Metaphor

Jorden House-Hay Rhetorical Analysis- Lifeboat Ethics: The Case against Helping the Poor I chose Lifeboat Ethics: The Case against Helping the Poor, by Garret Hardin, to analyze because, out of all the readings I have ever done for English, this particular one is by far the most memorable. It is also perfectly suited for my argument, because it is appropriately as offensive as it is logical. The essay, in short, is a rhetorical argument that claims that helping the poor or unfortunate people of the world-though it is considered the “right” thing to do- is, in actuality, harmful to the very future of our species.

The actual message of the essay, however, is not what I want to endorse. When this essay was assigned to my class junior year, the almost overwhelming reaction was immediately a dismissal of the essay’s content, even though we had only so far been given the title. This can be attributed to the modern sense of morality regarding charity, or what the “politically right” thing to do is; my classmates were so outraged by the idea of not helping the poor that they formed their opinion before even being presented with the argument.

This reaction- sensibility before rationality- is what I wish to argue against. I think that this takes place a lot in society, with public support unanimously given to the general agreement of what is “morally right”, even though what is considered “morally right” today may not actually be a good thing at all, and is arbitrary at that; different generations and societies over time- and even different cultures in the same time period- can have totally different views on what is moral and what is not.

Therefore, there should always be, for the sake of intellectual purity, a detachment of sensibility from logic, especially regarding major decisions that can affect the entire country, or even the entire world. The essay is crude in terms of the modern western sense of morality, yes, but it is also very logically sound in a lot of ways, and worth at least dissection for truth before dismissal. So my purpose, or what I want to demonstrate in my analysis, is to show that just because something is offensive does not mean it is automatically incorrect.

In regards to the essay, I am going to be analyzing the ways the argument against helping the poor is constructed, and why it is written at all. For my purpose, it is essential to my point- that something morally “wrong” can still have merit- that I demonstrate clearly that the argument Hardin makes is well thought out, written for a legitimate reason, and, above all, logically sound. In order to make my case, I think it is necessary for me to prove that Hardin did his research, and is writing the essay not just to offend people or get a reaction, but out of genuine concern and actual belief in what he is saying.

This is important because when the essay was released in 1974, it did indeed generate a public reaction, and was published in a well-known magazine, Psychology Today, so the argument can be made that Hardin wrote the essay for the singular reason of getting attention and provoking people, which, if true, would debase everything I am trying to prove in regards to its validity. My goal in analyzing, then, is to provide enough rhetorical evidence of the legitimacy of Hardin’s argument that my own argument is subsequently well supported.

To prove that Hardin’s argument- and therefore my argument- is legitimate, I am going to analyze four major rhetorical devices he uses to help deliver his message. The first, and arguably most prominent, of these devices is metaphor. Hardin constructs the world in terms of an ocean, with its people floating in it. Wealth, in this metaphor, is a lifeboat, or safety, while poverty is being stranded in the ocean, unprotected from almost certain death.

The second device is logos; Hardin uses fact based evidence and logical appeal in his argument as opposed to emotional appeal or personal accreditation. A third major device found throughout the text is refutation; frequently, Hardin addresses opponent’s arguments to his own points, and then ably refutes them. The final major device I will describe that Hardin employs is specific example; instead of just talking in general terms, Hardin uses specific examples of policies and perceptions that were current at the time of the essay.

I chose these devices to analyze in the essay because I think they are the most prevalent, and that together they provide very solid evidence that Hardin makes a sound argument. The first device, metaphor, is brilliant in the respect that it takes a complicated, general principle, and simplifies it down to a specific and easily understandable scenario, which in turn makes the point Hardin is trying to make more easily grasped.

Hardin sets up the metaphor as this: a lifeboat has a capacity of sixty people, and this safety is related to wealth. So, a lifeboat is the rich nations, and all around it in the water are the poor people of the world. There are fifty people in the lifeboat, according to the metaphor, so that leaves room for ten more. The dilemma, however, is that there are significantly more than ten people that need to be saved.

This is the basis of Hardin’s whole argument; it is considered morally right to help the people in the water, or the poor people in the world, but given the situation helping them all is just not possible; to do so would mean the demise of us all, just like letting one hundred people on a lifeboat that can afford ten, at the very most (Hardin actually demonstrates that even this is too much due to the need for “excess capacity” as a safety measure against disease and famine, but for the purpose of the paper I will not go into too much detail about that), will inevitably swamp it and save no one.

Thus, Hardin’s argument is made clear; if we help the needy, we will all die in the long run, and in the short run suffer resultant consequences. This metaphor is used throughout the paper in addition to Hardin’s support to make the message perfectly clear… for example, in addressing the guilt factor of ignoring the needs of the “drowning” people, he memorably states “Get out and yield your place to others. The point he makes is that short of switching places with a poor person, there is almost nothing we can do to help people that will not do more damage than good, so for reasons of absolute necessity we must be, to the appropriate extent, callous. While metaphor serves to make his argument clearer, Hardin’s other devices work to give it logical and fact based support. The next device, logos, is a prime method Hardin uses to support the essay.

He argues from evidence, and logic, not emotion, and thus his information, which relies on the established credibility of others, cannot be refuted on basis of opinion, as the essay without evidence would almost certainly be handled that way. For example, in arguing that the population of poorer nations is increasing much faster than the richer nations, he uses actual data amongst his argument: “As of 1973, the U. S had a population of 210 million people, who were increasing by . 08 percent per year… [poor nations] are increasing at a rate of 3. 3 percent per year. Using real evidence, he makes his point that poor reproduce faster in modern times, supports it with evidence, and then logically feeds the information back into his argument, again using the metaphor for clarification: not only are there more people in need of help-getting on the life boat- than we can afford to help, the numbers of the needy are creasing substantially faster, and the amount of people we cant afford to help is growing, making it necessary to become even more callous, or as Hardin puts it “The harsh ethics of the lifeboat become harsher”.

Another example of this is in reference to an actual quote made ironically by a former senior member of a corporation Hardin is criticizing. He laces the specific point he is trying to make at the time with evidence from a source that can hardly be called unfairly biased, and thus sets up the same dynamic; he states his point, backs it with evidence, and logically ties it back to his thesis, which is a classic and textbook application of logos. By constructing his argument from logic, and fact –logos-, and not just opinion, Hardin makes it significantly more reliable.

The next device, refutation, is extremely important given the context of Hardin’s thesis. Stating a case against helping the poor is understandably going to cause controversy, as it goes completely against the “politically correct” system of beliefs that state the opposite: helping those less fortunate than you is moral, and admirable. So, because of the touchiness of the subject, there is likely to be no shortage of counter arguments- by addressing some of what he probably considered the major ones, Hardin reinforces his case to some of his critics before they even start criticizing.

A prominent example of this is when he addresses an argument he know will arise against his point of limiting immigration. He imitates an opponent and describes their argument: “’You say that immigrants should be kept out. But aren’t we all immigrants, or the descendants of immigrants? ’” Having addressed his opponents case, Hardin then logically defeats it; he states that if we are to operate out of an inherent sense of guilt and “pure justice”, then it follows that in the case of America, we must return all land, as well as all the assets and profit gained as a result of it, back to what natives remain.

It would be very hard to find even the most liberal opponent who would endorse this solution, thus Hardin shows that we have to operate based off real world situation, and “must begin the journey to tomorrow from the point we are today”, essentially refuting the refutation and logically demonstrating that argument from perspective of absolute justice is absurd, and irrelevant. Through employing this method of refutation here, and also at other particularly controversial points in the text, Hardin shows conclusively that his argument is well thought out, and also defends it in the process, adding yet another level of validity to the essay.

Finally, in order to avoid being abstract and opening the door wide for increased criticism and skepticism , Hardin uses specific, real word examples to go along with his general statement. One of these is The World Food Bank, an organization in the process of being established during the time of the essay’s publication. The goal of the organization, in short, was to provide food for people in countries that had a lack of it. This is, of course, completely in opposition to what Hardin argues we should do, and so it is a very good example. To demonstrate why a global food bank is a bad idea, Hardin attacks it from several angles.

First, he debases its intention, stating that while it “appeals powerfully to our humanitarian impulses”, it is not as pure of motive as its lobbyists claimed it to be. He outlines that an organization like that would mean “’Billions for U. S Business’”, using the past example of the “Food for peace program” that did indeed, in historical fact, profit its creators much more than its supposed benefactors. After showing corruption in modern institution of charity, Hardin then defeats it in its own terms, or in other words he argues against it as if it was in reality pure in its intentions.

He argues that helping the overpopulated poor only leads to more overpopulation, and therefore a greater demand, that defeats possibility and would ultimately deplete the world’s resources, leading to the suffering of our posterity. Here, Hardin thoroughly defeats the advantage of charity in a specific scenario relevant to his time, which solidifies his thesis and makes it much harder to refute then if he had stated it as opinion; the argument was made relatable to the current political system and functioning that Hardin wished to criticize, and by doing so he criticizes much more effectively.

Reading this essay years later gives us the advantage of analyzing his statements for truth, and subsequently having a better idea as to whether his argument was a valid one or not. One particular piece of assumptive data that jumped out of me was Hardin’s prediction that India’s population would increase from what it was in his time, “600 million”, to “1. 2 billion in a mere 28 years. ” Today, 37 years later, India’s population is estimated around that number.

This gave me pause because, while it didn’t increase quite as fast Hardin claimed, it was close enough that it proves the population numbers he was working with and the predictions he made were fairly accurate. I do not know the extent to which Hardin was right, and how much we should trust his solution to overpopulation, but I do know based on this evidence along with the clarity of his logic and the completeness of his argument that it certainly should not be dismissed without giving what it proposes careful consideration.

The reaction of my class, then, in rejecting it immediately was ill advised, and if that is at all an indicator of the habits of people in general, it can be a very dangerous thing; what Hardin claims will be a result of ignoring his advice is the suffering of our posterity and, eventually, the demise of our race and ruin of our environment.

As a concerned member of an overly sensitive society, I want to urge with this essay that we consider all proposal given from every source with any sort of legitimate or fact based ethos, and that we absolutely must take on this intelligent and logical consideration in order to avoid the mistake of disregarding something that could be as serious as the subject addressed in Lifeboat ethics, especially for the poor reason of adherence to arbitrary, current morality. The fate of our country, of our children, and of the world itself could depend on it.

Literal application of this essay is tricky, because it argues for a general attitude more than a specific action, and an attitude is something that you apply constantly. A great example of a way this attitude can be applied, however, is in an election of any kind, obviously including the upcoming presidential one in 2012. A literal application of this essay would be to encourage people to really analyze what the country needs and what a candidate offers without including personal and irrelevant opinion into the decision, such as whether abortion should be legal or whether the candidate offers support or disapproval to gay marriage.

I understand that these are powerful issues to people, but given the state of the country I think there are definitely more important things- foreign policy and financial plans for example- that deserve more consideration. This encouragement could take place in a campaign to convince people of the necessity to logically and intelligently evaluate campaigns, or something of the sorts.

FIGURE OF SPEECH : A mode of expression in which words are used out of their literal meaning or out of their ordinary use in order to add beauty or emotional intensity or to transfer the poet’s sense impressions by comparing or identifying one thing with another that has a meaning familiar to the reader. Some important figures of speech are: simile, metaphor, personification, hyperbole and symbol. Adjunction: Adjunction refers to a clause or a phrase, usually a verb, that is added at the beginning of a sentence. Here are a few examples of adjunction; Sings the bird as we walk on by.

Good it is that fights the master with his dark lord, Allegory: This figure of speech is an extended metaphor where the characters or actions in a literary work have a more imaginative meaning. The examples of allegory are; I feel like a dog today. I rolled out of my basket and munched on some biscuit-like cereal. Scratching as I got on the train, I sniffed a passing female. Aruooo!! Down boy! – Animal Farm, George Orwell By this I perceive thou art one of my subjects; for all that country is mine, and I am the Prince and God of it. How is it then that thou hast run away from thy King? The Pilgrim’s Progress, John Bunyan Alliteration: A repetition of particular consonant sound in the beginning of each word in close succession. Though alliteration is mainly consonant sounds, sometimes vowel sounds are also repeated. This figure of speech is mainly used in poetry. A few examples of alliteration: I have stood still and stopped the sound of feet. – Acquainted with the Night, Robert Frost Those tidal thoroughbreds that tango through the turquoise tide. – Dancing Dolphins, Paul McCann Allusion: An allusion is an indirect or brief reference to a person, place or thing in a literary work.

A few illustrations of allusion – I doubt if Phaethon feared more – that time he dropped the sun-reins of his father’s chariot and burned the streak of sky we see today – or if poor Icarus did – feeling his sides unfeathering as the wax began to melt, his father shouting: “Wrong, your course is wrong – Inferno, Dante This responsibility is too much for me. I feel as though I have an albatross around my neck. – The Rime of the Ancient Mariner, Samuel Taylor Coleridge Antithesis: An antithesis is a figure of speech where there is a juxtaposition of two contrasting ideas in a balanced clause or sentence.

Some illustrations of antithesis: It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of light, it was the season of darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way. – A Tale of Two Cities, Charles Dickens If, as our dreaming Platonists report, There could be spirits of a middle sort,

Too black for heav’n, and yet too white for hell, Who just dropp’d halfway down, nor lower fell. – The Hind and the Panther, John Dryden Apostrophe: In this figure of speech, a non existent or absent person is addressed. In literary pieces, this figure of speech usually starts with an exclamation ‘O’. Examples of apostrophe are: O Romeo, Romeo! wherefore art thou Romeo? – Romeo and Juliet, William Shakespeare O, pardon me, thou bleeding piece of earth, / That I am meek and gentle with these butchers! / Thou art the ruins of the noblest man / That ever lived in the tide of times. Julius Caesar, William Shakespeare. Climax: In climax, the words or clauses are arranged in ascending order of importance. These phrases have a similar theme and arranged in increasing order according to the impact they create on the reader. A few illustrations; Love creates happiness, happiness creates joy, joy creates enlightenment. We’ll collect pennies in tens, hundreds and millions! Power starts small, becomes significant then becomes unstoppable. Euphemism: A figure of speech where an offensive or rude word is substituted by a polite and gentle word.

The technique is to use a neutral language so as not to sound offensive to the receiver. Like for instance: Differently abled instead of disabled. Put to sleep instead of euthanasia Hyperbole: It is used while exaggerating something. This figure of speech is mainly used in several jokes or as a way of insult. It is to dramatize a normal situation or to make it look worse. A few hyperbole examples: The whole world was staring at me. It is going to take a zillion years to get through medical school. My backpack weighs a ton.

Irony: Irony is used to convey the opposite meaning of a word. It is usually used in sarcasm or in humor. It is also used to convey an ugly truth in a subtle manner. Some examples of irony are: “Water, water, everywhere, And all the boards did shrink; Water, water, everywhere, Nor any drop to drink. ” (Situational Irony) – The Rime of the Ancient Mariner, S. T. Coleridge The boy is so intelligent that he failed in all the subjects. (Verbal Irony) Metaphor: Metaphor is used for the purpose of comparison with a thing which is not applicable to it literally.

It is an indirect comparison of two unrelated things. Some examples of metaphors include: He was a lion in the battlefield. He is the apple of my eye. Metonymy: In metonymy, the name of one thing is replaced with something that is closely related to it. In common terms, it is also known as misnomer or transmutation. Here are some metonymy examples: The suits on Wall Street walked off with most of our savings. (Suits referring to bankers). The White House asked the television networks for air time on Monday night. (Here air time refers to broadcasting).

Onomatopoeia: This figure of speech imitates the sounds produced by the objects or actions. Mentioned below are some examples of onomatopoeia: The buzzing of bees. The whirring of the washing machine. Oxymoron: Using a contradictory term to define a situation, object or event is oxymoron. Some oxymoron examples are: Clearly misunderstood Exact estimation Personification: Associating an inanimate object to human quality. A few personification examples are: The haughty lion surveyed his realm. My car was happy to be washed.

Simile: Simile is a figure of speech where two essentially unlike things are compared with each other, using ‘as’, ‘than’ or ‘like’. A few simile examples are given below: O my love is like a red, red rose. Life is like an onion: You peel it off one layer at a time, and sometimes you weep. Synecdoche: It is a part of speech similar to metonymy, where a part of a particular object is used to refer to the whole thing. Synechdoche examples are: The city posted a sign, where ‘the city’ refers to the government. The gray beard refers to an old man.

Ryan GoldrickMs. Willis/Period 7 September 21,2009Human Nature Essay Human Nature In the Anthology the authors wrote about many different complex characters. These characters showed great examples of human nature. In my opinion, three of the best stories in the Anthology that had examples of human nature are How it Feels to be Colored Me, by Zora Hurston, The Necklace, by Guy de Maupassant, and The Rose that Grew from Concrete, by Tupac Shakur. These stories show how humans have different characteristics.

These characteristics are determination, intolerance, and the need to have more than what they have. Zora Hurston, in How it Feels to be Colored Me shows how humans can be extremely intolerant. “Someone is always at my elbow reminding me that I am the granddaughter of slaves. ” This quote shows that humans are intolerant because she is picked on only because she is black and living in a white neighborhood. This quote is also saying that when ever Zora is feeling good about herself there will always be someone to put her back down.

In my opinion being intolerant is a negative characteristic of a human’s nature. In The Necklace, Guy de Maupassant describes how humans always want more then they need or can have. “She had no dresses, no jewelry, nothing. And she loved nothing else; she felt herself made for that only. ” In the previous quote she is obsessed with items that she can not afford to have. This shows that no matter how many accessories a human has there will always be something else that they want.

In The Rose That Grew from Concrete, Tupac Shakur uses metaphors as an example of how humans can be tenacious and determined. “Did you hear about the rose that grew from a crack in the concrete? Proving nature’s laws wrong it learned 2 walk without having feet. ” In that quote the author uses a metaphor to show how humans are determined to learn more. This quote is determination because it seems impossible for a rose to walk, yet the rose still strived to learn how to walk and achieved its goal.

Without etermination to learn and invent new things humans would not be where they are today. To sum it up, the stories that we have read and discussed, How it Feels to be Colored Me, The Necklace, and The Rose that Grew from Concrete, revealed a variety of different characteristics that are part of human nature. Three of the main characteristics of a human’s nature contained within the readings I chose are intolerance, determination, and the need to have more than they are able to have. All in All, these characteristics have an enormous effect on where we stand today as humans.

The research survey will critically analyse the acquisition of metaphor through teaching civilization to Iraqi scholars of English as a 2nd linguistic communication. Additionally, the research will convey to illume the assorted challenges confronting different Iraqi scholars when analyzing English as a 2nd linguistic communication through metaphors. It will besides seek to supply recommendations that will assist get the better of the challenges every bit good as how best to utilize metaphors in assisting Iraqi scholar learn English. Due to globalization characterized with free motion of people, capital goods and services, it has come to be of paramount significance for all human races to endeavor to larn at least a foreign linguistic communication ( MacArthur & A ; Littlemore, 2008 ) .

As a consequence a figure of states particularly in Middle East have resorted to larn such linguistic communications as English to assist them get by with the bubbling phenomenon of globalisation. However their desire has been marred with a figure of challenges particularly when such mechanisms as utilizing metaphors are used. It is deserving observing that bookmans such as Straub, 1999 suggested that the best manner to learn a foreign linguistic communication to pupil is to utilize their civilization. This can be done successfully when the pupils are made cognizant of their civilization every bit good as supplying them with some sort of meta-language in order to speak about civilization ( Low et al.2008 ) .

The research is of a batch of importance as it closely analyzes acquisition of metaphors by non English speech production Iraqi pupils. The findings will be of importance to assorted stakeholders such as instructors of English as Second Language ( ESL ) , pupils, instruction sectors, other research workers and larning establishment at big every bit good as Non-governmental Organization,

The developed recommendations will be adopted by larning establishments to assist them successfully teach pupils English, a linguistic communication that is non native to them. Not transporting out this research will clearly picture that the assorted ways of integrating metaphors in learning English, the challenges faced will non be brought to visible radiation.

Research inquiry

Based on the research subject, three major inquiries were developed to steer the survey. These are

How are metaphors used through teaching civilization to assist Iraqi pupil learn English? ( Littlemore, 2009 )

What are the challenges confronting both instructors and pupil when utilizing metaphors?

What are the major recommendations that will assist control the above said challenges and surrogate English acquisition?

Literature reappraisal

The chief aims of learning civilization to pupil are it assist them to develop a clear comprehension of the fact that all show behaviours that are profoundly rooted from civilization, societal variable/ demographic features do every bit good as topographic point of abode do impact on how persons communicate, stimulate their rational wonder with respects to certain civilization hence promoting empathy towards others, developing ability to advert but a few ( Littlemore, 2003 ) . This therefore was seen as an avenue that can be successfully used to learn English via metaphors.

It is of import to bear in head that legion theories have been brought Forth to assist reply the inquiry, how do scholars get foreign linguistic communication? Traditionally, grammar interlingual rendition methods were used to learn pupils foreign linguistic communications. It entailed memorisation of long list of vocabularies that were translated. Later in the old ages, the focal point shifted to coming up with linguistic communication accomplishments such as authorship, listening, reading and speech production. Whether wittingly or unwittingly the phase of learning foreign linguistic communications actively involved utilizing metaphors ( Littlemore, 2004. One renowned bookman, Light created a metaphor with the purpose of assisting set up the assorted elements of grammar so that it could be used to learn English as 2nd linguistic communication.

Leeboard held that metaphors and associating theories, “ portion the attempt to form thought by puting in gesture an interaction between familiar and or comprehensible on one manus and the thing to be explained on the other. ” Metaphor has the ability of showing significance by mentioning to a different conceptual sphere and has been thought as a vehicle through which cognition is transmitted. Harmonizing to Laoff & A ; Johnson, 1980 metaphors are “ poetic imaginativeness and the rhetorical flourish – a affair of extraordinary instead than ordinary linguistic communication. ”

The major types of conceptual metaphor normally used are structural metaphor, “ the beginning sphere supplies a moderately drawn-out cognition construction for the mark construction ” . They help increase linguistic communication understanding. Ontological metaphors are those that have abstraction and represent something deep for case objects or a individual. Learners are made to visualise experiences via objects. Last, orientation metaphors provide even less conceptual construction for mark constructs than ontological 1s. Their cognitive occupation, alternatively, is to do a set of mark constructs coherent in our conceptual system ( Kovecses, 2002 ) .

Data aggregation

The research will use a assorted research design method. It is of import to observe that theoretical survey calls for deeper excavation of assorted literatures runing from diaries, publications, books, other signifiers of literature and from the cyberspace ( Boers & A ; Littlemore, 2000 ; ) . Qualitative research will besides be employed in the survey ; the attack seeks to contextualize the research by plunging the research worker into the survey scenario every bit good as with the survey topics. Hypothesiss are developed and informations is collected and the consequences tend to be subjective. A instance survey as a sub type of qualitative research is used to guarantee that the survey is flexible plenty to give the research worker room to look into issues that were non antecedently thought of and could be deserving being brought to visible radiation ( Tabachnick & A ; Fidell, 2000 ; Littlemore, 2004 ) . Anterior to existent aggregation of informations, a pilot survey will be carried out in order to assist set the questionnaires whenever deemed necessary.

Questionnaires will be used to roll up relevant information ; I will administer them to respondent situated in the targeted establishment of higher acquisition and would be collected subsequently at an in agreement day of the month. Harmonizing to Beiske, ( 2002 ) questionnaire covers a big population at a clip as they would be distributed to different participants at a clip and be collected subsequently or at the same twenty-four hours depending on the willingness of the responded in turn toing the inquiries, due to it being standardized they are more nonsubjective, informations collected from questionnaire are easy to analyse, due to acquaintance with the tool, responded will non be discerning, it is besides really cost effectual as compared to confront to confront interviews, the tool besides reduces prejudice.

The questionnaires will be issued to who are in a place to Iraqi pupils in higher instruction as they are in a better place to supply the needed set of informations. Additionally, instructors will besides be sought after to give more penetration. Harmonizing to Littlemore, 2001 the major job with questionnaires as a tool of informations aggregation is that there is inclination of respondent to bury critical information, they may reply the inquiries superficially when it is a long one, to counter this I developed a short but really inclusive questionnaire, due to standardisation, there is no room for account incase respondents misinterpret or make non understand the inquiries ( Littlemore, 2005 ) .

The information will be collected from Iraqi pupils in higher instruction and will be done over a p of one month. As indicated by Littlemore, 1995 ; Littlemore & A ; Chevalier, 1997 some of the ethical consideration includes the followers ; the targeted sample populations that will be involved in the survey to supply relevant information are to be informed about the same in progress. The grounds for transporting out the study every bit good as how they stand to derive from the survey will besides be brought out clearly.

As good, research moralss demands that the information be sought after by the research worker will be provided in good religion, and voluntarily without any influence be it pecuniary or otherwise for case giving of inducements, wagess, and gifts. It is of import to observe here that the rights and public assistance of the participants involved in the survey must be protected and guaranteed. To make this, their individualities will be kept confidential. Furthermore, the information collected while beging for informations is to be kept confidential and opt non to be used in any other purpose apart from what was ab initio intended for ( Low & A ; Littlemore, 2009 ; Littlemore, 1995. ) .

Methods of analysis

After informations aggregation, coding will be done. SPSS statistical package will be used in analysing informations. To set up which point airs as being the greatest challenge in utilizing metaphor in learning English, a cross tabular matter analysis will be done. Similarly, correlativity and arrested development analysis will be done to prove the relationship between the challenges and acquisition of metaphor through civilization instruction. Descriptive statistic will be used to picture demographic features every bit good as other variables. This will be in signifier of tabular arraies, graphs and charts ( Chambers et al. , 2004 ) .

Original part

The paper will make full the spread in literature sing major challenges confronting metaphor acquisition through teaching civilization. More significantly, the recommendations to control these challenges will be a encouragement to the literature in linguistics. The research subject has non been tackled and presented for an award of any grade in any establishment of higher acquisition hence it is my ain piece of work. It will put land to further understand the whole issues with respects to challenges and what can be done in future to control such jobs in linguistic communication acquisition particularly English to non native talkers ( Boers & A ; Littlemore, 2000 ; Littlemore & A ; MacArthur, 2006 ) .

The world is full of writers of all kinds: novelists, biographers, copy writers, and even floggers. Every so often, one of those writers will rise above the rest and become a great author?but what exactly does that take? Many qualities have to come together in one person to make his or her writing great, so having the idea for a story alone is not enough; great writers also have to possess talent and originality as well as the dedication required to see a story through to the end.

Anyone can tell a story, but it takes special talent to tell a story beautifully and engagingly. As a reader, my favorite stories are always the ones that draw me in with descriptive language, imagery, and metaphors used skillfully by the authors. One example is F. Scott Fitzgerald The Great Gatsby, which I loved reading because of Fitzgerald talent for using literary devices.

In one chapter, he describes a valley full of ashes, but instead of simply calling it what it is, Fitzgerald creates a much more interesting and inspiring description: “This is a valley of ashes?a fantastic farm where ashes grow like wheat into ridges and hills and grotesque gardens; where she take the forms of houses and chimneys and rising smoke and, finally, with a transcendent effort, of ash-gray men who move dimly and already crumbling through the powdery air” (23).

Rather than Just telling you that the valley is full of ashes, Fitzgerald shows you with his words, creating images in your mind of a gray, ashy valley through his expert use of metaphors and similes. This mastery of figurative language is one of the most important parts of being a great writer, because it is what separates a simple story, like one that you would tell from day to day, from a literary masterpiece.

Johnny Lee Plato versus Nietzsche The central ideas that two great philosophers, Plato and Friedrich Nietzsche, talked about were the reality and appearance; and what they mainly focused on is where we as humans stand between these two. Of course, regarding the fact that Plato and Nietzsche lived in different time periods, they had their differences that conflict with each other’s theories. But they do have something to agree upon; they both argue that humans live in an illusory world of our own that we think is reality when we actually are not. One important idea they disagree on is their concepts on what is reality and what is truth.

Plato’s theory is mostly based on his cave allegory where he explains human’s conditions. I will explain the similarities and differences between Plato and Nietzsche through the cave allegory. Starting from a base point, Plato and Nietzsche both state that there are deceptions and illusions in the world. First, according to the cave allegory by Plato, he believes the “shadows”(Plato 64) to be what’s keeping us from utilizing our knowledge to its fullest value. The “shadows” are metaphors that represent our acts of relying on our senses to identify objects in life.

They are only the appearances of the actual objects, meaning that we are not getting the genuine concept that is concealed by the appearances. He explains that the objects humans see in the visible world are far from the truth and their true forms. On the contrary, Nietzsche does not believe that the “shadows” are actually what Plato says they are. Although Nietzsche does believe that there are illusions in the world that humans are commonly deceived by, he argues that what deceives us in the world is our language and not the appearances of objects.

He explains that concepts are the main cause that deceives humans because “a concept is produced by overlooking what is individual and real”(Nietzsche 878). And this is where language part comes in. The language helps creating concepts to objects, making it harder for humans to comprehend the “original entities” (Nietzsche 877) of the objects. Words are only “metaphors of things” (Nietzsche 877) to identify them but nothing more. Words do not hold any meanings or the true essence of the objects. The only purpose of words is so that humans can agree on the same things and get things done; create consistency in our lives. In terms of ruth in objects, Plato believes that once humans are out the cave we will be able to see the truth in things and know logic and reasoning. He argues that the only way to grasp the real meanings of objects is to rationalize everything and not rely on our senses (Plato 66). If all humans use logic to define everything and not guess what they would represent, then we would all be in the intelligible realm. On the other hand, Nietzsche has a very different take on the subject matter of truth. In fact, he argues that there are nothing more real than things that visibly and physically exist in the world; things that are accessible.

This is why he does not believe in the intelligible realm or the real reality. He believes that we are already in reality. His main case is that those things that exist in the world “know neither forms nor concepts. ”(Nietzsche 878); and therefore there is no reality, meanings, concepts or even truth within these objects. Nietzsche believes that the only truth existing in our lives is the agreement through language. We have put labels and titles on objects so that we would be able to agree upon identifying those objects without any conflicts or disagreement. Steven Wallace delivers a similar point through his poem, “Metaphors of a Magnifico”.

The basic summary of this poem is that there are “Twenty men crossing a bridge/ Into a village” (Stevens) and the speaker, Stevens or the Magnifico, is trying to find the meaning behind these twenty crossing the bridge. The problem that Stevens had was the words that were used by someone else to describe the twenty men. These twenty men could be perceived as twenty men crossing twenty bridges for each man could experience crossing the bridge very differently. It can also be seen as one man crossing the bridge if they all had the same purpose of why they are crossing the bridge. Ultimately, these men will look like one single man.

Stevens could not find the true meaning of his own behind these other people’s descriptions of the twenty men. He starts using words like “white wall” and “fruit-trees” to grasp the real meaning of these men crossing the bridge but no matter how hard he tries “the meaning escapes”(Stevens). This poem perfectly supports Nietzsche’s theory in the sense that, words are only metaphors to describe objects. Words cannot hold concepts for objects do not have real meanings behind them. After all, Stevens and even Nietzsche would say that it is simply “Twenty men crossing a bridge/ Into a village” with no concepts attached.

Going back to the cave allegory, Plato says that humans think the “shadows” are the truth behind the objects when they are only appearances. Now if Nietzsche would critique the allegory he would find certain things accurate and other things to be false. One thing he would agree upon is the deception that humans are getting. One big idea on the allegory that Nietzsche would definitely disagree on is the outside world or the intelligible realm for he does not believe that we are not living in reality right now.

He does not believe that we are in the cave. If Nietzsche would roughly create an allegory for his view on the world and human conditions he would first scrap the whole idea of being in the cave and the outside world. In Nietzsche’s allegory, there is a group of men freely standing outside in nature. And everything in nature is labeled with a card on them: “trees”, “flowers”, “grass” and so on. As each of the men looks at these objects, they will see the same objects but different distorted shadows.

These men, thinking that there are more meanings and concepts beyond theses words on the cards, will have different shapes of the shadows in their heads, due to different perceptions. However in reality, the shadows of the objects will flawlessly match the shapes of the actual objects, meaning that what you see is what you get: there are no hidden concepts. Although Plato and Nietzsche may have differences on the matter of truth, they are able to find a common ground between their theories: it is that humans could not be living deeper in an illusory world right now.