This research discusses The Use of Figurative Languages on the Students’ Poetry Semester V at FKIP Universitas HKBP Nommensen. The problems of this research are (1) what types of figurative language used on the students’ poetry semester V at FKIP Universitas HKBP Nommensen Medan? (2) what figurative language is dominantly used on the students’ poetry  semester V at FKIP Universitas HKBP Nommensen Medan? The objectives of this research are to find out types of figurative language used on the students’ poetry semester V at FKIP Universitas HKBP Nommensen Medan and to figure out and analyze what figurative language is dominantly used on the students’ poetry  semester V at FKIP Universitas HKBP Nommensen Medan?To find out the answer of the problem in this research, the writer uses the related theories; they are Quinn (1982), McDonough and Shaw (1993), Gluckberg (2001), Alm-Arvius (2003), Lazar (2003), Ratumanan and Laurens (2003), Brown (2004), Harmer (2004), Heller (2006), Picken (2007), Keraf (2009), Creswell (2009), Arikunto (2010), Arnold and Von Hollander (2011), Dalman (2012), Dancygier and Sweetser (2014). This research is conducted with descriptive qualitative research where the subject and object is taken from the students’ poetry. The writer gets the data by observation and documenting. After the data had been collected, the writer finds out three types of figurative language on the students’ poetry: symbol, metaphors and personifications. In teaching poetry, every teacher needs to call upon a number of techniques and methods. If teachers of poetry disagree on the methods of teaching a certain poet, they must agree on goals: To put their students in touch with the mind of that poet. No doubt, it is known for every one that good poetry lessons occur in classrooms where young people are guided by responsive teachers who implement as well as they plan.

Keywords: Figurative language, poetry, language

Alm-Arvius, C. (2003). Figures of speech. Sweden: Studentlitteratur AB.

Arikunto, S. (2010). Prosedur penelitian: Suatu pendekatan praktik. Jakarta: PT Rineka Cipta.

Arnold, E., & Von Hollander, E. (2011). Love letters. New York: Plough Publishing House.

Brewbaker, J. (2005). Fifty-five teachers, poems in hand, approach the cruelest month. English Journal, 94(4), 18-22.

Brown, D. (2004). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy. San Francisco: Pearson Education.

Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. (Third Edition). London: Sage Publication, Inc.

Dalman, H. (2012). Keterampilan menulis. Jakarta: PT Raja Grafindo Persada.

Dancygier, B. and Sweetser, E. (2014). Figurative languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Deedari, R., & Mansouri, M. (2004). Understanding poetry. Tehran: Rahnama Publication.

Gluckberg, S. (2001). Understanding figurative language: From metaphors to idiom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Harmer, J. (2004). How to teach writing. London: Pearson Education Limited.

Heller, M. (2006). Linguistic minorities and modernity: Second Edition. London: British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data.

Keraf, G. (2009). Diksi dan gaya bahasa. Jakarta: PT Gramedia Pustaka Utama.

Lazar, G. (2003). Meaning and metaphors. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

McDonough, J. and Shaw, C. (1993). Materials and methods in ELT: A teachers’ guide. Oxford: Blackwell.

Picken, D. J. (2007). Literature, metaphor and the foreign language learner. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Quinn, A. (1982). Figures of speech: 60 ways to turn a phrase. Layton: Gibbs Smith Publisher.

Ratumanan, T. G., & Laurens, T. (2003). Evaluasi hasil belajar yang relevan dengan kurikulum berbasis kompetensi. Surabaya: Unesa University Press.

Sayakhan, N. I. (2019). The use of personification and apostrophe as facilitators in teaching poetry. Journal of Language Studies مجلة بحوث اللغات Mağallaẗ buḥūṯ al-luġaẗ, 1(4), 98-106.