Faces of Polysemy
Faces of Polysemy: A Corpus Study of the Literal, Metonymic, and Metaphoric Senses of the word “face”
1. Introduction
From a second-language didactic perspective, the word “face” is generally taught within the first few weeks of an elementary level class, as part of a “body parts” unit. It is vital not only to second-language learners, but also to English discourse in general; it is both one of the oldest, and one of the most frequently used words in the English language. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the word dates back to the 12th century in Anglo-Norman and Old French, and today the noun sense alone “occur[s] between 100 and 1000 times per million words in typical modern English usage. [It is part of the semantic] substance of ordinary, everyday speech and writing.” (Oxford University Press, 2009, para. 1) But this frequency cannot be accounted for based on the literal instances of “face” alone.
For example,“face” can also be a verb. In that form, the usage is statistically reduced, occurring “between ten and one hundred times per million words in typical modern English usage, including a wide range of descriptive vocabulary” (Oxford University Press, 2009, para. 1). In addition to these lexico-syntactic differences, there are also a host of semantic interpretations for the word “face.” A lexicographer would refer to it as both “homonymous” (meaning the same lexeme with the same spelling can be interpreted with vastly different, unrelated definitions), and “polysemous” (meaning the same lexeme with the same spelling can be interpreted with related definitions) (Saeed 2009, p. 63-64). These various definitions or “senses” are grouped by theoretical linguists into three main categories: “literal”, “metaphoric”, and “metonymic” (Lopukhina, Laurinavichyute, Lopukhin, and Dragoy 2018).
The principal aim of the present study is to analyze and enunciate the different senses of the word “face” across three semantic categories (“literal,” “metonymic,” and “metaphoric”). The data will also be analyzed in terms of the semantic overlap between senses, and bring to light any patterns that appear salient. To accomplish this, each of the relevant (not obsolete or rare) senses of “face” from the Oxford English Dictionary were grouped into the three semantic categories, to provide a reference. Next, one thousand random cases of the word “face” were drawn from COCA, by selecting five to ten from each page of search results. The cases were then sorted into sense categories. It should be noted that since data collection was randomized, this study did not draw equally from each sub-corpora of COCA, and the genres of the sub-corpora involved may affect the frequency of each sense. Frequencies will be noted, though the principal focus of the study remains identification and analysis of the senses. In sections 4, 5, and 6 of this paper, the results will be interpreted in terms of research implications for cognitive linguistics and pedagogical implications for the field of language acquisition. Finally, section 7 and 8 will propose an ESL lesson plan mobilizing the defined senses of “face” to introduce English language learners to conceptual structure and Cognitive Metaphor Theory.
“Face” has been chosen as the term for investigation both due to its status as part of the “substance of ordinary, everyday speech,” and the polysemic nature that status entails. It has also been chosen based on its prototypical sense being one that is inherently linked to communication, observation, and interaction. The hypothesis is that words of this semantic ilk will have a significant percentage of figurative uses, since the abstract concepts associated with the prototypical “face” (like communication) must be referenced through more concrete concepts (Kovecses 2010), and specifically through our embodied experience (Gallese and Lakoff 2005).
2. Definitions and Previous Research on Literal, Metonymic, and Metaphoric Senses
The relevant definition of the term “literal” found in the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) is as follows: “Of, relating to, or designating the primary, original, or etymological sense of a word, or the exact sense expressed by the actual wording of a phrase or passage” (Oxford University Press, 2011, para. 9). Essentially, the “literal” sense of face will be fairly restricted to nominal expressions that equate to the prototypical sense: “the front part of the head, from the forehead to the chin, and containing the eyes, nose, and mouth” (Oxford University Press, 2009, para. 1).
All verbal instances of “face” by contrast, will be considered figurative. The reason for that distinction lies partly in etymology, and partly in Rosch’s “prototype theory” (Saeed 2009, p. 39). The historical iterations of “face” from the 7th century to the 1500’s were nominal expressions, the first recorded use meaning “visage” or “countenance” (Oxford University Press, 2009, para. 1). Given its etymology, it seems the original uses of “face” were all nominal, (though not all of them were literal). In modern usage, the word “face” does occur as a verb as well, but it still has a strong central prototype as a nominal expression (listed above). (2009, para. 2).
“Face” in its verbal form, then, can be seen as an extension of the nominal sense, in which a person reorients their body to point in a particular direction; given that the face is the epicenter of a person’s thinking and perceiving faculties, it follows that this word could be used to reference the directional change of the entire body, in a sort of “part-whole” relationship. This use may be defined as “metonymic”, in which we provide mental access to one entity by referencing another (Kovecses 2010, p. 172). The entity that “directs attention or provides mental access” is called the vehicle entity, while the entity to which attention is provided is called the target entity (2010: 172). Importantly, both of these entities are mapped within the same semantic frame; the “face” exists within the same frame of reference as the “body,” which is the entity performing the directional change or reorientation.
But the verb “face” can also be used to describe the reorientation of an object, and this use is metaphoric. This is because the “front” or “dominant side” of an object is only understood to be its “face” by way of mental image-mapping (Gibbs & Colston 1995), in which the object is conceptualized as a “head”. By this logic, any instance of the noun “face” meaning “surface,” “wall,” or “front” is understood to be metaphoric. When the dominant side or surface of said entity or object is re-oriented to point in a given direction, it is conceptualized as a head turning such that the face (and by extension the body) is pointing in a given direction. Similarly, when an entity with or without a literal face “addresses” or “confronts” an abstract entity, this use can be considered the same type of metaphoric image-mapping.
“Metaphoric” senses in this paper are drawn from cognitive linguistic theory. The intricacies of the vast and varied field of conceptual metaphor will not be explored in depth here, but a brief introduction to the topic will serve to contextualize arguments made in the analysis of the data. Far from being relegated to the realm of poetic device alone, cognitive linguistics defines metaphor as the conceptual structure that underlies our everyday thought (Lakoff & Johnson, 1981, p.4). In other words, evidence of the metaphoricity of our inherent conceptual structure is present in even the most quotidian language. Often, abstract concepts are understood through their similarities to more concrete, familiar, or embodied experiences (Kovecses 2010, p.4). The concept from which we make the metaphor is called the source domain, and the concept that is being understood is the target domain (2010: 4). Aspects of the source domain are metaphorically “mapped” onto the target domain so fluidly, speakers conceive of and act on the underlying metaphor without being consciously aware of doing so (Saygin, 2001). This is the mechanism by which most native English speakers use and automatically understand expressions such as “he had a head start in life,” “he started drinking and went down a bad path,” and “there were a few roadblocks, but they we able to finish college”: all of these phrases are entailments of the cognitive metaphor LIFE IS A JOURNEY (2010: 35). This metaphor and a few others are relevant to the analysis of the data--particularly in relation to more idiomatic expressions--and will be discussed below.
To fully assess the metaphoricity or literality of a word on a more local, syntactical level, this study will reference “The Metaphor Identification Procedure” (MIP) established by the Pragglejaz group (2007: 3). The MIP contends that to accurately analyze a word for traces of metaphoricity, its meaning must be considered at both the lexical and contextual level (2007: 3). To achieve this end, The MIP suggests first determining the lexical units in a text-discourse, and then considering the meaning of each lexical unit in context, or as it applies to other entities or attributes within the “situation evoked by the text” (Group, Pragglejaz, 2007: 3). Next we are instructed to determine if the lexical unit in question has “a more basic contemporary meaning in other contexts than the one in the given context,” with the assumption that the most basic meaning is the literal one (Group, Pragglejaz, 2007: 3). The words’ metaphoricity can then be assessed based on the contrast or lack of contrast between the basic meaning and the meanings that appear in the example. In this aspect, the MIP is importantly different from the OED’s definition of “literal,” which makes no distinction between the meaning at the lexical and contextual levels, requiring that the word be considered wholly in relation to “the sense expressed by the wording of the passage” (Oxford University Press, 2011, para. 9).
The MIP lays out some criteria that may be used to assess whether a word’s meaning is “basic.” One of these criteria is consistent with the OED’s definition of “literal,” namely that the word be “historically older” (Group, Pragglejaz, 2007: p.3). The rest of the MIP’s defining features of “basic” meaning are as follows: meanings that are “‘more concrete’ [i.e. what they evoke is easier to imagine, see, feel, hear, and taste],” meanings that are “more precise (as opposed to vague),” and those that are “more related to bodily action” (Group, Pragglejazz, 2007: 3). The final category is both particularly pertinent and ambiguous when considering the word “face,” since its prototypical use refers to a literal part of the body.
By MIP standards, a prototypical instance of “face” and the movement of facial muscles should render a basic meaning--but here the story becomes more complex, since this movement creates expressions. We recognize emotions through a categorical set of facial expressions, and these are often illustrated by the word “face” preceded by an emotional adjective (e.g. grumpy face). This construction has a contextually metonymic reading, since it is used to represent the emotions of a person as a whole. In this and related cases, this study references a few aspects of Langacker’s “conceptual profiling” (1987: 53). In the case of grumpy face the “PROFILE/BASE DISTINCTION” is relevant; the “BASE” is Langacker’s term for the conceptual domain, while the “PROFILE” is defined as “a “substructure of the base” that is brought into focus by the context (1987: 56). Thus, the physical face can function as the base, and each expression is a different profile.
3. The Present Study
3.1 Literal “Face” Data
Having concluded its review of the necessary terms, conceptual structures, and the etymology of the word “face,” the paper will now proceed to the analysis of the corpus data. Each sense of “face” will be defined and analyzed using a few examples from the data set that exemplify the core semantic patterns and range within the category. To begin, it was found that about one third of the data, or 30.5% of cases were the literal, most basic sense. The examples in this category take “face” to mean “the front part of a human or animal head,” as in examples (3.1.1 - 3.1.2) or “the likeness of a human or animal face,” or as in example (3.1.3). This sense often appears in the context of physical contact between the face and an external object; importantly, this category is defined by a lack of reference to facial muscles displaying emotion or an aspect of personality.
3.1.3) ...goats, food processors and bicycles, and BRANDED all of it WITH HER FACE and the name Amma: Amma salt, Amma cement, Amma drinking water.
3.2 Lexically literal, Contextually Metonymic
3.2A “Face” for Present Emotion (From Categorical Set)
Examples that were lexically literal but contextually metonymic made up 37.4% of the data, making this the most frequently appearing configuration of “face.” This classification and the categories within it are also the most contentious in the study, having the most potential for internal crossover, and recategorization in light of new data. The reasons behind this high frequency and the potential ambiguity of the sub-categories are explored in this section. Firstly, the literal definition of “face” is narrow, and it is closely related to the metonymic senses. In a 2018 study, psycholinguistic researchers found that literal and metonymic are the senses most commonly conflated by the average person, despite metonymy and metaphor sharing the quality of being figurative (Lopukhina, Laurinavichyute, Lopukhin, and Dragoy 2018).
Their results suggest that literal and metonymic senses are conceptually close enough that language users often switch between them unconsciously, and store them together in the mental lexicon. This frequent conflation could necessitate a redistribution of some of the data for a few reasons. This category is one in which speakers use the literal sense of “face” as a base to profile a range of concepts--some of which, it can be reasonably assumed, are not represented in the data. The frequent semantic overlap between these categories also suggests that they may stand to be expanded upon in light of new data, and the present examples re-evaluated.
For the purposes of this study, the first lexically literal, contextually metonymic category is one in which the (either conscious or unconscious) movement of facial muscles is taken to illustrate meaning about a person’s emotional state, via a set of prototypical expressions. This sub-category was by far the largest of the five, accounting for 32.5% of the overall data. Because this category is slightly larger than the previous “strictly literal” one, the data suggest that speakers talk about a physical, literal “face” in reference to an emotional state more often than in reference to the physical surface of the face itself.
Example (3.2.1) is reminiscent of a number of examples in the data, which reference the “smile on your face” as a literal description of the positioning of facial muscles, while metonymically standing for a person’s current state of happiness. Example (3.2.2) is a little more abstract: the configuration of the facial muscles is taken to relate to an understood categorical set of emotions in “serious face,” and a popular culture reference in “Jagger face” that evokes images of the facial expressions famously made by Mick Jagger. In (3.2.3), a speaker is asking someone whether they have practiced performing the expressions associated with the expected emotional responses in the social situation of a contest--presumably to minimize the opportunity for showing more vulnerability than desired through unconscious facial expressions. This example demonstrates the range of this sub-category, in which the face is used to profile both genuine and affected performances of emotion.
(3.2.1) Well, you have a SMILE on your face. That's all I wanted you to have.
(3.2.2) Harris TWITCHED HIS MUSCLES and tried TO MAKE A SERIOUS face, a JAGGER face…
(3.2.3) So do you have a WINNING face and a LOSING face prepared just in case?
3.2B “Face” for Point of Emotional Reception
This category, accounting for only 1.3% of the overall data, is almost the inverse of the previous. Rather than using “face” to profile the emotional state of a person, here “face” metonymically stands for the “point of emotional reception” for the action of another. Usually occurring in a prepositional phrase, these examples reference a literal face interacting with an external entity, but not making physical contact. The impact of the external entity is felt instead in an emotional way. This category consists of idiomatic expressions in which the verb and preposition are realized figuratively, while importing some semantic qualities of their literal use.
In (3.2.4) for example, “got in my face” refers to the action of one person drawing physically nearer to the other with the intention to shock, intimidate, or challenge them. This effect is achieved because the verb and preposition “got in” are interpreted in terms of embodied experience; the expression imports the semantic properties of “unwantedness,” “unpleasantness,” and “invasion” that come with the physical sensation of a person unexpectedly touching or in some way penetrating another person’s face without warrant (or with intent to harm). In (3.2.5), the verb and prepositions “grin down into” cannot be realized literally, but the positive associations elicited by frame “grin” are considered to be directed toward the other person. The preposition “into” is realized metaphorically in this instance, a possible extension of Lakoff’s conceptual metaphor, COMMUNICATION IS OBJECT TRANSFER.
(3.2.4) And he GOT IN MY FACE and laughed at me for flinching.
(3.2.5) ...with the small curly-haired fairy child in his arms, GRINNING down INTO HER FACE.
(3.2.6) After having two DOORS SLAMMED IN MY FACE and one old man shout at me through his closed door.
Syntactically the phrases in this category are similar, and many of them, like (3.2.4) and (3.2.6) are what researchers Fillmore, Kay, & O’Connor refer to as “substantive idioms,” meaning they are commonly used, set expressions, whose “lexical make-up is (more or less) fully specified” (1988: 505). The expression in (3.2.5) “grinning down into her face” by contrast, is not a set expression stored in the cultural lexicon, but it is syntactically similar enough to “got in my face” to suggest the existence of a related “formal idiom,” which is more lexically open (1988: 505). Indeed all of the members of this category satisfy a version of the syntactic pattern: [Subject] + [verb] + [preposition] + [article] or [personal pronoun] + [face], in which the subject is always the agent, and the “face” the patient, undergoing change as a result of the action in a non-physical way.
3.2C “Face” for an Individual’s “Identity”
This category accounted for 3.3% of the overall data. In these examples, the literal “face” stands metonymically for the “identity” of the person in question. Importantly, it does not highlight the emotional state of the person in question, or any character judgments about that person. In (3.2.7), it is clear from context that the speaker’s anxiety is not purely about the literal likeness of his face being seen on television--rather he fears that his involvement in “this thing” will result in his publicized arrest. This idea is communicated based on a shared cultural knowledge between speaker and listener--and ultimately the reader--that one’s face “ends up on TV” only when their actions have warranted a level of either fame or infamy. He is concerned about the possible consequences of his actions, and his “identity” being widely associated with them.
(3.2.7) You have, what, three months left? And God forbid MY FACE ENDS UP ON TV when this thing gets bigger.
In the idiomatic expression in (3.2.8), the “face” also stands metonymically for the person’s identity. The phrase “What makes you think you have a right to show your face here” does not entail that the speaker is asking the person to cover their literal face, rather he is asking “What makes you think you, the person, have a right to be here?” Example (3.2.9) also references a literal face, but uses it to index the person as a whole. Kaiden does not “sprint” toward a familiar though disembodied face, nor does she sprint toward a person because she has seen their face before; she sprints toward a person she knows and feels comfortable with, after “identifying” them by their face.
(3.2.8) What makes you think you have the right to SHOW YOUR FACE here, on the
day he died?
(3.2.9) When she got there she saw Kaiden sprint past her and towards a FAMILIAR FACE.
3.2D “Face” as a Representative for a Group of People
This category is strikingly small, comprising only 0.3% of the data. The low frequency of this sense may be caused by the semantic overlap it shares with other senses; in an earlier version of this paper it was combined with the next category, “Face as a Representative for an Abstract Concept.” This section will analyze the semantic overlap, and attempt to elucidate the reasoning behind this small category remaining independent. There were four cases in the data of a literal “face” metonymically standing for either the person who represents a group of people, or the group of people itself. Examples (3.2.10 - 3.2.12) below illustrate the latter. In (3.2.10), “brown face” is the racist practice of a white person donning brown face makeup in order to impersonate an Indian or Middle-Eastern person. In this example, a literal “face” is being used to portray a racist stereotype that indexes a group of people. The relationship between “brown face” and the group of people targeted by it is metonymic since the former is meant to stand for the latter, despite the fact that what it actually stands for is a racist stereotype (an abstract concept). It could be argued that this example belongs in the next category “Face as a Representative for an Abstract Concept,” but because the stereotype indexes a group of people, it has been included here.
(3.2.10) Time Magazine found a picture of the Canadian prime minister wearing BROWN FACE, as they call it up there, complete with a turban.
Another salient point in which overlap occurs is in the question of whether an “organization” should be considered as “a group of people” or “an abstract entity” in its own right, endowed with a functional and symbolic power beyond the efforts of its members. In (3.2.13) for example, “the NBA” can be seen as a group of people (basketball players, coaches, referees, and other associated individuals), or it can be understood more abstractly as a long-standing organization that represents certain standards and ideals (ie peak athleticism and sound judgment) regardless of its specific members at any point in time. In either interpretation, “We don’t want Mr. Sterling’s face to be the face of the NBA” means that the speaker does not want Mr. Sterling to be the most famous or powerful person in the NBA, whose frequent media presence conflates him or his literal “face” with it in the cultural zeitgeist.
An argument could be made that it is the more abstract or conceptual aspect of the NBA--its standards, traditions, and reputations--that is being profiled here, and that this example should be included in the next category, “Face as a Representative for an Abstract Concept.” But because the NBA is a recognizable group of individuals, it stands in contrast to abstract concepts like “unremitting environmental attacks” in (3.2.15), in which human constituents are more implied. It is for this reason that this study considers “organizations” such as “the NBA” or “the progressive side of the party” to be “groups of people,” rather than “abstract concepts,” though these are certainly borderline cases that could reasonably be classified as either.
(3.2.13) We don't want Mr. Sterling's face to be the FACE of the NBA.
(3.2.14 ) Who's going to be the progressive -- the FACE for the PROGRESSIVE SIDE of the Party?
*(3.2.15) In the FACE of such unremitting ENVIRONMENTAL ATTACKS from the Bush administration, it's disheartening to see.
3.3 Facing the Boundaries of Metaphor and Metonymy
3.3A “Face” as a Representative for an Abstract Concept (NOUN)
This ambiguous category comprised 2.9% of the overall data. Cases of “face” in this category can manifest metonymically, metaphorically or in a space between the two. In other words, “face” can be lexically literal and contextually figurative, or it may be lexically figurative as well; importantly, examples in the category may allow for more than one possible analysis. Example (3.3.1) puts a “face” on “modern-day slavery.” Slavery is a human phenomenon so the human face can be seen, through metonymy, as a representational extension of it (lexically literal and contextually metonymic). However, the “face” in this case does not reference a literal human face, but rather “the state of modern-day slavery.” In this interpretation, “face” metaphorically means something like “current state of affairs.”
(3.3.1) We're talking about the face of MODERN-DAY SLAVERY and what it looks like, and we have a couple of…
(3.3.2) ...and habitats are described in maps, images, and narratives that put a HUMAN face on statistics. Through its pages, readers see the trends that are transforming populations.
(3.3.3) ...you know, when I look at RONALD REAGAN’S FACE I see the FACE of GOD.
Example (3.3.2) demonstrates a metaphorical relationship. Though image-mapping is not necessarily occurring, the phrase “put a human face on” is a metaphor meaning “to create empathy for,” or to “help readers connect with the human aspects of.” The “face of God” in example (3.3.3) is also particularly interesting. God has historically been represented throughout mass religions as a white man who resides in the sky, so comparing the face of a white man such as Ronald Reagan to those images could be seen as a metonymic relationship. But the deeper sentiment in this example seems to be comparing the conceptual qualities of God (wholesomeness, piety, righteousness), to perceived parallel qualities in Ronald Reagan, making this more of a metaphoric use.
3.3B “Face” for Character Judgment
In 5.3% of the overall data, mention of the face or facial features occurs alongside a descriptive phrase that implies something more about the character of the person being described--or at least, how the speaker perceives them. This finding suggests that the face is used as a vehicle for character judgment fairly frequently, and that there are some consistent (if perhaps culturally specific) image schema that link the appearance of a person’s face to certain assumptions about their personality or lifestyle. While “face for character judgment” is a metonymic relationship, the richness of the characterization is sometimes achieved by a metaphorical mapping of concepts outside the domain of the human body.
To begin on the more straightforward metonymic end of this category, consider the following examples in which the speaker selects an adjective that makes an explicit character judgment. These examples are the most direct iteration of the “face for person” metonymy. In (3.3.4), reference is made to Father Carl’s physical face, but the adjective “beloved” is selected to describe how he is viewed as a person. In (3.3.5), Byron Darnell has a “kind face,” suggesting either that he is a kind person, or that the speaker often perceives the expression on his face to be open and compassionate.
(3.3.4) His face, Father Carl's actual beloved face, would swell beyond recognition.
(3.3.5) His name is Byron Darnell and he has a long face, a kind face.
Character judgments can sometimes also be realized through a description or value judgment of the physical face or facial features. In a 2014 study, researchers in Denmark found that “we tend to evaluate others on their appearance, (meaning not only facial expressions but the neutral features at rest) and then move on to treat and interact with them based on these first impressions” (Wolffhechel, Fagertun, Jacobsen, Majewski, Hemmingson, Larsen, Lorentzen, and Jarmer). Researchers identified trends in the specific facial features participants used to generate a first impression. As for the quality of kindness, as exhibited in examples (3.3.2), the speakers could have judged those characters based on the features attested by the research participants; “eye contact” and “large eyes” were thought to identify trustworthiness, agreeableness, and empathy (2014: para. 1). Interestingly, the “corners of the mouth” were mentioned as a telling sign of “friendliness” in the Denmark study as well, so long as they were “neutrally or upward pointed” (2014: para. 23).
The attractiveness of a face specifically, is also frequently associated with “an evaluation of a person’s moral character, known as the beauty-is-good stereotype” (Cui, X., Cheng, Q., Lin, W. et al. 2019). This idea is both intuitive and supported by neuroscience. Recent studies based on neural imaging have found that the same areas of the brain, or rather, the same “sensory-perceptual, cognitive and affective processes” are involved in both “moral beauty judgment [and] external beauty judgment, [involve] ( 2019). In keeping with these findings, cases like (3.3.6) and (3.3.7) were taken to suggest an assessment of the person as a whole.
In (3.3.6) for example, the speaker gives a detailed analysis of a man’s facial features, indicating that she has spent a significant amount of time studying them, and that she finds them beautiful. This instance of “face” serves to characterize both the speaker and her subject: from this utterance we understand that the speaker has mentally categorized this man as one that she sees special characteristics in--he is worthy of her focused attention. In (3.3.7) we can similarly assume the metonymic relationship of “face for person” and understand that the speaker in considers the woman in question beautiful; the repetition of “face,” “lovely face,” suggests that she is dear to him. Because “lovely” is the adjective he chose to describe the face--the part of this woman that represents her being--this example shows that beauty is the dominant semantic element in the speaker’s mental conception of her. As noted above, this beauty is likely conceived of as both physical and moral.
(3.3.6) ...he wore that dark blue T-shirt that said “LeBron” across the front. It pulled some DIFFERENT COLOR out of HIS FACE, a BEAUTIFUL FACE really, THIN CHEEKS, a SHARP PRONOUNCED CHIN, GOOD LIPS, a GIRL’S LIPS.
(3.3.7) Her FACE, her LOVELY FACE, so familiar to him, was transformed.
Descriptive phrases related to a person’s health or age also appear telling of the way they are being mentally characterized or categorized by the speaker. Consider example (3.3.6), in which the narrator describes his realization that the woman in question has grown older with the phrase: “her face was not the face of the young woman he remembered.” The inclusion of the phrase “young woman” suggests a metonymic conflation between the “face” and the “woman” as a whole, alluding to not only the physical changes of aging, but the requisite changes in the person’s state of being. The conflation of “woman” and “face” prepares the reader to map semantic elements of his description of her face onto his perception of her character or being; the “lined” face belongs to a person who is “marked” or “changed” by life, and the “delicate” skin implies an increased fragility, even a preciousness, and the consideration that it might be important to treat this person gently.
(3.3.8) ...then he could see that her face was not the FACE of the YOUNG WOMAN he remembered; it was lined, the skin delicate…
Finally, this category also includes examples that rely more heavily on metaphorical mapping to achieve characterization. The descriptive phrases invoke conceptual domains beyond the scope of terms conventionally associated with the body (health, aging, physical beauty, etc). In example (3.3.9) for instance, the narrator is a soldier in battle, watching another man “drown” in poison gas: the adjectival phrase “hanging face” then, appropriately evokes a sense of deflation, of life force being drained. Similarly in the description of a seriously ill child in (3.3.10), the more common collocation “ghostly face” recalls both the pallid tone of the skin itself, and the child’s proximity to death. The offbeat description in (3.3.11) of a man’s “button nose” producing a minute “space-time distortion” paints this man as a character who exists in somewhat of a different plane than other people, lending him a quality of “otherworldliness.”
3.3.9) And watch the white eyes writhing in his face, His HANGING FACE, like a devil's sick of sin...
3.3.10) ...eyes open in the dark and sought out that child's face, that GHOSTLY FACE, and tried to figure something out. What was it, what was wrong…
3.3.11) ...strange button nose which produces a minute SPACE-TIME DISTORTION IN HIS FACE.
Though this category allows for a considerable range of examples to be included in it, they share the properties of being lexically literal and presenting a character judgment through metonymy. The speaker describes a person’s archetype through either an explicit personality adjective, or more covertly through a depiction of their facial features, which may or may not require metaphorical image-mapping to comprehend.
3.4 Metaphoric “Face” Data
3.4A “Face” = Surface of a Physical Object
Comprising a miniscule portion of the data, just 0.5% were senses in which “face” did not in any way index the literal, basic definition, but instead meant the “dominant side” or “presentational/ interactional surface” of a physical object. As discussed in the introduction, this metaphoric sense is achieved through image-mapping, in which the object is conceived of as a head, and the side of it relevant to interaction is conceived of as the “face.” This relationship is demonstrated in the examples below in terms of the “input” or “output” surface of a blood vessel is the area through which blood interacts, the steep side of the mountain that people climb, and the engraved, beautiful surface on a locket, the one meant for presentation.
(3.3.12) The inlet or the outlet is the INPUT FACE or the OUTPUT FACE that blood enters or exits from a vessel.
(3.3.13) Normally this STEEP FACE is climbed by little people during the winter season.
(3.3.14) The sunlight bounced off of ITS FACE adorned with engraved swamp lilies. Harlowe pressed the small knob atop THE LOCKET.
3.4B Metaphorical Surface - “Face Value” “On the Face of It”
This category was also a small one; just 1.1% of cases were composed of (variations on) two idiomatic expressions that seemed to evoke the same sense. Aligning with George Lakoff’s theory of THE CONDUIT METAPHOR, the ideas in these examples are conceived of as physical objects (Kovecses 2010, p. 84). The “face” in these examples is meant to indicate the “surface” of the object, which maps onto a shallow, preliminary, or unsubstantial understanding of the idea. In (3.3.16), journalists are advised not to believe “leaked” information they hear before investigating the information “in depth.” In (3.3.14), the assertion in question seems preposterous at the outset, implying that digging further into the topic would be unnecessary. In (3.3.17), the duly-enacted Act of Congress is struck down by the district court almost on principle, being unconstitutional even on the surface, the most obvious, visible aspect of it.
(3.3.16) And don't TRUST the LEAKS at FACE VALUE. Very important message for journalists.
(3.3.14) I mean, it is literally NUTS ON ITS FACE to make an assertion that this was an attack by the Houthis.
(3.3.17) ...the district court struck down, as UNCONSTITUTIONAL ON ITS FACE, a duly-enacted Act of Congress.
3.4C Metaphorical Point of Interaction
Coming in at just above the size of the previous, this category accounted for 1.2% of the data. These cases exhibited some semantic overlap with one of the previous categories, “Face for Point of Emotional Reception”: in both categories, the “face” is taken to mean the aspect of a person that experiences the emotional effects of an external action. The categories differ in that the former involves a physical action eliciting an emotional response, while in this category the action is entirely metaphorical--even if it is based on bodily experience. Example (3.3.18) particularly embodies the cognitive metaphor EMOTIONAL PAIN IS PHYSICAL PAIN, conflating the physical sting of being “slapped in the face” with the emotional sting of proposing to ban one’s community from the military.
(3.3.18) There's also the efforts to push a transgender military ban here. What effect
have all of these even just proposals had on the trans community? BEVERLY- TILLERY): Yes. I mean, talk about a COMPLETE SLAP in the FACE.
(3.3.19) I'm also concerned that we might overshoot the mark in our efforts to rein in those firms.
SEN. AMY KLOBUCHAR (D-MN), JUDICIARY COMMITTEE RANKING MEMBER: I'm
more concerned that consumers are going to end up WITH A PIE IN THEIR FACE if we
don't start taking action soon.
(3.3.20) ...woman Alanna is, parading your little conquest around the whole court, RUBBING MY FACE IN IT.
Example (3.3.19) is not about physical pain per se, but does metaphorically map the
physical experience of discomfort, and more importantly the emotional experience of vulnerability onto the target domain of consumers’ experience. Arguably, this mapping is achieved as automatically as the sensation of “being slapped in the face”, despite it being a less common embodied experience. The image of having a “pie in the face” is nonetheless accessible because it is a well-known cultural image dating back to Vaudeville performances in the 1920’s. It has been parodied often enough in popular culture that the listener easily understands the analogy: if the public officials do not “act quickly” the consumers will be put in a situation where they feel as though they have been used, disrespected, and ultimately like “the punchline of a joke.” In example (3.3.20), “face” again refers to the speaker’s “Point of Emotional Reception,” and the affective action is again metaphorical. Both the physical and emotional associations with having one’s face “rubbed” in something are mapped onto the experience of watching someone “parade [their] conquest around the court.” Through this mapping it is understood that the speaker finds the experience he describes to be a painful one, to which he is being forcefully subjected against his will.
3.4D “Face” = Desired Public Presentation / “Save Face”
The idiom “to save (one’s) face” and cases related to it compose this sense of “face,” which accounted for a miniscule 0.5% of the data. In these cases, “face” is taken to mean the “desired public presentation/ reputation,” “dignity/ pride,” or “composure.” The following examples demonstrate a few syntactic and semantic dimensions in which this sense may be realized. Example (3.4.1) is the classic use, in which an agent, “they,” did something for the purpose of minimizing damage to their public image. In example (3.4.2) someone retains their composure while dealing with a situation, keeping their public presentation controlled. In (3.4.3), government officials in Myanmar wish to appear open to accepting the Rohingya, presumably to garner public favor, despite their true intentions being otherwise.
(3.4.1) ...you can't fire me, I quit. They did it to SAVE FACE.
(3.4.2) So, Dana, what do you -- how do you grade his performance with the -- I mean, HANDLING it that CALMLY with FACE -- like arrogance is pretending you know something that you know nothing about.
(3.4.3) The Rohingya themselves want to go back. Myanmar wants to PUT ON A FACE as if they're willing to take them back, although we see on the ground that they're not making the moves to -- for that to happen.
3.5 Directional “face”
The directional use of “face” can manifest as “lexically literal, contextually metonymic,” “lexically literal, contextually metaphoric,” or “lexically and contextually metaphoric.” The following section details which configurations are assigned to which senses.
3.5A Directional “face” : Point Toward a Physical Entity
The first directional category, “Physically Point Toward a Material Entity,” accounted for 5.9% of the data. This category is lexically literal and contextually metonymic. The metonymy is given in (3.5.1), as the entity in question possesses a prototypical face. The volleyball players are literally standing with their faces pointing toward each other, but the fronts of their bodies are pointed toward each other as well, so the contextual reading is metonymic. Though this sense of “face” is nominal in (3.5.1), it more often manifests verbally, as in (3.5.2). In both cases, the literal face is understood metonymically to describe the direction in which the body (and conscious focus) are pointed. Example (3.5.3) is emblematic of an idiom that makes up a decent contingent of this category, as in “face down,” “face first,” “face up,” etc. Finally, it should be clarified that the “material entity” being “faced” in this category need not be animate (though it usually is). In (3.5.4) a person physically directs their face and body toward a chest of drawers, and the lexically literal, contextually metonymic relationship is unchanged.
(3.5.1) She loved to laugh, and she would STAND FACE-TO-FACE with A PLAYER twice her size in a volleyball game.
(3.5.2) Two of the MARINES TURNED to FACE HER. They were young, about her brother's Age.
(3.5.3) ...stabs through her finger. It ends up making a little mark. She FALLS FACE DOWN.
(3.5.4) He turned away from his boyfriend to FACE the CHEST OF DRAWERS.
3.5B Directional “face” : Point Toward an Abstract Entity
Very occasionally--as in 0.1% of the present data--there is a case in which the “pointing entity” or the “entity being pointed toward” does not possess a physical face, nor any sort of material or corporeal form. This sense may even be constrained to discussion of cardinal directions and associated concepts as in example (3.5.5) below, as this was the only instance of it in one thousand cases of “face.” This example is particularly interesting, as the three verbal phrases become increasingly metaphoric. “Face east” is purely the metonymic “physically point” sense, but “face the dawn” could be read as either “physically point” or the metaphorical sense “confront”; after that ambiguous, transitional case, “face the new day,” is understood as the metaphorical “confront” usage alone. As a final note, the classification of “abstract entity” does not encompass mythical, or otherwise incorporeal beings. For the purposes of this study, entities such as “the phantom” in (3.5.6) and “the god Apollo” in (3.5.7) are classed as “material entities” in 3.5A.
(3.5.5) ...more who weren't yet connected TURNED to FACE EAST, FACE the DAWN,
FACE the NEW DAY, and they recalled a dozen, hundred, a thousand similar.
*(3.5.6) Uh oh " Lockwood muttered. We turned to face the phantom. She was standing
behind us wearing a smile that promised death.
*(3.5.7) They floated upward until they found themselves face to face with the god
Apollo.
3.5C Directional “face” : Metaphorically Face (Confront) a Physical Entity (Single or group)
In 3.1% of the data, the directional sense of “face” was metaphoric, translating to “confront.” There is an embodied element to this metaphor, in which “physically pointing toward a physical being or object” is used as a source domain to conceive of the target “engaging with an experience” or “grappling with an issue.” This mapping is achieved within the common cognitive metaphor, LIFE IS A JOURNEY. In this metaphor, situational obstacles are conceived of as physical obstacles, and the person to confront those obstacles is understood as the traveler, moving ever forward on their “path” (Kovecses, 2010, p. 5 - 8). Animate entities, as shown in examples (3.5.8) - (3.5.11) from the data, could be understood as metonymic representations of those obstacles.
In (3.5.8) for example, the speaker does not feel fully ready to interact with an ex-lover. The “ex-lover” metonymically stands for the experiences and unresolved feelings that the speaker associates with them--these are the obstacles the speaker will have to overcome. Likewise in example (3.5.9), “hardened criminals,” “lifers,” and “death row inmates” represent the dangerous confrontations with those individuals that the speaker could potentially endure while in prison. In (3.5.10), the program “face the nation” is one that performs political analysis; “the nation” in this case stands for the political issues the country must currently confront. Similarly “face English in the semifinals” from example (3.5.11) represents a confrontation in the form of a sports game, or a type of obstacle that must be overcome in order to advance along the “path” to the championship.
As an aside, “the nation” and “England” are in and of themselves examples of metonymic, as “all the citizens of the nation” are referenced by those lexemes. For the purposes of this study, single and group material entities were considered to be within the same class.
(3.5.8) ...we ended things right before summer and I wasn't exactly sure I could FACE HIM yet.
(3.5.9) ...we FACE HARDENED CRIMINALS, we FACE LIFERS, we FACE DEATH ROW INMATES and they're equipped with shanked…
(3.5.10) Welcome back to FACE THE NATION. It is time for some political analysis.
(3.5.11) The Americans beat host France today 2-1 in Paris. They FACE ENGLAND in the semifinals on Tuesday.
3.5D Directional “face”: Metaphorically Face (Confront) an Abstract Entity
An abstract entity can also be “faced” or “confronted,” increasing the metaphoricity of the phrase as a whole while still keeping with the LIFE IS A JOURNEY metaphor. In (3.5.12) for example, the “national security issues” are conceived of as physical obstacles laid in front of the president, that he will have to navigate to continue on his path. Example (3.5.13) evokes LIFE IS A JOURNEY as well, but it also evokes the related cognitive metaphor, EMOTION IS AN OPPONENT (Kovecses 108). “Humiliation” is conceived of as an “opponent” with which the speaker must engage if he is to continue progressing along his current life path. From context we observe that the speaker instead chooses to metaphorically change direction, by “running” from the opponent of humiliation.
(3.5.12) A segment where we highlight the most pressing NATIONAL SECURITY ISSUES the
PRESIDENT will FACE when he wakes up tomorrow.
(3.5.13) But I couldn't FACE the HUMILIATION of losing Conner's contest. I ran. I did things
that I wasn't proud of, and eventually, became one of the pirates.
4. Discussion and Suggestions for Future Research
“Face” is one of the most common words in the English language, predisposing it to being polysemic. This paper has presented multiple senses of the word “face,” analyzing its literality and figurativeness on both a lexical and contextual level. The study found that one third of the samples in the corpus data represented the prototypical, literal sense of “face,” meaning the front of the head. As predicted, this lexically literal sense laid in close proximity to metonymic and metaphoric ones, by virtue of the word itself. This is because the literal face houses the organs of perception, which are used to interpret the experiences of the external world. The facial muscles are used to communicate and express emotion, projecting internal experiences onto the external world. The face is both the reception point for interaction, and the vehicle for expression--a significant part of which consists of speakers logging, categorizing, and sharing their perceptions of the people around them.
There were multiple manifestations of a literal “face” being used metonymically to make a statement or judgment about another person, or to categorize them in some way. There were the more literary uses of “face,” in which the description of a person’s face revealed a character judgment the speaker was making about them; in these examples, context was particularly influential in constructing the meaning of “face.” Other examples showed the movement or configuration of facial muscles within a categorical set of expressions to communicate the “present emotion” of a character in real-time. There were also examples in which “face” represented a person’s identity as a whole.
There seems to be an inherent understanding that the practice of absorbing experiences and reacting to them physically shapes the face, and metaphorically “shapes” the personality (see example 3.3.8) above, “her face was not the FACE of the YOUNG WOMAN he remembered; it was lined, the skin delicate…”). Similarly, the facial features a person is naturally born with can predispose them to being characterized in a certain way, as seen in examples like (3.3.6), (3.3.7), and (3.3.11) above, and evidenced in the 2014 study by Wolffhechel et al. The face generally, is seen as a representational entity.
The “representative” meaning reverberates throughout various contexts, either metonymically or metaphorically. The most metaphoric-leaning examples of “face” were those that required the most image-mapping. Understanding a three-dimensional object in terms of a “head” and the dominant side of said object as a “face” yields the meaning “front” or “surface.” A similar mapping occurs when “face” appears as a representative for an abstract entity, and an amalgam of image-mapping and metonymic processes is at work when “face” represents a mass group of people.
This corpus study speaks to the richness of “body-part terms” as a topic of semantic inquiry, joining a growing academic discourse that illuminates the link between embodied experience and the conception of emotional or abstract experience (Gallese and Lakoff 2005).
As such, the sense categories provided in this study could prove useful in designing an experiment for psycholinguistic research--particularly a study seeking to catalogue the type and frequency of cognitive metaphors in everyday speech. A similar study focusing on a particular sub-corpora or set of sub-corpora could also be valuable. Finally, though more research is certainly needed to draw larger conjectures about this word, the present study does seem to broadly suggest that humans naturally conceive of things in the world around them in terms of our own conceptual apparatus, image-mapping heads and faces onto both physical and abstract entities. A cross-linguistic comparison of expressions using “face” would prove useful in substantiating the universality of that finding.
5. Graphs
Though this study does not seek to make general claims about the frequency of the defined senses, a visual representation of the data has been included below, along with a brief discussion. The graph shows clearly that in the present study, the most frequent senses were the most prototypical sense of “face” (lexically and contextually literal), and the sense in which the literal “face” was used to metonymically profile the “present emotion”. It is perhaps unsurprising that two thirds of the data were accounted for by senses that in some way referenced the most basic sense of “face.” It is interesting however that the third most prevalent sense, “Confront an Abstract Entity,” is largely metaphorical, and in some ways a far cry from the most basic sense. As discussed above, this sense is found in idioms such as “face your fears,” and may speak to the ubiquity of cognitive metaphor.
6. Pedagogical Implications
The range of senses found in the data illustrates the highly polysemous nature of the word “face,” but this study has also demonstrated a significant number of patterns that can be found within them. Grouping utterances of a polysemous word like “face” into sense categories can be illuminating for researchers--and provides an interesting exercise for any native speaker--but it could be particularly useful for English language learners. In recent years, researchers like Boers and Lindstromberg have been positing that such cognitive linguistics-inspired approaches to language teaching can help learners acquire more vocabulary, and a deeper understanding of it (Çakır 2016, p. 268).
In the standard ESL or EFL textbook such as New English File or LIFE, the vocabulary for each lesson is selected with a frame-based approach. A lesson about daily routine might include such phrases as “wake up,” “take a shower,” “brush (my) teeth,” etc. Instructional materials generally guide teachers to elicit as many of these phrases as possible from the class in the “Warm-up”, then provide a vocabulary exercise to fill in the gaps. (This style of presentation is meant to pre-teach key words to ensure the students understand the gist of the reading or listening passage at the heart of the lesson).
This approach can have its place in the lower levels in which the emphasis is on learning to express basic, concrete ideas and laying the groundwork of the grammar system, but it is not optimally effective for vocabulary retention overall (Boers 2000). As students work their way through the lessons, vocabulary learning starts to become almost an act of “collection,” in which they ultimately study and attempt to acquire most new vocabulary through rote memorization. Studies have shown that learners who are “presented with figurative expressions organized along their underlying metaphoric themes” are better able to retain a larger quantity of new vocabulary (Boers 2000, pp. 562- 569). In the next section, this paper proposes a lesson that works to raise learners’ awareness of metaphoric themes following the procedure laid out by Boers in his (2000) study, Metaphor Awareness and Vocabulary Retention :
1) “recognition of metaphor as a common ingredient of everyday language”;
2) “recognition of metaphoric themes behind many figurative expressions”;
3) “recognition of the non-arbitrary nature of many figurative expressions”;
4) “recognition of possible cross-cultural differences in metaphoric themes”;
5) “recognition of cross-linguistic variety in figurative expressions.” (2000: 566).
This approach, which emphasizes the comparison of the target language with learners’ L1’s, is criticized in some theories, but has as of late been reassessed by some researchers as beneficial to language learning (Hall, G. & Cook, G., 2012). The present study follows Çakır (2016) in asserting that inclusion of the learner’s L1 is crucial to utilizing conceptual metaphor in language acquisition. While conceptual metaphors in the L1 are acquired automatically and employed unconsciously (Saygin 2001), the task of actually identifying those metaphors can be much more difficult (Berendi, Csabi & Kövecses, 2008, p. 88). The following lesson plan, accordingly, guides students to foster an awareness of the conceptual structure using a three-step process: (1) presenting students with various different senses of “face” in context; (2) providing a “Language Analysis” activity in which students discuss the variations in meaning in each of the senses; (3) guiding students to compare the English senses of “face” to the relevant counterparts in their L1s.
7. Lesson Model
The ideal group of students to partake in a lesson with conceptual structures would be one with a proficiency level in the range of upper-intermediate to advanced (B2 - C2). Importantly, the lesson should center around a reading passage that was graded to the level below the class. This way students could be introduced to conceptual frameworks within the context of lower-level vocabulary that they already know. This sample lesson will be designed for a B2 level class, and use a B1 level reading that contextualizes various senses of “face” from the study (see section 8 for sample text).
The “Warm-Up” section of the lesson would be very similar to the standard arrangement in New English File or LIFE. Students would begin by discussing a few “warm-up” questions, first in pairs and then as a class. These questions are designed to activate students’ prior knowledge of the topic, and aid in eliciting key terms. The “warm-up” questions correlate to the sample text in section 8, “Oliver’s Big Dance.”
1. What was your high school experience like? Did you enjoy that time?
2. Did you go to dances?
3. What made you nervous during that time in your life?
If the text included more than three or four key words at or above the students’ level, those could be the focus of a subsequent “Vocabulary Preview” exercise, but the sample text given here does not, so such an exercise is not necessary. The goal is to select vocabulary that is already very accessible to the students, such that general comprehension is not an issue, and they can focus intently on conceptual structure.
After the “Warm-up” and optional “Vocabulary Preview,” students would be given a “gist” question to ponder while reading, designed to ensure they have understood the main idea of the article. The gist question for the sample text included here might ask: “Why was Oliver nervous at the dance? How did he feel at the end?” The students would then read the article in pairs and brainstorm a short answer to the question together. Once all the pairs had finished, we would compare our answers as a class. Having given them a simple text to work with, this portion of the lesson should be fairly brief.
The language relating to the various senses of “face” in the text would be highlighted in different colors according to sense-category, and substantive idioms would be underlined. The teacher would only draw attention to this after the students had completed the first reading and we had discussed the answer to the “gist” question. The text of the reading passage would look something like the following:
He rolled his shoulders back and stood up tall. It was time to face his fears.
The color-coding and underlining is designed to help students recognize like senses within the language, and correlates to the organization of the following “Language Analysis” activity (which would be on the next page). Students would be given phrases from the text grouped according to their sense-categories, but the categories would not be labeled in any way. It would look something like this:
Key Phrases
A) He walked over to the sink and splashed some cold water on his face.
B) Jackson studied his friend’s face in the mirror.
Jackson saw the smile on his friend’s face
She was typing on her cell phone, her face focused
C) But what if she says no? What if she laughs in my face?
D) I don’t really know anyone here. It’s nice to see a familiar face.
E) He sighed and turned to face his friend.
At last they were face to face.
F) It was time to face his fears.
In pairs, students would answer the following questions (1 - 5):
Language Analysis
What does “face” mean in each example? Can you think of a synonym? (You can use the reading passage to help you).
Which phrases are about a “literal” face?
Which phrases describe a character’s emotions?
Which phrases describe the speaker’s emotions?
When was the last time you “faced your fears”? Do you have a similar expression in your language?
E.g. I faced my fear of flying when I traveled overseas.
The goal of this exercise would not be for students to identify the precise differences between literal, metonymic, and metaphoric senses of “face,” but rather to help them gain an awareness of how the “literal” or “prototypical” sense of the word can be extended to more figurative ones. Question (5) particularly is designed to elicit entailments of the EMOTION IS AN OPPONENT and LIFE IS A JOURNEY metaphors. After the pairs had finished the activity, the answers could be checked as a class.
The key phrases would be projected or written on the board at the front of the classroom in preparation; students would be called up to the board to write the correct synonym next to each sense. The discussion of questions (2), (3), and (4) could redirect students who provided wrong answers, or simply serve to rationalize the correct synonyms in question (1). Discussion of question (5) would provide a nice introduction to the concept of “figurative” vs. “literal” speech. Eliciting students’ answers to question (5) should open up a dialogue about “fear” as a concept, and whether it is talked about as “an opponent” in their language, or something else. Students could then compare permutations of the relevant idiom in their languages, and their literal translations into English. After comparing their L1 metaphors and idioms related to “face your fears,” students would be ready to repeat a similar comparative process with all the key phrases from the lesson.
How would you translate the key phrases (A - F) in your language? What are the literal translations? Which expressions are similar to English? Which are different?
Students could complete question (6) individually or with a partner, if one of their classmates shared the same L1. Students would then share their answers with the class, the teacher guiding them to make note of any semantic similarities or cognates between the English expressions and those of their L1.
In the last activity, students would be asked to experiment with substituting the figurative elements in the “face” phrases. The following gap fill exercise could serve to test students’ comprehension of the difference between metaphorical and literal expressions. This exercise also provides an opportunity for students to learn which collocations are more common (formal idioms) in English, and which are less common or less effective.
Gap Fill
What words can fit in these collocations? Try to create figurative expressions, not
literal expressions.
Slowly, he turned to face ________.
He was a grumpy old man, but he had a _____ face.
He knew he had to face ___________ but he didn’t want to.
The teacher could provide one or two examples beforehand if needed (e.g. “he knew he had to face his problems, but he didn’t want to” etc) and then allow students to create their own examples in pairs. After the pairs had completed all or most of the collocations, they would take turns reading their answers to the class. After each pair shared their answers, the teacher would provide feedback as to whether they were correct or not, and why. This feedback could lead to a deeper discussion of the conceptual metaphors involved, and some clarifying of the difference between literal and figurative senses (e.g. “She was trying to have fun but her face was sad,” is a figurative expression, because the girl’s ‘face’ is not sad, rather she as a person is sad; “She was trying to have fun but her face was dirty” is a literal expression because it references the physical state of her literal face, and does not imply anything about her present emotion or the character judgment the narrator is making about her).
Finally, it would be useful to dedicate the last few minutes of class to some student feedback and reflection. The teacher could project a few questions on the board such as:
Did you like today’s lesson? What did you learn? How was it different than other English
lessons you’ve attended in the past? Do you think these exercises could help you
approach new vocabulary in a new way?
Students would share their ideas with their partners and then with the rest of the class in a wrap-up discussion. This activity would facilitate students’ thinking about how they can carry conceptual-level thinking into their other classes, and even their everyday lives. Though researchers contend that “a one-off eye-opener is not sufficient to turn metaphor awareness into a learning strategy for the future processing of figurative lexis” (Berendi, Csabi & Kövecses, 2008, p. 87), this lesson could at least provide L2 students an introduction to thinking about language in conceptual terms--and make teachers aware of polysemy, body-part terms, and cognitive metaphor, as entry points to planning lessons that incorporate conceptual frameworks.
References
Barcelona, A. (ed.) (2000). Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads: A Cognitive Perspective. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Berendi, M., Csabi, S., & Kövecses, Z. (2008). Using conceptual metaphors and metonymies in vocabulary teaching. In F. Boers & S. Lindstromberg (Eds.), Cognitive linguistic approaches to teaching vocabulary and phraseology (pp. 65-99). Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Boers, F. (2000). Metaphor awareness and vocabulary retention. Applied Linguistics, 21, 553-571.
Boers, F., & Lindstromberg, S. (2008). How cognitive linguistics can foster effective vocabulary teaching. In F. Boers & S. Lindstromberg (Eds.), Cognitive linguistic approaches to teaching vocabulary and phraseology (pp. 1-61). Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Çakır, C. (2016). Conceptual metaphor theory and teaching English as a foreign language: A study on body part terms. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 12(2), 253-279.
Cui, X., Cheng, Q., Lin, W. et al. Different influences of facial attractiveness on judgments of moral beauty and moral goodness. Sci Rep 9, 12152 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-48649-5
Dirven, R. (2003). “Metonymy and metaphor: conceptualisation strategies,” in Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast, eds R. Dirven and R. Porings (Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter), 75–111. doi: 10.1515/9783110219197
Fillmore, C., Kay, P., & O'Connor, M. (1988). Regularity and Idiomaticity in Grammatical Constructions: The Case of Let Alone. Language, 64(3), 501-538. doi:10.2307/414531
Gallese, Vittorio & Lakoff, George. (2009). The brain's concepts: The role of the sensory-motor system in conceptual knowledge. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 22(3-4), 455-479. doi:10.1080/02643290442000310
Gibbs, Raymond W. Jr., and Herbert Colston. 1995. The cognitive psychological reality of image schemas and their transformations. Cognitive Linguistics. Volume 6, Issue 4. 347–378.
Goldberg, A. (2013). Constructionist Approaches. In The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. doi: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195396683.013.0002
Group, Pragglejaz. (2007). MIP: A Method for Identifying Metaphorically Used Words in Discourse. Metaphor and Symbol, 22(1), 1–39. doi: 10.1080/10926480709336752
Hall, G., & Cook, G. (2012). Own-language use in language teaching and learning. Language Teaching, 45(3), 271-308. doi:10.1017/S0261444812000067
Hughes, J., Stephenson, H., & Dummett, P. (2019). Life. Andover: National Geographic Learning.
Kovecses, Z. (2010). What is Metaphor? In Metaphor: A Practical Introduction (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Nouns and Verbs. Language, 63(1), 53. doi: 10.2307/415384
Lopukhina, A., Laurinavichyute, A., Lopukhin, K., & Dragoy, O. (2018). The Mental Representation of Polysemy across Word Classes. Frontiers in Psychology, 9. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00192
Oxenden, C., Koenig, C. L., & Seligson, P. (2012). New English File: pre-intermediate. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Oxford University Press. (2009) Face. Oxford English dictionary. Retrieved December 1, 2019, from https://www.oed.com/view/Entry/67425?result=1&rskey=9AkF2z&
Pustejovsky, J. (1995). The Generative Lexicon. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Saygın, A. P. (2001). Processing figurative language in a multi-lingual task: Translation, transfer and metaphor. Proceedings of the Workshop on Corpus-based and Processing Approaches to Figurative Language 2001: Held in Conjunction with Corpus Linguistics (UCREL Technical Papers). Retrieved on May 1, 2020 from http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/~jab/CorpusLinguistics2001 /Abstracts/saygin.htm
Wolffhechel, K., Fagertun, J., Jacobsen, U. P., Majewski, W., Hemmingsen, A. S., Larsen, C. L., Jarmer, H. (2014). Interpretation of Appearance: The Effect of Facial Features on First Impressions and Personality. PLoS ONE, 9(9). Retrieved from https://link-gale-com.jpllnet.sfsu.edu/apps/doc/A418138524/OVIC?u=sfsu_main&sid=OVIC&xid=932f0713
Yu, N. (2001). What does our face mean to us? Pragmatics and Cognition, 9, 1-36
Yu, N. (2008a). The relationship between metaphor, body and culture. In R. M. Frank, R. Dirven, T. Ziemke & E. Bernárdez (Eds.), Body, language, and mind volume 2: Sociocultural situatedness (pp. 387-407). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Yu, N. (2008b). Metaphor from body and culture. In R. W. Gibbs (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (pp. 247-261). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Yu, N. (2009). From body to meaning in culture. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Zaliznyak, A. A. (2006). Ambiguity in Language and Methods for its Presentation. Moscow: Jazyki slavjanskih kul’tur.
Zipf, G. K. (1945). The meaning-frequency relationship of words. J. Gen. Psychol. 33, 251–256. doi: 10.1080/00221309.1945.10544509
