Self-Regulating Capacities as the Key to Boosting Up English Metaphor Acquisition


  •  Abd. Halim    

Abstract

This study aimed to determine the degree of metaphorical meaning acquisition reflected in the ratings of Mental Lexicon Organizations (MLOs) namely subordinate, compound and coordinate; and to explore the interaction effectsof the self-regulating capacities and age on the ratings. The method is quantitative. 261 out of 1278 students of English, Faculty of Languages and Literature, State University of Makassar were selected through stratified cluster random to participate in the English metaphor test and questionnaires. The data were analyzed by using t-test and Ordinal Logistic Regression. The results of the research designated that Ho that goes “metaphorical meaning acquisition is ?75%” was accepted (only 65%) because the t-test value was lower than the t-table value that is -13.16 < 1.960. The predictors of emotional control and satiation had relationship with the ratings of MLOs. Thus, if one unit was increased in the predictors, it will increase the ratings (consecutively -.049 = 0.95 or equal to 5% and -.294 = 0.74 or equal to 25%). It is concluded that emotional control and satiation interacted with the age in the increase of metaphorical language. Meanwhile, the commitment did not have relationship with the ratings of MLOs. If one unit was increased in the predictor, it will lead to decrease the ratings, that is, 0.525 = 1.69 or equal to 69%. Thus, commitment did not interact with age in the increase of the ratings. Most probably there was another type of commitment believed by the students like incidental metaphor learning.



This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
  • ISSN(Print): 1916-4742
  • ISSN(Online): 1916-4750
  • Started: 2008
  • Frequency: monthly

Journal Metrics

Citation Metrics (for informational purposes only; sourced from Google Scholar as of May 2026):

1. Citations (May 2026): 112462

2. h-index (May 2026): 145

3. i10-index (February 2025): 1811

*Note: Citation metrics vary significantly across indexing platforms. These figures are provided transparently and should not be used for cross-database comparisons. For methodological details, please refer to the official  Google Scholar Metrics documentation.

Contact