Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research
Volume 2, Issue 5, 2015, pp. 1-8
Available online at www.jallr.ir
ISSN: 2376-760X
The Effect of Proverbial Explanation Strategies on EFL
Learners' Metaphorical Comprehension
Bahman Gorjian*
Department of TEFL, Abadan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Abadan, Iran
Khalil Bavi
Department of English, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Khouzestan, Iran
Department of English, Ahvaz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Ahvaz, Iran
Somaeyeh Khoshakhlagh
Department of English, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Khouzestan, Iran
Department of English, Ahvaz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Ahvaz, Iran
Abstract
This study aimed to investigate the effectiveness of explanation strategies on Iranian EFL
learners’ metaphorical comprehension of proverbs and sayings. To achieve this purpose, a
sample of Interchange Placement Test (Richards, 2005) was administered to a group of 100
EFL learners and 70 learners at advanced level were selected as the participants of the
study. They formed two groups of experimental and control. The experimental group was
taught through an explanation strategy which helped them raise their awareness by tracing
back to original usages of proverbs while the control group received contextual clues to
understand the meanings of the proverbs. After 12 sessions of treatment, both groups sat
for the post-test of understanding the meaning of the proverbs. The Independent and Paired
Samples t-test were run to analyze the participants' mean scores. The results indicated that
the mean score of the participants provided with the explanation strategy was much more
than those who did not receive this treatment and it enhanced the learners’ comprehension
of proverbs and sayings considerably. The Independent Samples t-test also showed that
there was a significant difference between the experimental and the control groups.
Implications of the study may be used for EFL teachers to teach metaphorical expressions
through explanation strategies such as definition, elaboration or giving the first language
equivalents to clarify the meaning of the proverbs.
Keywords: explanation, metaphorical comprehension, proverbs
INTRODUCTION
Proverbs are considered as multi-word expressions which make the English as foreign
language (EFL) learners confused when they encounter them in the passages. Since they
are fixed expressions that belong to the conventional repertoire of the native speaker of
* Correspondence: Bahman Gorjian, Email: [email protected]
© 2015 Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research
The Effect of Proverbial Explanation Strategies on Metaphorical Comprehension
2
a language, the learners need both meaning and form of these utterances to be
comprehended. These proverbs are often guessed through the contextual clues or using
a dictionary. Some scholars (e.g., Nattinger & DeCarrico, 1992) have defined multi-word
expressions as “expressions consisting of multiple words, for which at least one aspect
(syntactic, semantic, pragmatic, translation, etc.) is not predictable from the individual
words and their normal mode of combination” (Richards, Platt & Platt, 1992, p. 212).
Therefore, such expressions and their unpredictable properties must be stored in
lexicon as a lexical entry. Examples of such expressions are proverbs (e.g., early bird
catches the worm). Wray (2002) states that multi-word combinations are reported to
be stored holistically in the mental lexicon and processing sequences of language
requires fewer cognitive resources than creatively generating language via lexical and
syntactic construction (Pawley & Syder, 1983; Schmitt, 2004).
In both L1 and L2, research of formulaic language has been studied under a variety of
labels. They have been referred to as speech formulae, lexicalized stems, lexical phrases,
prefabricated utterances, multi-word expressions, and chunks (Pawley & Syder, 1983).
In defining these terms, Krashen (1988) makes a distinction between routines and
patterns. He believes that prefabricated routines are simply memorized whole
utterances or phrases such as "how are you? or where is the hotel?" (p. 83). Some people
may use them without any knowledge of their internal structure. Hakuta (cited in
Krashen, 1988, p. 83), however, believes that “prefabricated patterns are distinct from
routines. These are partly creative and partly memorized”. The available evidence
suggests that routine and patterns are fundamentally different from creative language.
A number of other linguists have discussed existence and importance of these lexical
units too. Cowie (1988), for instance, argues that the existence of lexical units in a
language such as English serves the needs of both native English speakers and English
language learners, who are as predisposed to store and reuse them, as they are to
generate them from scratch.
Sprenger, Levelt and Kempen (2006) noted that fixed expressions are phrasal units that
exist in many varieties: collocations, phrasal verbs, idioms and proverbs. What all these
categories have in common is that within each category further distinctions can be
made in terms of fixedness and idiomaticity. Thornbury (2002) defines fixedness
chunks as those that do not allow for any variation. Idiomaticity, also vary from very
idiomatic to transparent. That is, some chunks are transparent in their meaning while
others do not have a transparent meaning. Therefore, it is better to see fixedness and
idiomaticity on a continuum, ranging from very fixed to very free, and very idiomatic to
very transparent. Of the different types of multiple-word utterances, Thornbury (2002)
lists the following as the most important for teaching purposes:





Collocations-such as set the table
Phrasal verbs-such as get up
Idioms-such as get cold feet
Sentence frames- such as would you mind if
Social formulae-such as see you later
Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 2015, 2(5)


3
Discourse markers-such as frankly speaking or once upon a time.
Proverbs and saying-such as kill two birds with one stone
Since the focus of this empirical work is on proverbs and sayings, this study precisely
focused on this type of multiple lexical items in this paper.
EXPLANATION STRATEGIES
Explanation strategy, as a pedagogical approach in L2 fixed expression instruction, has
been of particular interest in language research. Explanation strategies are classroom
activities to define, elaborate or give the first language equivalents to clarify the
meaning of the proverbs. Techniques of associating the meaning of multi-word
expressions with their original and literal usage are used as explanation in the present
research following Boers, Demecheleer and Eyckmans (2004). This research has
established that teaching proverbs along with their explanation to English language
learners is an effective technique for enhancing the comprehension of these multi-word
phrases. Several studies (e. g., Boers, Eyckmans, & Stengers, 2007) have been conducted
on the college students comparing the effectiveness of teaching multi-word expressions
along with their meanings to teaching them with their meanings and their backgrounds.
They all have suggested that learning the origins improves comprehension and
retention.
It should be mentioned that the variables under investigation are explanation and
comprehension of proverbs and sayings; furthermore, it intended to examine whether it
differs among males and females or not. The present study investigated whether
explanation strategies could enhance EFL learners’ understanding of the proverbs used
in the passages.
METHOD
Participants
The participants at advanced level were selected based on a non-random sampling from
among 100 learners. Through their performance on proficiency test designed based on
Interchange Placement Test (Richards, 2005), 70 participants whose scores fell
between one standard deviation above and one standard deviation below the mean
were selected as the participants of the study. These participants were randomly put
into two homogeneous groups known as experimental and control groups. In each
group, just 35 students were under consideration. The age of the participants was
ranging from 16 to 20. The advantage of this age range was that the students'
educational background would provide them with similar prior knowledge required for
general English.
Instrumentation
In order to accomplish the objectives, different testing instruments were utilized in the
process of the development of the present research. 50 items of Interchange Placement
The Effect of Proverbial Explanation Strategies on Metaphorical Comprehension
4
Test (Richards, 2005) were applied to determine the homogeneity of the groups
regarding their levels of proficiency. The second test was a pre-test included 30 items
on proverbs in multiple choice formats extracted from American English Proverbs and
Sayings (Collis, 1987) and also Learn Pictorial Dictionary of Idioms and Proverbs
(Mirhassani & Ali pour, 2005). Finally, the modified pre-test was used as a post-test of
proverbial items.
According to Farhady, Jafarpoor, and Birjandi (1994, pp. 100-106), the researcher could
find and remove a number of pitfalls of the test items (e.g., gender-based or
ungrammatical items). Both pre and post-tests were piloted to a group of ten having the
same language proficiency level as the experimental and control groups to get the
reliability of the tests as (r=.69 and r=.72 respectively). Once the test papers were
modified, the item discrimination of the whole test items was calculated and the
problematic items were replaced by new items.
Procedure
The experimental and control groups were assigned the same materials. However, the
techniques of teaching proverbs were different. The treatment lasted 12 sessions, an
hour in the fall semester, 2014. In fact, sixty proverbs were arranged in ten pre-planned
lessons and were taught to the groups.
First, participants of the experimental group were supplied with an explanation while
the control group was given a traditional learning approach in which they were just
provided with meaning of proverbs and sayings with focusing on the contextual clues.
Having finished the treatment of 12 sessions, each took an hour; the groups were given
a similar post-test, including sixty multiple-choice items on the taught proverbs.
RESULTS
The obtained scores by two groups were compared to determine the possible
differences among the groups. The data were analyzed through an Independent Samples
t-test to clarify the mean differences and the treatment effect on the post-test.
Table 1. Descriptive Statistics (pre and post-tests of both groups)
Groups
Pre-test (Experimental)
Pair 1
Post-test (Experimental)
Pre-test (Control)
Pair 2
Post-test (Control)
Mean
17.3714
23.0571
17.3429
17.4857
N Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
35
9.18786
1.55303
35
8.95723
1.51405
35
9.13282
1.54373
35
9.43514
1.59483
Table 1 indicates the first step used in analyzing data which determines the
homogeneity of the groups, regarding their levels of second language proficiency. Thus,
the students' overall scores on Interchange Placement Test were collected from their
records. Means, standard deviations and variances of each of the four groups were also
shown.
Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 2015, 2(5)
5
Table 2. Paired Samples Test (pre and post-tests of both groups)
Groups
Mean
Pair
1
Pair
2
Pre-test vs. Posttest
(Experimental)
Pre-test vs. Posttest (Control)
Paired Differences
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Std.
Std.
Error
Lower
Upper
Deviation
Mean
t
df
Sig. (2tailed)
-5.68
9.87
1.6686
-9.076
-2.294
34
3.407
.002
-.14
.84
.1428
-.4331
.14746
34
1.000
.324
Table 2 shows the Paired Samples statistics on the pre and post-tests of both groups.
Results showed that the difference between the pre and post-test of the experimental
group was significant while this difference between the pre and post-test of the control
group was not significant. In other words, it can be claimed that explanation technique,
considerably enhanced the experimental groups’ comprehension of the proverbs.
Table 3. T-test of the experimental and control groups are significant on the pre-test
t-test for Equality of Means
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Equal
variances
assumed
Equal
variances not
assumed
t
df
Sig. (2tailed)
Mean
Difference
Std. Error
Difference
Lower
Upper
.013
68
.990
.02857
2.18975
-4.34101
4.39815
.990
.02857
2.18975
-4.34101
4.39815
.013 67.9
Table 3 shows the difference is not significant between the experimental and control
groups on the pre-test. Thus, both groups were homogeneous at the beginning of the
treatment period.
Table 4. T-test of the experimental and control groups are significant on the post-test
t-test for Equality of Means
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Equal
variances
assumed
Equal
variances
not assumed
t
df
Sig. (2tailed)
Mean
Difference
Std. Error
Difference
Lower
Upper
2.534
68
.014
5.57143
2.19905
1.18329
9.95957
.014
5.57143
2.19905
1.18308
9.95978
2.534 67.817
The Effect of Proverbial Explanation Strategies on Metaphorical Comprehension
6
Table 4 shows the difference is significant between the experimental and control groups
on the post-test. Thus, the experimental group outperformed the control one at the
significant level. Therefore, it can be stated that explanation technique had a better
impact on the experimental group's performance on the post-test.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
Many linguists (e.g., Coady & Huckin, 1997) assume that proverbs as one part of fixed
expressions require special attention in language programs. However, classroom
learning of EFL is-at least in Iran-not very concerned with teaching of them. Moreover,
EFL learners have also shown difficulty in comprehension the proverbs and majority of
them fail to understand or remember their figurative meaning easily. As far as proverbs
comprehension is concerned, it should be pointed out that one of the problems that
Second Language Acquisition (SLA) students face is that what they learn today will be
forgotten tomorrow. The question is that why students mostly cannot remember
meaning of vocabulary in general and proverbs and sayings in particular for the second
time. The most likely answer, as Hulstijn (1994, cited in Coady & Huckin, 1997, p. 203)
states that students do enough for the immediate comprehension but not enough for the
long-term comprehension over time. Lengthy or long-term comprehension over time
requires learners to make effort to link the lexical items with its meanings. It seems that
EFL students need more instruction on proverbial comprehension and learning.
It can be implied from the results of this study that both groups of this study have
different degrees of performance on the post-test. However, to determine whether such
differences are responsible for gender differences in the post-test performance, it is a
need for further research. It is necessary to have an adequate explanation about factors
which can affect comprehension among males and females participants.
The reason for the better performance of the experimental group might be due to the
fact that explanation strategy helped them raise their awareness by tracing back to
original usages of proverbs, helping them retain and remember them better. This is in
line with what Chastain (1988) discusses that several factors affect comprehension and
recall of information among males and females learners and claims that “for longest
retention, new knowledge must be associated with previous knowledge, that is, it must
be tied up to existing information nodes in the cognitive network” (p, 42). This is also in
line with Anderson’s (1983) claim stating that meaningful information is retained
longer and recalled easily than the materials that are not completely understood by the
learners. Chastain (1988) also assumes that language learners’ left and right
hemispheres of the brain are also major factors contributing to comprehension and
recall of information among males and females.
The reason for better performance of male experimental group compared with female
experimental group on post-test might be due to the fact that males’ left-hemisphere
strength in retention and recalling of information and better remembering new
materials helped them to score better than that of female experimental group. Connell
Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 2015, 2(5)
7
and Gunzelmann (2004) also characterize the influencing factors in gender differences
in terms of comprehension of previously learnt materials. Brain-based gender
differences, they suggest, are one data-based explanation for those differences. Connell
and Gunzelmann (2004) assume that males and females effectively use different parts of
their brain, with each group exhibiting both stronger left-hemisphere and righthemisphere. The left-hemisphere strength for females allows for advantages in
speaking, reading and writing whereas, the left-hemisphere strength of males allows
outperforming females in categorizing, recalling and comprehension of information.
Brown (1993, p. 109) states that “the left hemisphere is associated with logical,
analytical thought, with mathematical and linear processing information, while the right
hemisphere perceives and remembers auditory and visual images better”. The reason
for better performance of the experimental group, compared with the control group
might be due to the fact that explanation strategies enhance recalling of information and
helped them to score better than that of the control group.
The findings of the study showed that explanation can serve to help students better
understand and comprehend they are exposed to. Based on the findings, it is strongly
suggested that, English instructors supply this technique in their classes and encourage
students to use this helpful technique rather than asking them to memorize the
proverbs in a rote fashion.
REFERENCES
Anderson, N. J. (1983). Scrolling, clicking and reading English. The Reading Matrix, 3(3),
1-33.
Boers, F., Demecheleer, M., & Eyckmans, J. (2004). Etymological explanation as a
strategy for learning idioms. In P. Bogaards and B. Laufer, B (Eds.), Vocabulary in a
second language selection, acquisition and testing (pp.53-78). Amsterdam and
Philadelphia: John Benjamin
Boers, F., Eyckmans, J., & Stengers, H. (2007). Presenting figurative idioms with a touch
of etymology: more than mere mnemonics. Language Teaching Research, 11, 4362.
Brown, H. D. (1993). Principles of language learning and teaching (3rd Ed.). New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Chastain, K. (1988). Developing second language skills (3rd ed.). USA: Harcourt Brace
Jovanovich.
Coady, J., & Huckin, T. (Eds). (1997). Second language vocabulary acquisition. Cambridge.
Cambridge University Press.
Collis, H. (1987). 101 American idioms. Chicago: NTC Publishing Group.
Connell, D., & Gunzelmann, B. (2004). The next gender gap: The alliance education.
Business and community for public schools. Foreign language annals, (3)2, 14-17.
Cowie, A. P. (1988). Stable and creative aspects of vocabulary use. In Carter, R., &
McCarthy, M. (Ed), Vocabulary and language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
The Effect of Proverbial Explanation Strategies on Metaphorical Comprehension
8
Farhady, H., Jafarpoor, A., & Birjandi, P. (1994). Language skills testing: From theory to
practice. Tehran: SAMT Publications.
Hulstijn, H., & Laufer, B. (2001). Some empirical evidences for the involvement load of
hypothesis in vocabulary acquisition. Language Learning, 51 (3), 539-558.
Krashen, S. (1988). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford:
Pergamen.
Mirhassani, A., & Ali pour, M. (2005). A pictorial dictionary of slang and idioms. Tehran:
Jungle Publications.
Nattinger, J., & J. DeCarrico. (1992). Lexical phrases and language teaching. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Pawley, A., & Syder, F. H. (1983). Two puzzles for linguistic theory: Nativelike selection
and nativelike fluency. Language and communication, 19(1), 225-238.
Richards, J. C. (2005). Interchange Placement Test. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Richards, J. C., Platt, J. & Platt, H. (1992). Dictionary of language teaching and applied
linguistics. USA: Longman.
Richards, J.C., & Rodgers, T.S. (2001). Approaches and method in language teaching.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Richards. J. C., & Schmidt, R. (2003). Dictionary of language teaching and applied
linguistics (3rd Ed.). USA: Longman.
Schmitt, N. (2004). Understanding reading. (5th edition). Hillsdale, New Jersey:
Lawrence. Erlbaum Association.
Sprenger, S. A., Levelt, J. M., & Kepmen, G. (2006). Lexical Access during the production
of idiomatic phrases. Journal of Memory and Language, 54, 5-18.
Thornbury, S. (2002). How to teach vocabulary. Malaysia. Longman.
Wray, M. (2002). Principle of language teaching and learning. (4th ed.). White Plains, NY:
Pearson Education.