Peranan Bahasa Kiasan dalam Teks Sains Peringkat Pengenalan

Steven Darian

Diterjemahkan oleh      

Rusli Abdul Ghani

Abstrak

Makalah ini mengkaji peranan bahasa kiasan (trop) – khususnya peranan analogi dan metafora. reifikasi dan perumpaman, personafikasi dan penghaiwanan -yang terdapat dalam dua teks sains peringkat pengenalan. Bertentangan dengan pendapat popular, kiasan seperti personafikasi dan penghaiwanan memainkan peranan penting, malah lebih penting daripada analogi dalam penyampaian bahan.  Makalah ini meneliti tema-­tema metaforik yang dominan – seperti peperangan dan perburuan,  keluarga dan hubungan-hubungan lain – serta topik-topik khusus yang berkaitan dengan tema-tema tersebut; sebagai contoh, keimunan, DNA, evolusi dan fungsi-fungsi sel tertentu, Makalah ini turut menganalisis beberapa pola linguistik dan wacana yang digunakan dalam pelbagai bentuk kiasan: Sebagai contoh, penggunaan penanda – kata kerja dan tipografi -untuk menunjukkan bahawa perkataan atau ayat yang menyusul itu digunakan secara metaforik atau penggunaan bahasa kiasan yang dipcrluas, dan saling tindakan pelbagai bentuk kiasan dalam penanganan pelbagai topik sains. Makalah ini diakhiri dcngan sebilangan cadangan tentang penggunaan bahasa kiasan dalam pengajaran sains.  

Abstract

The article examines the role of figurativee languages (tropes) -spe­cifically. analogy and metaphor,  reification and simile, personification ­ and animation -in two introductory-level science texts. Con­trary to popular opinion, figures such as personification and anima­tion play an important role, actually more important than analogy, in the presentation of material. The article examines dominant metaphoric themes -such as war and hunting, family and other relationships ­and the specific topics they are associated with; e.g., immunity, DNA. evolution, and certain cell functions. It also analyzed some of the lin­guistic and discourse patterns used in various figures of speech: for example, the use of markers -verbal and typographic -to indicate that an upcoming word or phrase is being used metaphorically; or the use of extended figures of speech, and the interaction of various tropes in treatment of different scientific topics. It closes with several suggestion on the use of figurative language in teaching science.

RUJUKAN

Adler, M. 1929. Dialectic. New York: Harcourt Brace.

Antilla, R. 1977. Analogy. The Hague: Mouton.

Arber, R. 1964. The Mind and The Eye. Cambridge University Press.

Arnheim, R. 1969. Visual Thinking. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Bean, T.W. 1990. “Learning Concepts from Biology Texts Through Pictorial Analogies”, dlm. Journal of Educational Reseach 83: 233-7.

Black, M. 1968. Models and Metaphors. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Buchanan, S. 1962. Poetry and Mathematics. Philadelphia: Lippincott.

Bugne, M. 1968. “Analogy in Quantum Theory, from Insight to Nonsense” dlm. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 18: 265-86. Cohen, M. 1965. A Preface to Logic. Cleveland: World.

Darian, S. 1973. “Similes and the Creative Process” dlm. Language and Style 6: 48-57.

Darian, 1995. “Hypotheses in Introductory Science Texts” dlm. IRAL 33: 84­ 108.

Darian, 1996. “Cause and Effect in Science Textbooks” dlm. ESP Malaysia 4: 65-83.

Dreyer, E.L.E. 1953. A History ofAstronomy from Thales to Kepler. New York:  Dover.

Empson,W. 1951. The Structure of Complex Words. New York: New Directions.

Evans, G .E. 1988. “Metaphors as Learning Aids in University Lectures” dlm. Jour­nal of Experimental Education 56: 91-9.

Fiumara, G.c. 1995. The Metaphoric Process. Connections between Language and Life. London: Routledge.

Fogelin. R.J. 1988. Figuratively Speaking. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Garret. A.B. (ed.). 1963. The Flash of Genius. Princeton: Van Nostrand.

Gentner. D. dan M. Jeziorski. 1993. “The Shift from Metaphor to Analogy in  Western Science” dlm. A Ortony. Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge Uni­versity Press.

Gholsen. B.W. Shadish, R. Neimeyer dan A. Houts (ed.), 1989. The Psychology of Science and Metascience. Cambridge University Press.

Gilbert, Steven W. 1989. “An Evaluation of the Use at Analogy, Simile and Meta­phor in science texts” dlm. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 26: 315-27.  Gordon. W.J.J. 1973. The Metaphoric Way of Knowing . Cambridge, MA: Por­poise Books.

Hein, M.L. Best, S. Pattison dan S. Arena, 1993. College Chemistry. Pacific Grove,  CA : Brooks/Cole. Hesse. M. 1966. Models dan Analogies in Science. Notre Dame University Press.

Hoenigswald, H. dan L. Wiener (ed.), 1987. Biological Metaphor and Cladistic Classification. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Honeck, R.P. dan R.R. Hoffman (ed.), 1980. Cognition and Figurative Language. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.

Hutton, E. 1953. “The Role of Models in Physics”  dlm. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 4: 284-30 I.

Johnson, M. 1988. “Embodied Analogical Understanding”. dlm. D. Helman; Ana­logical Reasoning. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Kedar-Cabelli, S. 1991. “Analogy -From A Unified Perspective” dlm. D. Helman. Analogical Reasoning. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Koestler, A. 1964. The Act ofCreation . NY: Macmillan.

Lakoff, G. dan M. Johnson, 1980. Metaphors We Live By. University of Chicago Press.

Langer, S. 1948. Philosophy in A New Key. New York: Mentor.

Latour, B.dan L. Woolgar, 1986. Laboratory Life (edisi ke-2). Princeton Univer­sity Press.

Leatherda1e, P. 1974. The Role of Analogy, Model & Metaphor in Science. New York: Elsevier.  MacCormac, E. 1979. Metaphor and Myth in Science and Religion. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.  MacCormac, 1985. A Cognitive Theory of Metaphor. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Mayer, R. 1993. “The Instructive Metaphor: Metaphoric Aids to Students’ Under­standing of Science” dlm. A. Ortony, Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge University Press.

Oppenheimer, J. Robert, 1956. “Analogy in science”. dlm. The American Psy­chologist. 11: 127-35. Ortony, A. (ed.), 1993. Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge University Press.

Pepper, S. 1942. World Hypotheses. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Polya, G. 1954. How to Solve It. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.

Richards, I.A. 1995. Philosophy of Rhetoric. New York: Oxford University Press. Sadock,1. 1993. “Figurative Speech and Linguistic” dlm. A. Ortony, Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge University Press. Saha, P.K. 1988. “Metaphoric Style as Message” dlm. D. Helman, Analogical reasoning. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Schon, D. A. 1997. Invention and The Evolution ofIdeas. London: Tavistock.

Silberner, J. 1986. “Metaphor in Immunology”. dlm. Science News 130: 254.

Solomon, I. 1986. “Children’s Explanations”. dlm. Oxford Review of Education 12.1: 41-50.

Spiro, R. 1989. “Multiple Analogies for Complex Concepts” dlm. S. Vosniadu dan A. Ortony, Similarity and Analogical Reasoning. Cambridge University Press 499-531.

Stanford, W.B. 1872. Greek Metaphor. Oxford: Blackwell.

Starr, C. 1991. Biology Concepts and Application. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Temkin, O. 1949. “Metaphors of Human Biology”. Dim. R.C. Stouffer, Science and Civilization. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

Thomas, 0.1969. “Metaphor and Related Subjects”. New York: Random House.  Time Special Issue. (1996, Musim Luruh) 62-6.

Toulmin, S. 1953. Philosophy of Science. New York: Harper.

Turbayne, C.M. 1962. The Myth of Metaphor. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Upton, A. 1961. Design for Thinking. Palo Alto: Pacific Books.

Urban, W. 1991. Language and Reality. New York: Macmillan. Vosniadou, S. dan A. Ortony, (ed.), 1989. Similarity and Analogical Reasoning. Cambridge University Press.

Webber, P. 1996. “Metaphor in Medical English Abstracts”. dlm. UNESCO ALSED­LSP Newsletter 19: 35-52.

Wheelwright, P. 1962. Metaphor and Reality. Bloomington: University of Indiana Press.

(Teks Penuh)

Hantar Maklum Balas Anda