Analysis of the relationship between students’ proficiency level and their ability to identify figurative language


figurative language
higher education

How to Cite

Jimenez-Munoz, A., & Lahuerta-Martínez, A. C. (2022). Analysis of the relationship between students’ proficiency level and their ability to identify figurative language: The effect of individual factors and extra-curricular activities. Ibérica, (43), 179–204.


Abstract concepts are frequently expressed in natural language by means of metaphors, metonymies and other types of figurative language. Knowledge and appropriate use of these conceptual instances of actual language use by university graduates are related to L2 mastery, and therefore conceptual instruction is expected to facilitate L2 acquisition. The aim of this paper is to study ESP higher-education students’ conceptual competence and its relationship to their overall L2 competence. An empirical study measures the students’ ability to recognize metaphors and metonymies, including demographic, sociological and individual factors (including the effect of the informal learning of English language by means of extra-curricular activities) as interpretive data on such reflective figurative language recognition. Results indicate a significant difference in learners’ figurative language interpretation across academic disciplines. In addition, English language proficiency and age, together with two sociological factors (regular English-related leisure activities and speaking English on the phone) are significant factors in figurative language recognition in a specialised University context. Age and leisure choices also turned out to be significant factors in figurative language identification and literal meaning choice. The findings of the present study have important implications for the ESP practitioners regarding the teaching of metaphors and metonymies to their students, as well as learners when practising extracurricular English-related activities. It seems of relevance to insert figurative language recognition and use into ESP programs for L2/FL learners at all levels of English proficiency.


Aleshtara, M. T. & Dowlatabadi, H. (2014). “Metaphoric competence and language proficiency in the same boat”. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 98: 1895-1904.
Arata, L. (2005). “The definition of metonymy in ancient Greece”. Style 39,1: 55-73.
Arntfield, M. (2008). “Hegemonic Shorthand: Technology and Metonymy in Modern Policing”. Communication Review 11,1: 76-97.
Azuma, M. (2005). Metaphorical Competence in an EFL Context. Tokyo: Toshindo Publishing.
Balteiro, I. (2017). “Metaphor in Ebola’s popularized scientific discourse”. Ibérica 34: 209-230.
Barcelona, A. (2003). Metaphor and Metonymy at the crossroads: A Cognitive Perspective. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Benczes, R., A. Barcelona, & F.J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez (2011). Defining Metonymy in Cognitive Linguistics: Towards a Consensus View. Philadelphia/Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Berezin, J.D. (2018). Undergraduate engineering students’ use of metaphor in presenting prototypes to a technical and non-technical public audience. ASEE Annual Conference. URL: [15/12/21]
Boers, F. (2000). “Metaphor awareness and vocabulary retention”. Applied Linguistics, 21,4: 553-571.
Boers, F. (2004). “Expanding learners’ vocabulary through metaphor awareness: What expansion, what learners, what vocabulary?” in M. Achard and S. Niemeyer (eds.). Cognitive Linguistics, Second Language Acquisition, and Foreign Language Teaching. 211-234. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Chen Y.-C. (2019). “Teaching figurative language to EFL learners: an evaluation of metaphoric mapping instruction”. Language Learning Journal, 47,1: 49-631.
Cuadrado, G. & P. Durán (2013). “Proposal for a semantic hierarchy of terminological metaphors in science and technology”. International Journal of English Linguistics, 3,4: 1-15.
Dalke, A., P. Grobstein, & E. McCormack (2006). “Exploring Interdisciplinarity: The Significance of Metaphoric and Metonymic Exchange”. Journal of Research Practice, 2,2: 1-13.
Deckert, M, M. Schmoeger, I. Schaunig-Busch, & U. Willinger (2018). “Metaphor processing in middle childhood and at the transition to early adolescence”. Journal of Child Language, 46,2: 334-367.
Doiz, A. & C. Elizari. (2013). “Metaphoric competence and the acquisition of figurative vocabulary in foreign language learning”. Elia 13,1: 47-82.
Dosani, S. (2021). “The value and benefit of narrative medicine for psychiatric practice”. BJPsych Bulletin. 45,5: 274-276.
Faber, P., S. Montero Martínez, R. Castro-Prieto, J. Senso-Ruiz, J. A. Prieto Velasco, P. León Arauz & M. Vega Exposito (2006). “Process-oriented terminology management in the domain of coastal engineering”. Terminology 12,2: 189-213.
Fillmore, C. J. (1975) “An Alternative to Checklist Theories of Meaning”. Proceedings of the First Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 1: 123-131.
Gelernter, J., D. Cao & K.M. Carle (2013). “Extraction of spatio-temporal data for social networks” in T. Özyer, J. Rokne, G. Wagner & A. H. Reuser (eds.), The Influence of Technology on Social Network Analysis and Mining, 350-372. New York: Springer.
Hashemian, M., & Talebi Nezhad, M. R. (2007). “The development of conceptual fluency & metaphorical competence in L2 learners”. Linguistik online, 30,1: 41-56.
He, Q. (2021). “A Corpus-based Study of Textual Metaphor in English Academic Writing”. Studia Linguistica, 1-25.
Kreuzthale, M. & S. Schulz (2012). “Metonymies in medical terminologies: a SNOMED CT case study” in AMIA Annual Symposium Proceedings, 463-467.
Lakoff, G., & M. Johnson (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G., & M. Turner (1989). More than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Liardét, C.L. (2018). “As we all know: Examining Chinese EFL learners’ use of interpersonal grammatical metaphor in academic writing”. English for Specific Purposes, 50, 64-80.
Littlemore, J. & G. Low (2006). Figurative Thinking and Foreign Language Learning. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Littlemore, J. & C. Tagg (2018). “Metonymy and Text Messaging: A Framework for Understanding Creative Uses of Metonymy”. Applied Linguistics, 39,4: 1-28.
Littlemore, J.M., P. Chen, P. L. Tang, A. Koester, & J. Barnden (2010). “The use of metaphor and metonymy in academic and professional discourse and their challenges for learners and teachers of English” in S. De Knop, F. Boers and A. De Rycker (eds.), Fostering Language Teaching Efficiency Through Cognitive Linguistics, 189-238. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Magnusson, U. (2013). Grammatical metaphor in Swedish monolingual and multilingual upper secondary school students’ writing. Functions of Language, 20,2: 250-281
Panther, K.-U. (2006). “Metonymy as a usage event” in G. Kristiansen, M. Achard, R. Dirven & F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza (eds.), Cognitive Linguistics: Current Applications and Future Perspectives, 147–185. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Prelli, L. (1989). A Rhetoric of Science. Inventing Scientific Discourse. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.
Radden, G. & Z. Kövecses (1999). “Towards a theory of metonymy” in K. Panther & G. Radden (eds.), Metonymy in Language and Thought, 17-58. Philadelphia/Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Roldán-Riejos, A. & P. Durán-Escribano (2017). “Metaphor in the specialised discourse of scientific disciplines and technology”. Ibérica, 34: 9-15.
Roldán-Riejos, A. & P. Úbeda Mansilla. (2013). Metaphor in the ESP engineering context. Ibérica, 25: 107-126.
Steen, G. J. (2011). “The contemporary theory of metaphor – now new and improved!” Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 9,1: 26-64.
Willinger, U., M. Deckert, M. Schmöger, I. Schaunig-Busch, A. K. Formann, & E. Auff (2019). “Developmental Steps in Metaphorical Language Abilities: The Influence of Age, Gender, Cognitive Flexibility, Information Processing Speed, and Analogical Reasoning”. Language and Speech, 2: 207-228.
Wojtczak S. & I. Witczak-Plisiecka. (2020). “Metaphors and Legal Language: A Few Comments on Ordinary, Specialised and Legal Meaning”. Research in Language, 17,3: 273-295.

Copyright (c) 2022 Antonio Jimenez-Munoz, Ana Cristina Lahuerta-Martínez

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.


Download data is not yet available.