1 PROBLEM 1.1 Situation Problem Today communication has an important role in the whole world.

Our life is in constant communication. We communicate every day; generally by using verbal language. Language is present in every detail of our life1. When people speak they express feelings, emotions. But most of the time people express how they have experience the world2, and all this process is done by language. This means that language is an abstraction of our reality. However, people do not realize of this fact. People often say expressions that do not any relation with conventional meaning (what a word means literally) but with figurative meaning (this reflect how people have captured reality and this reality is shown by the use of metaphors and also implicates to infer what the speaker means). For example: Time is money 3although perhaps economically incorrect, are surely correct in reminding us that more is involved in what one communicates than what one literally says; more is involved in how we have captured reality in our mind in order to transmit through language in this case in our daily language (pragmatic) .For example expressions such as: you are wasting my time, I have invested a lot of time in her.4 They are metaphorical linguistic expression and derived from the conceptual metaphor5 (time is money). In addition, the words time, money, each has a perfectly identifiable meaning, known by every speaker of English (including not very competent ones). However, this example illustrates that most of time people use metaphors not such as simple comparisons, but as a tool for defining our everyday realties6. This issue will be developed in this brief paper.} 1.2 Problem formulation How does pragmatic influence for understanding metaphors in order to demonstrate how they define our everyday realities and help us to better our knowledge of the world? 1.3 Justification This research will provide an important resource due to this topic has not been developed in our region, Lambayeque. In addition, this research wants to be a good source for futures studies in the same area of research. This research will also pretend to modify the misconceptions about metaphors and give a brief description how pragmatic influence in order to

understand metaphors to show how they define our everyday realities and help us to better our knowledge of the world. 2 PROBLEM FRAMEWORK 2.1 Background of the problem

First of all, the study of pragmatics has become an interesting issue for who are dedicated to the study of language. This discipline involves the study of the language in a determined context, in other words pragmatics studies the language in use , While semantics deals with the literal meaning (what a word means), what a sentence says literally independent from context and Pragmatics deals with what you want to say with that word (the intention of the speaker). There are several studies about pragmatics. Charles Morris was the first contemporary philosopher who introduced this term, pragmatics (actually it is discussed by Aristotle and it comes from the Greek (pragmatikos), that is incorporated in the works of Gilles Deleuze and Flix Guattari who discuss linguistic pragmatics in the fourth chapter of A Thousand Plateaus ("November 20, 1923--Postulates of Linguistics" University of Minnesota Press). Daejin Kim et al. (2002) "The Role of an Interactive Book Reading Program in the Development of Second Language Pragmatic Competence", The Modern Language Journal, Vol. 86, No. 3 (Autumn, 2002), pp. 332-348). His studies were focused on the science of signs or semiotic. He divided the semiotic into three parts: the syntactic, semantic and pragmatic. This issues are discussed in the work of Stephen Levinson, pragmatic (1983, Cambridge university press,). Pragmatics also involves psychological, biological and sociological aspects take part in the use of signs, Pragmatic (1983, Cambridge university press,). This means how users use the language what it called communicative competence (April, 1991- Introduccin a la sociolinguistica, Heiman Caicedo Max.) how users use the language in a real communicative act. The pragmatics is characterized by studying the effects of context (Enero, 2002- introduccin a la Pragmtica). On the other hand, Pragmatics is important not only because it studies the language in use, but also because the pragmatics focuses a part of its study in figurative meaning and how speaker can interpretive it. Moreover, figures are key elements for transmitting implicit information and they are important for theories that pretend to explain what the connection between semantics and pragmatics is (meaning and use) for establishing differences.(2000 , ejercicios de Pragmtica , Reyes Graciela , Ibrica Grafic press)

Pragmatics also is important because it show us how metaphors reflect what we think, experience, how we get around the world and how we related to other people. Our concept system is fundamentally metaphorical and nature. This means that metaphors structure our concepts(our perceptions and thoughts about philosophy , poetry and create metaphors based on that issues ) taking into account that metaphors play an important role in defining our everyday realities This proposition implies that all we think ,we experience and we do every day is a matter of metaphor ( 1980 Metaphors we live by , Lakoff George and Johnson Mark , University of Chicago). Finally, language translates through linguistic codes our reality, this means that through language (in this case the language in use) human-beings can translate and transmit their perception of the world.

2.2 Theoretical and Scientific Basis

2.2.1. Theory of Speech Act It was introduced by John Austin (1962) and developed by Searle (1964, 1969, and 1975). John Austin In his work of How to do things with words, he says that when people Speak are produced three acts. a) Locutionay Act it refers to the literal meaning of words. b) Illocutionary Act It refers to the intention of speaker, what the speaker means to say with that word. c) Perlocutionary Act This is the effect that causes the speaker in the listener. 1 Theory of Relevance

According to relevance theory that was introduced by Sperber and Wilson (1986) this consists in not only understanding what someone means by an utterance, but is a matter of inferring the speaker's communicative intention: the hearer uses all kinds of information available to get at what the speaker intended to convey. The semantic information obtained by decoding the sentence uttered is but one example of such information. But much more information has to be used to infer what the speaker meant that includes both what she said and what she implicated by her utterance. So central is intention-recognition to understanding language that the code model, with autonomous semantics at its core, should largely be abandoned in favor of the inferential model. Metaphors is for theory of relevance the best example of loose talk, in other words, no literal because this does not reproduce what the speaker means, but it creates contextual implications that are relevant in that context. In this theory utterances are considered as interpretations of speakers minds that are complexes, in other words, they are formed by a variety of propositions. (2000, Ejercicios de Pragmtica, Reyes Graciela, Ibrica Grafic press). Relevance theory also emphasizes that the rules of language leave all sorts of issues open. Some words have too many meanings: ambiguity. Others have too little meaning: he, or that. Decoding alone won't determine which meaning the speaker is using, or which object he intends to refer to with a pronoun. So even before we get to what is said, communication involves intentions on the part of the speaker that go beyond what he "codes-up" into language, and inferences on the part of the hearer that go beyond decoding. And of course when we consider what is conveyed beyond saying, the coding model is even less adequate. In all of these ways in which knowledge of convention falls short, relevance fills the gap. (Pragmatics first published Tue Nov 28, 2006).

2.3 Definition of the Basic Themes

A- Pragmatics: Studies what processes use human beings to produce and

interpret meanings or statements when they use language. It is a theory of meaning that studies words in the relation between with their speakers and contexts. Pragmatics also studies what processes exist in the linguistic interpretation.

B- Metaphors: is to understand one conceptual domain in terms of another

conceptual domain. They are part of our conceptual system, and structured our thoughts and actions. They are cultural and most time belong to a determine culture and show our experience of the world. 3.1 Statement of the Hypothesis The influence of pragmatic in order to understand metaphors help us understand our everyday reality. This means our knowledge of the world.

3.2 Variables Operationalization

VARIABLE

DIMENSIONS Locutionary Act

INDICATORS Recognize the literal meaning of words

Infer what does not THEORY PRAGMATICS OF SPEECH ACTS Illocutionary Act say literally. This means the unconventional meaning. . Recognize what Perlocutionary Act effects cause in the speaker and listener. Emphasis not only what

understanding

someone means by Theory of Relevance METAPHORS an utterance, but is a matter of inferring the speaker's communicative intention

3.3 Objectives Determine if translation and interpretation students understand and interpret metaphors. Determine if translation and interpretation students can create metaphors by experiencing new things in the world Determine the grade of reading comprehension in order to interpret metaphors. Determine the grade of the knowledge of translation and interpretation students.

4- Methodological Design 4.1 Type of study design and Calibration of Assumptions The research is a descriptive design, realized with one group of students. Its diagram is:

XI M
Where:

O1

M: It is the sample, which is formed by 18 students, 4 men and 14 women. XI: The variables of study, in other words, pragmatic and metaphors. O1: This the result of the variables study, in other words the results of the test took to the translation and interpretation students

4.2 Population Study Sample an Sample

STUDENTS Men Women Total

NUMBER 2 8 100

% 20% 80% 100%

4.3 Methods: techniques and instruments of data collection The method is quantitative. For collecting data in order to follow with the research process it has been used the following instrument:

TEST Definition: it is an experimental instrument that measures intelligence in specific areas of the knowledge.

DESCRIPTION It is a verbal narration of visual elements that are important.

4.4 PLANS FOR PROCESSING DATA For determining the results (objectives and hypothesis), Microsoft excel was used as a principal source for analyzing results. The information was processed in order to find the percentages of each indicator, tables and graphics helped to determine objectives and hypothesis.

5.1 DISCUSSIONS OF RESULTS

SHARP N 1

Level of Interpretation of the Translation And Interpretation Students of VII Cycle

N 1 2 3

INDICADORES (07 - 08) (04 - 06) (00 - 03)

BAJO f % f 3 7 70

MEDIO % 30 f 0

ALTO % 0 f 10

T % 100

Graphic N1

120 100 80 60 40 20 0 f BAJO % f MEDIO % f ALTO % f T 7 3 30 0 0 10 70

100

(07 - 08) (04 - 06) (00 - 03) %

In this research how the pragmatic is important to understand metaphor in order to demonstrate that they show how we experience the world and how they help us to better our knowledge of the world with the translation and interpretation students. This research was developed with 18 students who were evaluated with a test in order to determine how pragmatic influences in order to understand metaphors. The results were: 70% of students do not know how to interpret metaphors. This means that translation and interpretation students from 7 cycle have a very low level of interpreting metaphors.

5.2 CONCLUSIONS

Pragmatics helps us to understand how we use language in a determine context.

Metaphors show how we experience the world in order to create new ones.

Metaphors increase our knowledge of the world in order to create new ones.

Language is inserted in our social cognition, how we related to others.

Language is an abstraction of reality through of signs.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

KVECSES, zoltn.2010.INTRODUCTION TO METAPHORS, Oxford.396 pp. LAKOFF, George and JOHNSEN Mark .2003. METAPHORS WE LIVE BY, London. 193 pp. ESCANDEL-VIDAL, Mara. 1996. INTRODUCCIN A LA PRAGMTICA, Madrid - Espaa.250pp. MIRANDA, Luis. 1993. LINGSTICA GENERAL, Lima -Per REYES, Graciela and BAENA Elisa. 2000. EJERCICIOS DE PRAGMATICA II, Madrid Espaa. 177pp.

NOTES 1- George Lakoff , mark Johnson (university of Chicago , 1980).p.8 2- George Lakoff , mark Johnson (university of Chicago , 1980).p.8 3- George Lakoff , mark Johnson (university of Chicago , 1980).p.11 4- George Lakoff , mark Johnson (university of Chicago , 1980).p.11 5- Zoltn Kvecses, introduction to metaphors (Oxford University, 2010).p.4 6- George Lakoff , mark Johnson (university of Chicago , 1980).p.8