In this study, the writer investigated how Indonesian students comprehended English Metaphors. This study focused its attention on how the types of metaphors, the L2 proficiency, and the context influenced the Indonesian students in comprehending English metaphors as well as the strategies which were used to comprehend those metaphors. Following Ferreira (2008), nine conceptual metaphors of emotion (sad, happy, and love) which were divided into primary/orientational metaphors, shared complex/structural metaphors, and nonshared complex/structural metaphors were tested to Indonesian undergraduate students in order to see whether these types of metaphors were comprehended differently. With respect to the influential factors of L2 metaphor comprehension,
it was predicted that the primary/orientational metaphors could be comprehended easily because of the universal pattern of conceptual metaphors and embodied experience contained in this type of metaphor and that shared complex/structural
metaphors were easier to be comprehended than non-shared complex/structural metaphors due to the assumption that second language learners would interpret L2 metaphors in accordance to their culture instead of L2 culture (Littlemore, 2003). Besides that, in this case the availability of context and the students’ level proficiency of English were also examined. With respect to the strategies of comprehending L2 metaphors, the literal meaning of the metaphorical expressions (Lau, 2009), the culture of L1 and L2 (Littlemore, 2003; Ferreira, 2008; Golden, 2013), and the familiarity of the expressions (Azuma, 2012) were predicted to be the strategies which were used by the students. The data was analyzed quantitative and qualitatively. The study showed that the first hypothesis on primary/orientational metaphors was in line with the results of this study. Primary/orientational metaphors were the easiest to be comprehended by Indonesian students. However, the second hypothesis on complex/structural metaphors was not in line with the results of this study. The non-shared complex/structural metaphors were comprehended better than shared complex/structural metaphors. Moreover, it turned out that context helped the
students to comprehend metaphors better, while the proficiency of the students did not play a crucial role in determining the success of L2 metaphor comprehension. Furthermore, the strategies which were used by the students in comprehending L2
metaphors were in line with the prediction as it revolved around guessing the meaning of the metaphor through the literal meaning of the metaphor, interpreting the metaphors based on their L1 culture, and relating the metaphors to the familiar expressions they knew. |