A Study on Ideational Grammar Metaphor in English Writing by High School Students from China
Abstract
Based on ideational grammatical metaphor IGM, this study uses 50 high school students' English compositions from the “Chinese Learner English Corpus” (CLEC) as the corpus for analysis. The study speciffcally examines the use of IGM in writing, reveals the problems encountered, and provides insights for foreign language teaching.
The findings indicate that Chinese high school students' use of ideational metaphors in English writing is primarily nominalized, with a singular type and insufficient lexical diversity, failing to fully realize discourse functions. These results suggest that teaching should enhance students' awareness and use of IGM, strengthen the teaching of non-nominalization, enrich students' language expression, and reinforce practice to fully realize discourse functions. The study is of significant theoretical and practical importance for improving high school English writing teaching.
The findings indicate that Chinese high school students' use of ideational metaphors in English writing is primarily nominalized, with a singular type and insufficient lexical diversity, failing to fully realize discourse functions. These results suggest that teaching should enhance students' awareness and use of IGM, strengthen the teaching of non-nominalization, enrich students' language expression, and reinforce practice to fully realize discourse functions. The study is of significant theoretical and practical importance for improving high school English writing teaching.
Keywords
Ideational Grammar Metaphor; English Writing by High School Students from China; Systemic Functional Linguistics
Full Text:
PDFReferences
[1] Byrnes, H. Emergent L2 German writing ability in a curricular context: a longitudinal study of grammatical metaphor[J]. Linguistics and Education, 2009.20(1): 50⁃66.
[2] Ryshina-Pankova, M. A meaning-based approach to the study of complexity in L2 writing: The case of grammatical metaphor [J]. Journal of Second Language Writing, 2015(29): 51-63.
[3] Skehan, P. A cognitive approach to language learning [M]. Oxford University Press, 1998.
[4] Halliday, M. A. K. & J. R. Martin. Writing Sciences: Literary and Discursive Power [M]. London: The Falmer Press, 1993.
[5] Halliday, M. A. K. & C. M. I. M. Matthiessen. Construing Experience Through Meaning: A Language-Based Approach to Cognition [M]. London: Continuum, 1999.
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18686/ahe.v9i1.14022
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
