英语论文网

c competence (Fine & Lockwood, 1986; Glicksohn, J. S Kraemer & O. Yisraeli,1993; westcott , 1997 ； Seitz, 1997; Wei Yaozhang, 2009 ). Fine & Lockwood (1986)indicated that learners with high creativity were likely to more frequently employ metaphorsand output more novel metaphors, compared with those with low creativity in theirperformance. Later on, Glicksohn et al. (1993) conducted an empirical study of therelationship between metaphoric thinking and creativity. The result showed that there existeda positive relationship between metaphoric thinking and creativity. In 1997, Westcott andSeitz also noted that metaphor had a positive relationship with people’s creativity. Insummary, some studies were conducted between creativity and metaphoric competenceabroad. However, all the studies in the Western world were conducted among native speakers.In China, the related studies are even fewer. Until now, Wei Yaozhang (2009) is the onlyscholar that has examined the relationship between creativity and metaphor production. Hefound that there was the significant correlation between creativity and metaphor production.In his study, English majors were chosen as the subjects. And his study was conducted toexplore the relationship between creativity and metaphor production, except metaphoridentification and production.
.........

Chapter Two literature review

This chapter will present a literature review. It reviews first the study of metaphor withthe traditional and cognitive views. And then the definitions of metaphoric competence, therole of metaphoric competence in SLA and the previous studies on metaphoric competenceboth at home and abroad are examined. In addition, the definitions of creativity,classifications of creativity, facets of creativity, universalization and teachability of creativity,different assessing instruments of creativity, studies on creativity in the EFL learning andstudies on creativity and MC will be introduced as well.

2.1 Metaphor
The studies of metaphor have a long and rich history going back to the time of ancientGreece, which can be generally classified into two camps: traditional views and cognitiveviews. The dividing line of these two camps is not the time they are born in but the positionthey hold on identity of metaphor. As Lakoff (1980) proposed, based on the oldliteral-figurative distinction, a major difference existed between the classical metaphortheories and the contemporary theory of metaphor.Discussion of the nature and purpose of metaphor commenced in the ancient times(Soskice, 1989; Gluckensberg & Keysar, 1993). In the traditional view, metaphor wasregarded as decorative or fancy speech, a matter of language and linguistic phenomenon.Classical metaphor theories included three types: the comparison view, the substitution viewand the interaction view.The comparison view was formulated by Aristotle, who considered metaphor as “theapplication of an alien name by transference either from genus to species, or from species togenus, or from species to species, or by analogy, that is, proportion” (cited in Shi Lei, 2012, p.71). Aristotle holded that “metaphor to be implicit comparisons, based on the principle ofanalogy, is generally called the comparison theory of metaphor” (cited in Ortony, 1993, p. 3).Until now, Aristotle’s thoughts, which are most in Poetics and Rhetoric, have beenpopularized. The comparison view was “the classical and still most widely