, 1980.

30. Langacker, R. W. Cognitive Grammar as a Basis for Language Instruction. In P. Robinson, & N. C. Ellis (Eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition. Routledge, 2008. Pp. 66–88.

31. Langer, T. Metaphors in Economics: Conceptual Mapping Possibilities in the Lectures of Economics. Procedia Economics and Finance, 25, 2015, pp. 308-317. doi: 10.1016/S2212-5671(15)00741-8. (Accessed 12 Sept. 2022).

32. Lasagabaster, D., & Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. Ways forward in CLIL: Provision issues and future planning. In D. Lasagabaster & Y. Ruiz de Zarobe (Eds.), CLIL in Spain: Implementation, results and teacher training. Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2010, pp. 278-295.

33. Littlemore, J. Developing Metaphor Interpretation Strategies for Students of Economics: A Case Study. Recherche et pratiques pédagogiques en langues de spécialité - Cahiers de 1’APLIUT. 22, 2002, pp. 40-60. doi: 10.4000/apliut.4119. (Accessed 12 Sept. 2022).

34. Littlemore, J. Metaphor in specialist discourse: Insights and implications for metaphor studies and beyond. In J. B. Herrmann, & T. B. Sardinha (Eds.), Metaphor in Specialist Discourse). Benjamins, 2015, pp. 299–314. doi: 10.1075/milcc.4.12lit (Accessed 12 Sept. 2022).

35. Littlemore, J. 15. Metaphoric competence in the first and second language, 2010a, pp. 289-311. doi: 10.1075/celcr.13.20lit (Accessed 11 Sept. 2022).

36. Littlemore, J., et al. The use of metaphor and metonymy in academic and professional discourse and their challenges for learners and teachers of English. In S. De Knop, F. Boers, & A. De Rycker (Eds.), Fostering Language Teaching Efficiency through Cognitive Linguistics. De Gruyter Mouton, 2010b, pp. 189-212. doi: 10.1515/9783110245837.189. (Accessed 11 Sept. 2022).

37. Littlemore, J., & Juchem-Grundmann, C. Introduction to the interplay between cognitive linguistics and second language learning and teaching. In J. Littlemore, & C. Juchem-Grundmann (Eds.), Applied cognitive linguistics in second language learning and teaching. AILA Review, 23, 2010c, pp. 1-6. John Benjamins.

38. Littlemore, J., & Low, G. Metaphoric competence, second language learning, and communicative language ability. Applied 0Linguistics, 27 (2), 2006a, pp. 268-294. doi: 10.1093/applin/aml004. (Accessed 11 Sept. 2022).

39. Littlemore, J., & Low, G. Figurative thinking and foreign language learning. Palgrave MacMillan, 2006b. doi: 10.1057/9780230627567. (Accessed 11 Sept. 2022).

40. MacCarthur, F. Using metaphor in the teaching of second/foreign languages. In E. Semino, & Z. Demjén (Eds.). The Routledge Handbook of Metaphor and Language. Routledge, 2017, pp. 413-426.

41. Marsh, D. The CLIL Trajectory: educational Innovation for the 21st Century. Cordoba, 2013.

42. Muelas-Gil, M. A Cross-Linguistic Study of Conceptual Metaphors in Financial Discourse. In J. Romero-Trillo (Ed.), Yearbook of Corpus Linguistics and Pragmatics. Springer: Cham, 2016, pp.107-127.

43. Musolff, A. Metaphor Scenarios in Public Discourse. Metaphor and Symbol, 21 (1), 2006, pp. 23-38.

44. Musolff, A. What can Metaphor Theory contribute to the study of political discourse? In M. Degani, P. Frassi, & M. I. Lorenzetti (Eds.). The Languages of Politics (v. 1,). Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2016, pp. 9-28.

45. Nikula, T. Hands-on tasks in CLIL science classrooms as sites for subject-specific language use and learning. System, 54, 2015, pp. 14-27 doi: 10.1016/j.system.2015.04.003. (Accessed 11 Sept. 2022).

46. Pérez-Cañado, M. L. CLIL research in Europe: Past, present, and future. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 15 (3), 2012, 315–341. doi: 10.1080/13670050.2011.630064. (Accessed 11 Sept. 2022).

47. Piquer-Píriz, A. M., & Alejo-González, R. [Benjamins Current Topics 99], 2018, pp. 1-19. doi: 10.1075/rcl.14.1.01piq. (Accessed 11 Sept. 2022).

48. Piquer-Píriz, A. M., & Alejo-González, R. (Eds.). Metaphor in Foreign Language Instruction. De Gruyter Mouton, 2020. doi: 10.1515/9783110630367. (Accessed 11 Sept. 2022).

49. Potts, A., & Semino, E. Cancer as a Metaphor. Metaphor and Symbol. 34 (2), 2019, pp. 81-95. doi: 10.1080/10926488.2019.1611723. (Accessed 12 Sept. 2022).

50. Pütz, M. Cognitive Linguistics and Applied Linguistics. The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, 2010. doi: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199738632.013.0043. (Accessed 12 Sept. 2022).

51. Reitbauer, M., et al. Towards a cognitive-linguistic turn in CLIL: Unfolding integration. LACLIL, 11 (1), 2018, 87-107. DOI: 10.5294/laclil.2018.11.1.5. (Accessed 12 Sept. 2022).

52. Reif, F. Applying Cognitive Science to Education. Thinking and Learning in Scientific and Other Complex Domains. MIT Press, 2008.

53. Resche, C. Towards a better understanding of metaphorical networks in the language of economics: The importance of theory-constitutive metaphors. In H. Herrera-Soler, & M. White, (Eds.), Metaphors and mills. Figurative language in business and economics. De Gruyter Mouton, 2012, pp. 77-102.

54. Resche, C. Economic Terms and Beyond: Capitalising on the Wealth of Notions. How Researchers in Specialised Varieties of English Can Benefit from Focusing on Terms. Peter Lang. 2013. doi: 10.3726/978-3-0351-0589-6. (Accessed 12 Sept. 2022).

55. Schaeffner, C., & Shuttleworth, M. Metaphor in translation. Possibilities for process research. Target, 25 (1), 2013, pp. 93–106. doi: 10.1075/target.25.1.08shu. (Accessed 12 Sept. 2022).

56. Semino, E. Metaphor in Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008.

57. Semino, E., Demjen, Z., & Demmen, J. E. An integrated approach to metaphor and framing in cognition, discourse and practice, with an application to metaphors for cancer. Applied Linguistics, 39 (5), 2018, pp. 625-645. doi: 10.1093/applin/amw028

58. Thibodeau, P., Hendricks, R. & Boroditsky, L. How Linguistic Metaphor Scaffolds Reasoning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 21 (11), 2017, pp. 817-910.

59. Ting, T. Y. CLIL: towards brain-compatible science-education. In D. Marsh, & O. Meyer (Eds.), Quality Interfaces: Examining Evidence and Exploring Solutions in CLIL (pp. 12-16). Eichstaett Academic Press, 2013.

60. Velasco-Sacristán, M. Metaphor and ESP: metaphor as a useful device for teaching L2 Business English learners. Iberica: Revista de la Asociación Europea de Lenguas para Fines Específicos (AELFE), 10, 2004, pp. 115-131.

61. Velasco-Sacristán, M. A translation approach to metaphor teaching in the LSP classroom: Sample exercises from a Business English School. Ibérica: Revista de la Asociación Europea de Lenguas para Fines Específicos (AELFE), 17, 2009, pp. 83-98.

62. Vygotsky, L. S. Mind and society: The development of higher mental processes. Harvard University Press, 1978.