學術產出-學位論文
文章檢視/開啟
書目匯出
-
題名 隱喻及轉喻對英語為外語學習者之教學成效：以情緒語言為例
The effects of teaching EFL learners metaphor and metonymy: With reference to emotion expressions作者 陳怡蓁
Chen, Yi Chen貢獻者 賴惠玲
Lai, Huei Ling
陳怡蓁
Chen, Yi Chen關鍵詞 隱喻
轉喻
譬喻能力
概念引喻
隱喻映射
文化普同性及差異性
Metaphor
Metonymy
Metaphoric competence
Conceptual metaphor
Metaphoric mapping
Cultural universality and specificity日期 2011 上傳時間 4-九月-2013 14:48:02 (UTC+8) 摘要 隱喻及轉喻被廣泛的使用在日常生活語言中。認知語言學主張：隱喻及轉喻實為人類思想與溝通的中心。因此，語言學習者必須具備覺察及理解用以表示抽象概念的隱喻及轉喻用語的能力。然而，因為語言及文化的顯著差異，第二語言學習者在發展溝通能力時，也應培養譬喻能力。 許多學者提出各式教學方法。現存文獻中，使用以概念引喻為主的教學方式，著重於點出用以對比的兩者間之相對特徵，已獲得實驗證實能提升語言學習者之覺察能力、理解能力、及記憶力。然而此教學方法忽略了語言文化間的差異填補，亦輕忽了轉喻的重要性。另一方面，使用隱喻映射為主的教學方式，能藉由實體映射及知識映射有系統條理的闡述用以對比的兩者間之對照關係，不僅有助於彌補因文化不同而造成的認知差異，亦將轉喻與譬喻視為同等重要。因而以隱喻映射為主的教學方式被認為是具備潛力的教學方法，但仍缺少實證。 本論文旨在以實證方式，研究以概念引喻及以隱喻映射為主的兩種教學方式對於以英語為外語學習者在覺察能力、理解能力、及記憶力之學習成效。共有115位、分別來自一般大學及科技大學之大學一年級學生參與本實驗。參與者分成兩組，分別接受兩種教學方式。實驗分兩週進行：第一週先完成電腦化的譬喻能力測驗之前測，接著進行教學，第二週則進行電腦化的譬喻能力測驗之後測。測驗之結果則經由量化及質化方式進行分析。 實驗結果發現：兩種教學方式均對於參與者在覺察能力、理解能力、及記憶力有正面成效。然而儘接受以隱喻映射為主之教學方式的參與者在覺察能力測驗中獲得顯著進步，特別是對於不包含體驗性描述的轉喻性隱喻及隱喻用語，表現尤佳。至於理解力測驗部分，以隱喻映射為主之教學方式對於解讀含有文化差異性的用語特別有助益。另一方面，相較兩組教學方式的表現成果而言，以隱喻映射為主之教學方式造成參與者的學習成果呈現較一致且穩固的成長。總而言之，以隱喻映射為主之教學方式因為提供了具結構性、系統性及邏輯性的映射過程，而促進學習者較容易覺察包含抽象概念的譬喻用語，克服因文化差異性而造成的理解困難，及獲致較穩固的學習成長。 本研究為以英語為外語學習者在學習譬喻用語—包含隱喻及轉喻—上提供了三點貢獻。其一，透過學習者培養譬喻能力之實驗成果，直接教學方式對於第二語言習得的效益再次獲得證實。其二，本實驗成果顯示：轉喻與隱喻實為密不可分的兩種概念，在教學過程中應把轉喻列為與隱喻一樣重要。其三，學習者的中介語包含了語言的普同性及差異性概念，因此應被視為連續體而非階段性結構；在設計教學教材時，應把此連續體的概念併入考量。總結而言，本實驗的成果不只在應用語言學領域提出見解，亦在第二語言習得領域有所貢獻。
Metaphor and metonymy, pervasively found in everyday language, has been shown by cognitive linguistic research to lie at the heart of human thought and communication. Thus, ability to notice and comprehend metaphoric and metonymic expressions in expressing abstract concepts is indispensible for language users. However, since languages and cultures vary in a wide array of ways to employ metaphor and metonymy, L2 learners should develop metaphoric competence along with communicative competence. Various methods to develop L2 learners’ metaphoric competence have been proposed. In the extant literature, instruction involving conceptual metaphors (CM), which focuses on correspondences of general traits, has been proved effective in raising learners’ awareness, comprehension, and retention for Hungarian and Dutch EFL learners. Its effectiveness in Chinese speaking context is worth attested empirically. On the other hand, metaphoric mappings, which illustrate both ontological mappings and epistemic mappings of two concepts in more systematic and detailed manners, offer a promising method for EFL language learning. Hence, instruction involving metaphoric mappings (MM) is assumed to be more effective than instruction of CM. The effectiveness of such a method is also worth attested empirically. The present study aimed to test the effects of CM and MM on EFL learners’ awareness, comprehension, and retention of metaphoric and metonymic expressions with empirical evidence from a carefully-designed experiment. Finer-grained analyses on three important issues were provided: first, an in-depth examination of the intricate interaction of metonymy and metaphor as a continuum, and its influences on figurative language learning was conducted. Second, cultural universality and specificity among languages and the different degrees of difficulties for EFL learners in transferring expressions between L2 and L1 were also investigated. Third, whether structural and logical mappings between languages and cultures could assist learners to better grasp abstract concepts was examined. The participants included 115 Taiwanese EFL learners, who were freshmen of a general university and a four-year technological university. The English proficiency of the former group was high-intermediate and that of the latter was low-intermediate. The experiment contained three phases: pre-teaching, teaching and post-teaching. The participants were divided into two sub-groups: one received instruction involving CM, and the other received instruction involving MM. They were asked to complete the computerized metaphoric competence test before and after receiving instructions. The results of the tests were collected and analyzed both quantitatively and qualitatively. The results showed that both instructions could lead to better awareness, comprehension, and retention. However, only the participants of the MM groups performed significantly better in the posttest regarding the Awareness Test, especially in finding metonymic-metaphoric and metaphoric expressions that contained no bodily descriptions, the two categories which were considered the most abstract among the expressions. Regarding the Comprehension Test, MM instruction was found to be especially beneficial for the participants in interpreting expressions involving cultural-specific conceptual metaphors. Moreover, MM instruction resulted in convergent effects in the participants’ performances and led toward relatively more consistent and steady progress. To conclude, MM instruction, with its structural, systematic, and logical mapping processes, was found to be especially helpful in facilitating learners’ awareness of expressions involving more abstract concepts, overcoming difficulties caused by cultural specificity, and leading to longer-term effects on retention. The present study sheds light on the application of metaphor and metonymy to EFL teaching and learning of figurative language in three aspects. First, that explicit instructions on second language acquisition carry beneficial effects is validated for the development of learners’ metaphoric competence in the target language. In addition, metonymy is suggested as equally important as metaphor, and should be included in EFL language learning programs. Moreover, that learners’ interlanguage system is a continuum encompassing expressions with universal and specific cultural characteristics is also validated. Therefore, designs of EFL teaching materials are suggested to take such a continuum into consideration. In brief, the results of the study contribute not only to applied linguistics but also to second language acquisition.參考文獻 Ahrens, K. (2002). When love is not digested: Underlying reasons for source to target domain pairing in the contemporary theory of metaphor. In YuChau E. Hsiao (Ed.), Proceeding of the first cognitive linguistics conference (pp. 273-302). Taipei: National Cheng-Chi University.Al-Haq, F. A., & El-Sharif, A. (2008). A comparative study for the metaphors use in happiness and anger in English and Arabic. US-China Foreign Language, 6(11), 1-19. Ammar, A., Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (2010). Awareness of L1/L2 differences: does it matter? Language Awareness, 19(2), 129-146. Ausubel, D. (1963). The psychology of meaningful verbal learning. New York: Grune & Stratton. Ausubel, D. (1968). Educational psychology: A cognitive view. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Bachman, L. F. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language Testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Barcelona, A. (Ed.). (2000). Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads: A cognitive perspective. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Barcelona, A. (2001). On the systematic contrastive analysis of conceptual metaphors: Case studies and proposed methodology. In M. Putz, S. Niemeier & R. Dirven (Eds.), Applied cognitive linguistics II: Language pedagogy (pp.117-146). Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1999). Exploring the interlanguage of interlanguage pragmatics: A research agenda for acquisitional pragmatics. Language Learning, 49, 677-713.Barnden, J. A. (2010). Metaphor and metonymy: Making their connections more slippery. Cognitive Linguistics, 21(1), 1-34. Berlin, B., & Kay, P. (1969). Basic color terms: Their universality and evolution. Berkeley: University of California Press.Black, M. (1962). Models and metaphors: Studies in language and philosophy. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Black, M. (1993). More about metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (2nd ed., pp.19-41). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Bloomfield, L. (1942). Outline guide for the practical study of foreign languages. Baltimore: Linguistic Society of America.Boers, F. (2000a). Enhancing metaphoric awareness in specialised reading. English for Specific Purposes, 19, 137-147. Boers, F. (2000b). Metaphor awareness and vocabulary retention. Applied Linguistics, 21, 553-571. Boers, F. (2001). Remembering figurative idioms by hypothesising about their origins. Prospect, 16, 35-43.Boers, F. (2004). Expanding learners’ vocabulary through metaphor awareness: What expansion, what learners, what vocabulary? In M. Achard & S. Niemeier, (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics, second language acquisition, and foreign language teaching (pp. 211-232). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Boers, F., & Littlemore, J. (2000). Cognitive style variables in participants’ explanations of conceptual metaphors. Metaphor and Symbol, 15(3), 177-187. Boers, F., & Demecheleer, M. (2001). Measuring the impact of cross-cultural differences on learners` comprehension of imageable idioms. ELT Journal, 55(3), 255-62. Retrieved Oct 26, 2009, from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/55/3/Boers, F., Demecheleer, M. & Eyckmans J. (2004). Etymological elaboration as a strategy for learning figurative idioms. In P. Bogaards & B. Laufer. (Eds.), Vocabulary in a second language: Selection, acquisition and testing (pp.53-78). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Boers, F., & Lindstromberg, S. (2006) Cognitive linguistic applications in second or foreign language instruction: rationale, proposals, and evaluation. In G. Kristiansen, M. Achard, R. Dirven & F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics: Current applications and future perspective (pp.305-355). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Boers, F., Eyckmans, J., & Stengers, H. (2007). Presenting figurative idioms with a touch of etymology: more than mere mnemonics? Language Teaching Research, 11(1), 43-62.Boers, F. & H. Stengers (2008) Adding sound to the picture: An exercise in motivating the lexical composition of metaphorical idioms in English, Spanish and Dutch. In L. Cameron, M. Zanotto & M. Cavalcanti (Eds.), Confronting metaphor in use: An applied linguistic approach, 63-78. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Brown, D. (2000). Principles of language learning and teaching (4th ed.). NY: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.Chen, Yi-chen (2010). Teaching idioms in an EFL context: The past, the present, and a promising teaching method. Proceeding of the 27th International Conference on English Teaching and Learning in R.O.C. (ROC-TEFL 2010), 182-193. Kaohsiung, Taiwan: Crane Publishing Co.Chen, Yi-chen & Lai, Huei-ling (In Press). EFL learners’ awareness of metonymy–metaphor continuum in figurative expression. Language Awareness. Chomsky, H. (1957). Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton.Chung, Siaw-Fong & Ahrens, K. (2004). Teaching Economy Metaphors: A Psycholinguistic Perspective through the CMM. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Symposium and Book Fair on English Teaching. Taipei, Taiwan: English Teachers Association.College Entrance Examination Center. (2002). 大考中心高中英文參考辭彙表. Retrieved October 7, 2010, from http://www.ceec.edu.tw/Research/ResearchList.htm College Entrance Examination Center. (2010a). 95-99學年度學科能力測驗各科成績標準一覽表. Retrieved October 7, 2010, from http://www.ceec.edu.tw/AbilityExam/AbilityExamStat/99SATStat/99SAT_stat_27.xls College Entrance Examination Center. (2010b). 九十九學年度指定科目考試各科成績標準一覽表. Retrieved October 7, 2010, from http://www.ceec.edu.tw/AppointExam/AppointExamStat/99DrseStat/99DRSE_stat_21.xls Corder, S. P. (1967). The significance of learners’ errors. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 5, 161-169.Corder, S. P. (1977). Simple codes and the source of the learner’s initial heuristic hypothesis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 1, 1-10. Danesi, M. (1993). Metaphorical competence in second language acquisition and second language teaching: The neglected dimension. In J. E. Alatis (Ed.), Language, communication, and social meaning (pp.489-500) [Electronic version]. Retrieved November 26, 2009, from http://books.google.com.tw/books?id=C5mZ-4N1xYwC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Language,+communication,+and+social+meaning&ei=zyIOS4WxBpX6lQTbrfzSCw#v=onepage&q=Danesi&f=false Davies, A. (2003). The native speaker: Myth and reality. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Davies, A. (2006). The native speaker in applied linguistics. In A. Davis, & C. Elder (Eds.), The handbook of applied linguistics (pp. 431-450). Oxford: Blackwell Pub. Deignan, A., Gabrys, D. & Solska, A. (1997). Teaching English metaphors using cross-linguistic awareness-raising activities. ELT Journal, 51(4), 352-60.Dobrovolʹskiĭ, D. O., & Piirainen, E. (2005). Figurative language: Cross-cultural and cross-linguistic perspectives. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier Science.Dong, Y. (2004). Don`t keep them in the dark! Teaching metaphors to English language learners. English Journal, 93(4), 29-35. Retrieved February 4, 2009, from http://www.ncte.org/library/NCTEFiles/Resources/Journals/EJ/0934-mar04/EJ0934Dont.pdf Ellis, N. (2006a). Cognitive perspectives on SLA. AILA Review, 19, 100–121.Ellis, N. (2006b). Language acquisition as rational contingency learning. Applied Linguistics, 27(1), 1–24.Ellis, R. (2002). The study of second language acquisition (9th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Fainsilber, L., & Ortony, A. (1987). Metaphorical uses of language in the expressions of emotions. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 2(4), 239-250.Gardner, H., Kircher, M., Winner, E., & Perkins, D. (1974). Children’s metaphoric productions and preferences. Journal of Child Language, 2, 125-141. Gass, S., & Selinker, L. (2001). Second language acquisition: An introductory course (2nd ed.). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.General English Proficiency Test. (2010). Retrieved October 1, 2010 from https://www.gept.org.tw/index.asp Gibbs, R. W. (1999). Speaking and thinking with metonymy. In K. Panther, & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (pp.61-76). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Gibbs, R. W. (2006). Embodiment and cognitive science. New York: Cambridge University Press.Gibbs, R. W., Costa Lima, P. L., & Francuzo, E. (2004). Metaphor is grounded in embodied experience. Journal of Pragmatics, 36(7), 1189-1210.Goossens, L. (1990). Metaphonymy: The interaction of metaphor and metonymy in expressions for linguistic action. Cognitive Linguistics, 1, 323-340.Jakobson, R. (2003). The metaphoric and metonymic poles. In R. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.). Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp. 41-47). Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Johnson, M. (1987). The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Johnson, J., & Rosano, T. (1993). Relation of cognitive style to metaphor interpretation and second language proficiency. Applied Psycholinguistics, 14, 159-175.Kellerman, E. (1977). Towards a characterization of the strategy of transfer in second language learning. Interlanguage Studies Bulletin, 2, 58-145. Kellerman, E. (1979). Transfer and non-transfer: Where are we now? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 2, 37-57.Kellerman, E. (1995). Cross linguistic influence: transfer to nowhere? Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 41(3), 251–69.King, B. (1989) The conceptual structure of emotional experience in Chinese. Columbus: Ohio State University.Kogan, N. (1983). Stylistic variation in childhood and adolescence: Creativity, metaphor, and cognitive styles. In J H. Ravel1 & E. M. Markman (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology (Vol.3, 4th ed., pp. 695-706). New York: Wiley.Kövecses, Z. (1986). Metaphors of anger, pride, and love: A lexical approach to the structure of concepts. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: J. Benjamins. Kövecses, Z. (1990). Emotion concepts. New York: Springer Verlag.Kövecses, Z. (1991). Happiness: A definitional effort. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 6, 29-46.Kövecses, Z. (2000a). The concept of anger: Universal or culture specific? Psychopathology, 33(4), 159-170. Kövecses, Z. (2000b). Metaphor and emotion: Language, culture, and body in human feeling. Cambridge, U.K.; New York: Cambridge University Press.Kövecses, Z. (2001). A cognitive linguistic view of learning idioms in an FLT context. In M. Pütz, S. Niemeier & R. Dirven (Eds.), Applied cognitive linguistics II: Language pedagogy (pp. 87-115). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Kövecses, Z. (2005). Metaphor in culture: Universality and variation. Cambridge, U.K.; New York: Cambridge University Press.Lado, R. (1957). Linguistics across cultures. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Lai, Huei-ling, & Chen, Yi-chen (2010, April 15-17). The Effects of EFL Learners’ Application of Metaphor and Metonymy in Learning and Retaining Emotion Expressions. Paper presented at the 2010 International Conference on Applied Linguistics & Language Teaching (ALLT), National Taiwan University of Science and Technology, Taipei, Taiwan.Lakoff, G. (1987). Woman, fire, and dangerous thing: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago, London: University of Chicago Press. Lakoff, G. (1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp.202-251). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Lakoff, G. (2006). The contemporary theory of metaphor. In D. Geeraerts (Ed.), Cognitive linguistics: Basic readings (pp.185-238). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Lakoff, G., & Kövecses, Z. (1987). The cognitive model of anger inherent in American English. In D. Holland & Q. Naomi (Eds.), Cultural models in language and thought (pp. 195-221). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar, Volume one: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Langacker, R. W. (1991). Foundations of cognitive grammar, Volume two: Descriptive applications. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Langacker, R. W. (1993). Reference-point constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 4(1), 1-38. Lantolf, J. P. (1999). Second culture acquisition: cognitive considerations. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Culture in second language teaching and learning (pp. 28-46). New York: Cambridge University Press.Laufer, B. (1997). What’s in a word that makes it hard or easy: Some intralexical factors that affect learning of words. In N. Schmitt & M. McMarthy (Eds.), Vocabulary, description, acquisition and pedagogy (pp. 140-155). Cambridge: CUP.Lazar, G. (2003). Meaning and metaphor: Activities to practice figurative language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Levenston, E. (1971). Over-indulgence and under-representation: Aspects of mother tongue interference. In G. Nickel (Eds.), Papers in contrastive analysis, 115-121.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Li, C., & Cheng, J. (2007). Metaphor Competence for Second Language Learners. Sino-US English Teaching, 4(2), 8-10. Retrieved October 26, 2009, from http://www.linguist.org.cn/doc/su200702/su20070202.pdf Littlemore, J. (1998). Individual Differences in Second Language Learning: Towards an Identification of the Strategy Preferences and Language Learning Strengths of L2 Students with Holistic and/or Imager Cognitive Styles (Doctoral dissertation, Thames Valley University).Littlemore, J. (2001). Metaphoric competence: a possible language learning strength of students with a holistic cognitive style? TESOL Quarterly, 35(3), 459-491.Littlemore, J. (2009). Applying cognitive linguistics to second language learning and teaching. UK: Palgrave Macmillan.Littlemore, J., & Low, G. (2006). Metaphoric competence, second language learning, and communicative language ability. Applied Linguistics, 2(27), 268-294.Long, M. H. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In De Bot, K., Ginsberg, R. B., & Kramsch, C. (Eds.), Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspective (pp. 39-52). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Low, G. (1988). On teaching metaphor. Applied Linguistics, 9(2), 125-147. Retrieved February 4, 2009, from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/9/2/125McCallum, G. P. (1970). Idiom drills: For students of English as a second language. New York: Crowell.McCallum, G. P. (1978). More idiom drills for students of English as a second language. New York: Crowell. MacWhinney, B. (2005). Extending the Competition Model. International Journal of Bilingualism, 9(7), 69-84. Retrieved April 8, 2011, from http://psyling.psy.cmu.edu/papers/years/2005/ijb.pdf MacWhinney, B., Bates, E., & Kliegl, R. (1984). Cue validity and sentence interpretation in English, German, and Italian. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 23, 127-150.Matsuki, K. (1995). Metaphors of anger in Japanese. In J. Taylor and R. Maclaury (Eds.), Language and the cognitive construal of the world (pp.137-151). Berlin: Gruyter.Miller, G. (1993). Images and models, similes, and metaphors. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (2nd ed., pp.357-400). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Minister of Education. (2004). 國內英語能力檢測比較參考表. Retrieved October 8, 2010, from http://www.cambridge.org.tw/English_Proficiency_Tests_Comparison_Table.pdf Nandy, M. (1994). English expressions with idioms, prepositions and metaphors. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: S. Abdul Majeed & Co.Odlin, T. (1989). Language transfer: Cross-linguistic influence in language learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Odlin, T. (2005). Crosslinguistic influence and conceptual transfer: What are the concepts? Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 25, 3–25.O’Malley, J. M, & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Leaning strategies in second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Ortony, A. (1975). Why metaphors necessary and not just nice. Educational Theory, 25, 45-53. Retrieved October 26, 2009, from http://www.cs.northwestern.edu/~ortony/Andrew%20Ortony_files/Why%20metaphors%20necessary.pdf Panther, K., & Radden, G. (Eds.) (1999). Metonymy in language and thought. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Pica, T., Young, R., & Doughty, C. (1987). The impact of interaction on comprehension. TESOL Quarterly, 21(4), 737-758. Pollio, H. R., Barlow, J. M., Fine, H. J., & Pollio, M. R. (1977). Psychology and the poetics of growth: Figurative language in psychology, psychotherapy, and education. Hillsdale: Erlbaum, 1977.Pollio, H. R., & Smith, M. K. (1979). Sense and nonsense in thinking about anomaly and metaphor. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 13, 323-326.Radden, G. (2003). How metonymic are metaphors? In R. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp. 407-434). Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Radden, G., & Kövecses, Z. (1999). Towards a theory of metonymy. In K. Panther & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (pp.17-60). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Richards, J. C., Platt, J., & Platt, H. (1998). Longman dictionary of language teaching and applied linguistics (English-Chinese edition). Hong Kong: Longman.Ringbom, H. (1987). The role of the first language in foreign language learning. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.Ringbom, H. (1992). On L1 Transfer in L2 Comprehension and L2 Production. Language Learning, 42(1), 85-112. Sági, O. (2002). Translating metaphors in literature from English to Hungarian: A case study of Nabokov’s Lolita. Term paper, Department of American Studies, Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest. Savignon, S. J. (1971). A study of the effect of training in communicative skills as part of a beginning college French course on student attitude and achievement in linguistic and communicative competence (Doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign).Savignon, S. J. (2005). Communicative language teaching: Strategies and goals. In E. Hinkle (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp.635-652). New York: McGraw Hill.Seitz, J. A. (1997). The development of metaphoric understanding: Implications for a theory of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 10(4), 347-353. Retrieved April 6, 2011, from http://pdfserve.informaworld.com/570249__790767489.pdf Schachter, J. (1974). An error in error analysis. Language Learning, 24, 205-214.Schmidt, R. W. (1990). The Role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129-158. doi: 10.1093/applin/11.2.129 Shinohara, K., & Matsunaka, Y. (2009) Pictorial metaphors of emotion in Japanese comics. In C. J. Forceville & U. Eduardo (Eds.), Multimodal metaphor (pp.265-296). Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Skinner, B.F. (1957). Verbal learning. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Skoufaki, S. (2005). Use of conceptual metaphors: A strategy for the guessing of an idiom`s meaning. In M. Mattheoudakis & A. Psaltou-Joycey (Eds.), Selected papers on theoretical and applied linguistics from the 16th international symposium (pp. 542-556). Thessaloniki: Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. Soriano, C. (2003). Some anger metaphors in Spanish and English: A contrastive review. International Study of English Study, 3(2), 107-122. Retrieved June 28, 2008, from http://www.um.es/ijes/vol3n2/06-Soriano.pdfTaylor, R. J. (1995). Linguistic categorization: Prototypes in linguistic theory (2nd ed.). Oxford: Claredon Press.Taylor, R. J. (2003). Category extension by metonymy and metaphor. In R. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.). Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp. 323-347). Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Test Center of Technological & Vocational Education. (2010a). 99學年度四技二專統一入學測驗各單科成績統計：平均值、前標、後標、標準差. Retrieved October 8, 2010, from http://www.tcte.edu.tw/four/99_4y/99-4y-GradeStand.pdf Test Center of Technological & Vocational Education. (2010b). 99學年度四技二專統一入學測驗-各單科原始成績組距. Retrieved October 8, 2010, from http://www.tcte.edu.tw/four/99_4y/99-4y-Grade-00.pdf Tomasello, M. (1995). Joint attention as social cognition. In C. Moore, & P. Dunham (Eds.), Joint attention: Its origins and role in development (pp.103-130). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Tomasello, M. (2006). Usage-based linguistics. In D. Geeraerts (Ed.), Cognitive linguistics: Basic readings (pp.439-458). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Ungerer, F., & Schmid, H. (2006). An introduction to cognitive linguistics (2nd ed.). Brittan: Person Longman.Verspoor, M., & Lowie, W. (2003). Making sense of polysemous words. Language learning, 53(3), 547-586. Weinreich, U. (1953). Languages in contact. The Hague: Mouton.Yu, N. (1995). Metaphorical expressions of anger and happiness in English and Chinese. Metaphor and Symbol, 10(2), 59-92. Retrieved June 28, 2008, from http://faculty-staff.ou.edu/Y/Ning.Yu-1/Yu-1995.pdfYu, N. (1998). The contemporary theory of metaphor: A perspective from Chinese. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: J. Benjamin. 描述 博士
國立政治大學
英國語文學研究所
95551506
100資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0095551506 資料類型 thesis dc.contributor.advisor 賴惠玲 zh_TW dc.contributor.advisor Lai, Huei Ling en_US dc.contributor.author (作者) 陳怡蓁 zh_TW dc.contributor.author (作者) Chen, Yi Chen en_US dc.creator (作者) 陳怡蓁 zh_TW dc.creator (作者) Chen, Yi Chen en_US dc.date (日期) 2011 en_US dc.date.accessioned 4-九月-2013 14:48:02 (UTC+8) - dc.date.available 4-九月-2013 14:48:02 (UTC+8) - dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 4-九月-2013 14:48:02 (UTC+8) - dc.identifier (其他 識別碼) G0095551506 en_US dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/60011 - dc.description (描述) 博士 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 英國語文學研究所 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 95551506 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 100 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) 隱喻及轉喻被廣泛的使用在日常生活語言中。認知語言學主張：隱喻及轉喻實為人類思想與溝通的中心。因此，語言學習者必須具備覺察及理解用以表示抽象概念的隱喻及轉喻用語的能力。然而，因為語言及文化的顯著差異，第二語言學習者在發展溝通能力時，也應培養譬喻能力。 許多學者提出各式教學方法。現存文獻中，使用以概念引喻為主的教學方式，著重於點出用以對比的兩者間之相對特徵，已獲得實驗證實能提升語言學習者之覺察能力、理解能力、及記憶力。然而此教學方法忽略了語言文化間的差異填補，亦輕忽了轉喻的重要性。另一方面，使用隱喻映射為主的教學方式，能藉由實體映射及知識映射有系統條理的闡述用以對比的兩者間之對照關係，不僅有助於彌補因文化不同而造成的認知差異，亦將轉喻與譬喻視為同等重要。因而以隱喻映射為主的教學方式被認為是具備潛力的教學方法，但仍缺少實證。 本論文旨在以實證方式，研究以概念引喻及以隱喻映射為主的兩種教學方式對於以英語為外語學習者在覺察能力、理解能力、及記憶力之學習成效。共有115位、分別來自一般大學及科技大學之大學一年級學生參與本實驗。參與者分成兩組，分別接受兩種教學方式。實驗分兩週進行：第一週先完成電腦化的譬喻能力測驗之前測，接著進行教學，第二週則進行電腦化的譬喻能力測驗之後測。測驗之結果則經由量化及質化方式進行分析。 實驗結果發現：兩種教學方式均對於參與者在覺察能力、理解能力、及記憶力有正面成效。然而儘接受以隱喻映射為主之教學方式的參與者在覺察能力測驗中獲得顯著進步，特別是對於不包含體驗性描述的轉喻性隱喻及隱喻用語，表現尤佳。至於理解力測驗部分，以隱喻映射為主之教學方式對於解讀含有文化差異性的用語特別有助益。另一方面，相較兩組教學方式的表現成果而言，以隱喻映射為主之教學方式造成參與者的學習成果呈現較一致且穩固的成長。總而言之，以隱喻映射為主之教學方式因為提供了具結構性、系統性及邏輯性的映射過程，而促進學習者較容易覺察包含抽象概念的譬喻用語，克服因文化差異性而造成的理解困難，及獲致較穩固的學習成長。 本研究為以英語為外語學習者在學習譬喻用語—包含隱喻及轉喻—上提供了三點貢獻。其一，透過學習者培養譬喻能力之實驗成果，直接教學方式對於第二語言習得的效益再次獲得證實。其二，本實驗成果顯示：轉喻與隱喻實為密不可分的兩種概念，在教學過程中應把轉喻列為與隱喻一樣重要。其三，學習者的中介語包含了語言的普同性及差異性概念，因此應被視為連續體而非階段性結構；在設計教學教材時，應把此連續體的概念併入考量。總結而言，本實驗的成果不只在應用語言學領域提出見解，亦在第二語言習得領域有所貢獻。 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) Metaphor and metonymy, pervasively found in everyday language, has been shown by cognitive linguistic research to lie at the heart of human thought and communication. Thus, ability to notice and comprehend metaphoric and metonymic expressions in expressing abstract concepts is indispensible for language users. However, since languages and cultures vary in a wide array of ways to employ metaphor and metonymy, L2 learners should develop metaphoric competence along with communicative competence. Various methods to develop L2 learners’ metaphoric competence have been proposed. In the extant literature, instruction involving conceptual metaphors (CM), which focuses on correspondences of general traits, has been proved effective in raising learners’ awareness, comprehension, and retention for Hungarian and Dutch EFL learners. Its effectiveness in Chinese speaking context is worth attested empirically. On the other hand, metaphoric mappings, which illustrate both ontological mappings and epistemic mappings of two concepts in more systematic and detailed manners, offer a promising method for EFL language learning. Hence, instruction involving metaphoric mappings (MM) is assumed to be more effective than instruction of CM. The effectiveness of such a method is also worth attested empirically. The present study aimed to test the effects of CM and MM on EFL learners’ awareness, comprehension, and retention of metaphoric and metonymic expressions with empirical evidence from a carefully-designed experiment. Finer-grained analyses on three important issues were provided: first, an in-depth examination of the intricate interaction of metonymy and metaphor as a continuum, and its influences on figurative language learning was conducted. Second, cultural universality and specificity among languages and the different degrees of difficulties for EFL learners in transferring expressions between L2 and L1 were also investigated. Third, whether structural and logical mappings between languages and cultures could assist learners to better grasp abstract concepts was examined. The participants included 115 Taiwanese EFL learners, who were freshmen of a general university and a four-year technological university. The English proficiency of the former group was high-intermediate and that of the latter was low-intermediate. The experiment contained three phases: pre-teaching, teaching and post-teaching. The participants were divided into two sub-groups: one received instruction involving CM, and the other received instruction involving MM. They were asked to complete the computerized metaphoric competence test before and after receiving instructions. The results of the tests were collected and analyzed both quantitatively and qualitatively. The results showed that both instructions could lead to better awareness, comprehension, and retention. However, only the participants of the MM groups performed significantly better in the posttest regarding the Awareness Test, especially in finding metonymic-metaphoric and metaphoric expressions that contained no bodily descriptions, the two categories which were considered the most abstract among the expressions. Regarding the Comprehension Test, MM instruction was found to be especially beneficial for the participants in interpreting expressions involving cultural-specific conceptual metaphors. Moreover, MM instruction resulted in convergent effects in the participants’ performances and led toward relatively more consistent and steady progress. To conclude, MM instruction, with its structural, systematic, and logical mapping processes, was found to be especially helpful in facilitating learners’ awareness of expressions involving more abstract concepts, overcoming difficulties caused by cultural specificity, and leading to longer-term effects on retention. The present study sheds light on the application of metaphor and metonymy to EFL teaching and learning of figurative language in three aspects. First, that explicit instructions on second language acquisition carry beneficial effects is validated for the development of learners’ metaphoric competence in the target language. In addition, metonymy is suggested as equally important as metaphor, and should be included in EFL language learning programs. Moreover, that learners’ interlanguage system is a continuum encompassing expressions with universal and specific cultural characteristics is also validated. Therefore, designs of EFL teaching materials are suggested to take such a continuum into consideration. In brief, the results of the study contribute not only to applied linguistics but also to second language acquisition. en_US dc.description.tableofcontents TABLE OF CONTENTSAcknowledgement iiiChinese Abstract xEnglish Abstract xiiCHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1Background of the Study 1Motivations of the Study 3Current Trend of Language Acquisition Theory 3Cultural Similarities and Specificities for L2 Learners 5Importance and Pervasiveness of Metonymy 6Definition of Terms 8 Figurative Expressions 8 Metaphoric Competence 8Rationales of the Study and Research Questions 12Significance of the Study 15Organization of the Present Study 17CHAPTER 2 THEORETICAL BACKGROUND AND RESEARCH HYPOTHESES 19Metaphor and Metonymy 19 Metaphor Theories 19 Metonymy Theories 22 Relationship between Metaphor and Metonymy 23Metaphor and Metonymy of Emotions 24 Metaphor and Metonymy of Anger 25 Metaphoric Metonymy and Metonymic Metaphor of Anger 27 Metaphor and Metonymy of Happiness 29 Metaphoric Metonymy and Metonymic Metaphor of Happiness 30 Metonymy-Metaphor Continuum of Anger and Happiness 32Metaphor and Metonymy of Emotions in Other Languages 33 Metaphor and Metonymy of Anger in Chinese 34 Metaphor and Metonymy of Happiness in Chinese 38Universality and Specificity 41 Possible Relations of Metaphoric and Metonymic Expressions across Languages 42 Possible Relations of Metaphoric and Metonymic Expressions in English and Chinese 44Learning Metaphor and Metonymy in L2 Context 46 Cognitive Linguistic Viewpoints on Second Language Acquisition 50 Teaching Figurative Language through Awareness-Raising Activities 51 Comprising Teaching Method for L2 learners 55Rationales and Hypotheses 57CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY 65Pilot Studies 65Pilot Study I 65Pilot Study II 69Pilot Study III 74Main Study 79 Rationales of Research Design 79 Participants 83 Instruments 88 Procedures 95 Data Collection and Analysis 99CHAPTER 4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 101Results of the Awareness Test 101 Ability to Recognize Metaphors and Metonymies 102 Ability to Recognize Metaphors and Metonymies on the Continuum 112 Ability to Recognize Metaphors and Metonymies with Bodily Descriptions 115Summary of the Results of the Awareness Test 121Discussions of the Awareness Test 122 Individual Differences on Cognitive Style 122 Individual Differences on Proficiency Level 124Results of the Comprehension Test 126 Inter-rater reliability 126 Ability to Comprehend Metaphors and Metonymies 127 Ability to Comprehend Metaphors and Metonymies of Different Possibilities 130Qualitative Analyses of the Comprehension Test 133 Sentences Belonging to Possibility One 133 Sentences Belonging to Possibility Two 138 Sentences Belonging to Possibility Three 144 Sentences Belonging to Possibility Four 148Summary of the Results of the Comprehension Test 153Discussions of the Comprehension Test 153 L1-transfer Interference 153 Extraneous Factors 156 Difficulty Levels of the Four Possibilities 158CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS 161Answers to the Research Questions 161 The First Research Question 161 The Second Research Question 163 The Third Research Question 166Implications 168 Beneficial Effects of Explicit Teaching on SLA 168 Insights into Metaphor-metonymy Continuum 170 Insights into Interlanguage System of L2 Acquisition 172 Insights into Cultural Universality and Specificity 173 Teaching Materials for EFL Learners 176Limitations and Future Study 178 Variables of Cognitive Styles 178 Control of Extraneous Variables 179 Control of Test Validity 181 Ability to Produce L2 Metaphor 182APPENDICES 187Appendix 1 Awareness Test Used in the Second Pilot Study 187Appendix 2 Comprehension Test Used in the Second Pilot Study 190Appendix 3 Production Test Used in the Second Pilot Study 192Appendix 4 Teaching Materials of the Second Pilot Study 194Appendix 5 Handout with subtitles made of metaphoric themes (conceptual metaphor) 195Appendix 6 Handout with subtitles made of metaphoric mappings 196Appendix 7 Criteria Used in the Second Pilot Study to Evaluate Answers of the Comprehension Test 197Appendix 8 Test Items of the Awareness Test Used in the Third Pilot Study and the Main Study 198Appendix 9 Test Items of the Comprehension Test Used in the Third Pilot Study and the Main Study 200Appendix 10 Production Test Used in the Third Pilot Study 201Appendix 11 Test Items Distributions of the Awareness Test in the Main Study 202Appendix 12 Test Items Distributions of the Comprehension Test in the Main Study 204Appendix 13 The PowerPoint Slides Used during the Teaching Phase in the Main Study (for the CM Group) 205Appendix 14 The PowerPoint Slides Used during the Teaching Phase in the Main Study (for the MM Group) 208REFERENCES 211 zh_TW dc.format.extent 2754727 bytes - dc.format.mimetype application/pdf - dc.language.iso en_US - dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0095551506 en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) 隱喻 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 轉喻 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 譬喻能力 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 概念引喻 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 隱喻映射 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 文化普同性及差異性 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) Metaphor en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Metonymy en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Metaphoric competence en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Conceptual metaphor en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Metaphoric mapping en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Cultural universality and specificity en_US dc.title (題名) 隱喻及轉喻對英語為外語學習者之教學成效：以情緒語言為例 zh_TW dc.title (題名) The effects of teaching EFL learners metaphor and metonymy: With reference to emotion expressions en_US dc.type (資料類型) thesis en dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Ahrens, K. (2002). When love is not digested: Underlying reasons for source to target domain pairing in the contemporary theory of metaphor. In YuChau E. Hsiao (Ed.), Proceeding of the first cognitive linguistics conference (pp. 273-302). Taipei: National Cheng-Chi University.Al-Haq, F. A., & El-Sharif, A. (2008). A comparative study for the metaphors use in happiness and anger in English and Arabic. US-China Foreign Language, 6(11), 1-19. Ammar, A., Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (2010). Awareness of L1/L2 differences: does it matter? Language Awareness, 19(2), 129-146. Ausubel, D. (1963). The psychology of meaningful verbal learning. New York: Grune & Stratton. Ausubel, D. (1968). Educational psychology: A cognitive view. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Bachman, L. F. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language Testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Barcelona, A. (Ed.). (2000). Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads: A cognitive perspective. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Barcelona, A. (2001). On the systematic contrastive analysis of conceptual metaphors: Case studies and proposed methodology. In M. Putz, S. Niemeier & R. Dirven (Eds.), Applied cognitive linguistics II: Language pedagogy (pp.117-146). Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1999). Exploring the interlanguage of interlanguage pragmatics: A research agenda for acquisitional pragmatics. Language Learning, 49, 677-713.Barnden, J. A. (2010). Metaphor and metonymy: Making their connections more slippery. Cognitive Linguistics, 21(1), 1-34. Berlin, B., & Kay, P. (1969). Basic color terms: Their universality and evolution. Berkeley: University of California Press.Black, M. (1962). Models and metaphors: Studies in language and philosophy. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Black, M. (1993). More about metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (2nd ed., pp.19-41). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Bloomfield, L. (1942). Outline guide for the practical study of foreign languages. Baltimore: Linguistic Society of America.Boers, F. (2000a). Enhancing metaphoric awareness in specialised reading. English for Specific Purposes, 19, 137-147. Boers, F. (2000b). Metaphor awareness and vocabulary retention. Applied Linguistics, 21, 553-571. Boers, F. (2001). Remembering figurative idioms by hypothesising about their origins. Prospect, 16, 35-43.Boers, F. (2004). Expanding learners’ vocabulary through metaphor awareness: What expansion, what learners, what vocabulary? In M. Achard & S. Niemeier, (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics, second language acquisition, and foreign language teaching (pp. 211-232). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Boers, F., & Littlemore, J. (2000). Cognitive style variables in participants’ explanations of conceptual metaphors. Metaphor and Symbol, 15(3), 177-187. Boers, F., & Demecheleer, M. (2001). Measuring the impact of cross-cultural differences on learners` comprehension of imageable idioms. ELT Journal, 55(3), 255-62. Retrieved Oct 26, 2009, from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/55/3/Boers, F., Demecheleer, M. & Eyckmans J. (2004). Etymological elaboration as a strategy for learning figurative idioms. In P. Bogaards & B. Laufer. (Eds.), Vocabulary in a second language: Selection, acquisition and testing (pp.53-78). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Boers, F., & Lindstromberg, S. (2006) Cognitive linguistic applications in second or foreign language instruction: rationale, proposals, and evaluation. In G. Kristiansen, M. Achard, R. Dirven & F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics: Current applications and future perspective (pp.305-355). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Boers, F., Eyckmans, J., & Stengers, H. (2007). Presenting figurative idioms with a touch of etymology: more than mere mnemonics? Language Teaching Research, 11(1), 43-62.Boers, F. & H. Stengers (2008) Adding sound to the picture: An exercise in motivating the lexical composition of metaphorical idioms in English, Spanish and Dutch. In L. Cameron, M. Zanotto & M. Cavalcanti (Eds.), Confronting metaphor in use: An applied linguistic approach, 63-78. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Brown, D. (2000). Principles of language learning and teaching (4th ed.). NY: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.Chen, Yi-chen (2010). Teaching idioms in an EFL context: The past, the present, and a promising teaching method. Proceeding of the 27th International Conference on English Teaching and Learning in R.O.C. (ROC-TEFL 2010), 182-193. Kaohsiung, Taiwan: Crane Publishing Co.Chen, Yi-chen & Lai, Huei-ling (In Press). EFL learners’ awareness of metonymy–metaphor continuum in figurative expression. Language Awareness. Chomsky, H. (1957). Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton.Chung, Siaw-Fong & Ahrens, K. (2004). Teaching Economy Metaphors: A Psycholinguistic Perspective through the CMM. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Symposium and Book Fair on English Teaching. Taipei, Taiwan: English Teachers Association.College Entrance Examination Center. (2002). 大考中心高中英文參考辭彙表. Retrieved October 7, 2010, from http://www.ceec.edu.tw/Research/ResearchList.htm College Entrance Examination Center. (2010a). 95-99學年度學科能力測驗各科成績標準一覽表. Retrieved October 7, 2010, from http://www.ceec.edu.tw/AbilityExam/AbilityExamStat/99SATStat/99SAT_stat_27.xls College Entrance Examination Center. (2010b). 九十九學年度指定科目考試各科成績標準一覽表. Retrieved October 7, 2010, from http://www.ceec.edu.tw/AppointExam/AppointExamStat/99DrseStat/99DRSE_stat_21.xls Corder, S. P. (1967). The significance of learners’ errors. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 5, 161-169.Corder, S. P. (1977). Simple codes and the source of the learner’s initial heuristic hypothesis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 1, 1-10. Danesi, M. (1993). Metaphorical competence in second language acquisition and second language teaching: The neglected dimension. In J. E. Alatis (Ed.), Language, communication, and social meaning (pp.489-500) [Electronic version]. Retrieved November 26, 2009, from http://books.google.com.tw/books?id=C5mZ-4N1xYwC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Language,+communication,+and+social+meaning&ei=zyIOS4WxBpX6lQTbrfzSCw#v=onepage&q=Danesi&f=false Davies, A. (2003). The native speaker: Myth and reality. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Davies, A. (2006). The native speaker in applied linguistics. In A. Davis, & C. Elder (Eds.), The handbook of applied linguistics (pp. 431-450). Oxford: Blackwell Pub. Deignan, A., Gabrys, D. & Solska, A. (1997). Teaching English metaphors using cross-linguistic awareness-raising activities. ELT Journal, 51(4), 352-60.Dobrovolʹskiĭ, D. O., & Piirainen, E. (2005). Figurative language: Cross-cultural and cross-linguistic perspectives. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier Science.Dong, Y. (2004). Don`t keep them in the dark! Teaching metaphors to English language learners. English Journal, 93(4), 29-35. Retrieved February 4, 2009, from http://www.ncte.org/library/NCTEFiles/Resources/Journals/EJ/0934-mar04/EJ0934Dont.pdf Ellis, N. (2006a). Cognitive perspectives on SLA. AILA Review, 19, 100–121.Ellis, N. (2006b). Language acquisition as rational contingency learning. Applied Linguistics, 27(1), 1–24.Ellis, R. (2002). The study of second language acquisition (9th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Fainsilber, L., & Ortony, A. (1987). Metaphorical uses of language in the expressions of emotions. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 2(4), 239-250.Gardner, H., Kircher, M., Winner, E., & Perkins, D. (1974). Children’s metaphoric productions and preferences. Journal of Child Language, 2, 125-141. Gass, S., & Selinker, L. (2001). Second language acquisition: An introductory course (2nd ed.). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.General English Proficiency Test. (2010). Retrieved October 1, 2010 from https://www.gept.org.tw/index.asp Gibbs, R. W. (1999). Speaking and thinking with metonymy. In K. Panther, & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (pp.61-76). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Gibbs, R. W. (2006). Embodiment and cognitive science. New York: Cambridge University Press.Gibbs, R. W., Costa Lima, P. L., & Francuzo, E. (2004). Metaphor is grounded in embodied experience. Journal of Pragmatics, 36(7), 1189-1210.Goossens, L. (1990). Metaphonymy: The interaction of metaphor and metonymy in expressions for linguistic action. Cognitive Linguistics, 1, 323-340.Jakobson, R. (2003). The metaphoric and metonymic poles. In R. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.). Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp. 41-47). Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Johnson, M. (1987). The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Johnson, J., & Rosano, T. (1993). Relation of cognitive style to metaphor interpretation and second language proficiency. Applied Psycholinguistics, 14, 159-175.Kellerman, E. (1977). Towards a characterization of the strategy of transfer in second language learning. Interlanguage Studies Bulletin, 2, 58-145. Kellerman, E. (1979). Transfer and non-transfer: Where are we now? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 2, 37-57.Kellerman, E. (1995). Cross linguistic influence: transfer to nowhere? Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 41(3), 251–69.King, B. (1989) The conceptual structure of emotional experience in Chinese. Columbus: Ohio State University.Kogan, N. (1983). Stylistic variation in childhood and adolescence: Creativity, metaphor, and cognitive styles. In J H. Ravel1 & E. M. Markman (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology (Vol.3, 4th ed., pp. 695-706). New York: Wiley.Kövecses, Z. (1986). Metaphors of anger, pride, and love: A lexical approach to the structure of concepts. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: J. Benjamins. Kövecses, Z. (1990). Emotion concepts. New York: Springer Verlag.Kövecses, Z. (1991). Happiness: A definitional effort. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 6, 29-46.Kövecses, Z. (2000a). The concept of anger: Universal or culture specific? Psychopathology, 33(4), 159-170. Kövecses, Z. (2000b). Metaphor and emotion: Language, culture, and body in human feeling. Cambridge, U.K.; New York: Cambridge University Press.Kövecses, Z. (2001). A cognitive linguistic view of learning idioms in an FLT context. In M. Pütz, S. Niemeier & R. Dirven (Eds.), Applied cognitive linguistics II: Language pedagogy (pp. 87-115). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Kövecses, Z. (2005). Metaphor in culture: Universality and variation. Cambridge, U.K.; New York: Cambridge University Press.Lado, R. (1957). Linguistics across cultures. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Lai, Huei-ling, & Chen, Yi-chen (2010, April 15-17). The Effects of EFL Learners’ Application of Metaphor and Metonymy in Learning and Retaining Emotion Expressions. Paper presented at the 2010 International Conference on Applied Linguistics & Language Teaching (ALLT), National Taiwan University of Science and Technology, Taipei, Taiwan.Lakoff, G. (1987). Woman, fire, and dangerous thing: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago, London: University of Chicago Press. Lakoff, G. (1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp.202-251). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Lakoff, G. (2006). The contemporary theory of metaphor. In D. Geeraerts (Ed.), Cognitive linguistics: Basic readings (pp.185-238). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Lakoff, G., & Kövecses, Z. (1987). The cognitive model of anger inherent in American English. In D. Holland & Q. Naomi (Eds.), Cultural models in language and thought (pp. 195-221). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar, Volume one: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Langacker, R. W. (1991). Foundations of cognitive grammar, Volume two: Descriptive applications. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Langacker, R. W. (1993). Reference-point constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 4(1), 1-38. Lantolf, J. P. (1999). Second culture acquisition: cognitive considerations. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Culture in second language teaching and learning (pp. 28-46). New York: Cambridge University Press.Laufer, B. (1997). What’s in a word that makes it hard or easy: Some intralexical factors that affect learning of words. In N. Schmitt & M. McMarthy (Eds.), Vocabulary, description, acquisition and pedagogy (pp. 140-155). Cambridge: CUP.Lazar, G. (2003). Meaning and metaphor: Activities to practice figurative language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Levenston, E. (1971). Over-indulgence and under-representation: Aspects of mother tongue interference. In G. Nickel (Eds.), Papers in contrastive analysis, 115-121.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Li, C., & Cheng, J. (2007). Metaphor Competence for Second Language Learners. Sino-US English Teaching, 4(2), 8-10. Retrieved October 26, 2009, from http://www.linguist.org.cn/doc/su200702/su20070202.pdf Littlemore, J. (1998). Individual Differences in Second Language Learning: Towards an Identification of the Strategy Preferences and Language Learning Strengths of L2 Students with Holistic and/or Imager Cognitive Styles (Doctoral dissertation, Thames Valley University).Littlemore, J. (2001). Metaphoric competence: a possible language learning strength of students with a holistic cognitive style? TESOL Quarterly, 35(3), 459-491.Littlemore, J. (2009). Applying cognitive linguistics to second language learning and teaching. UK: Palgrave Macmillan.Littlemore, J., & Low, G. (2006). Metaphoric competence, second language learning, and communicative language ability. Applied Linguistics, 2(27), 268-294.Long, M. H. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In De Bot, K., Ginsberg, R. B., & Kramsch, C. (Eds.), Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspective (pp. 39-52). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Low, G. (1988). On teaching metaphor. Applied Linguistics, 9(2), 125-147. Retrieved February 4, 2009, from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/9/2/125McCallum, G. P. (1970). Idiom drills: For students of English as a second language. New York: Crowell.McCallum, G. P. (1978). More idiom drills for students of English as a second language. New York: Crowell. MacWhinney, B. (2005). Extending the Competition Model. International Journal of Bilingualism, 9(7), 69-84. Retrieved April 8, 2011, from http://psyling.psy.cmu.edu/papers/years/2005/ijb.pdf MacWhinney, B., Bates, E., & Kliegl, R. (1984). Cue validity and sentence interpretation in English, German, and Italian. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 23, 127-150.Matsuki, K. (1995). Metaphors of anger in Japanese. In J. Taylor and R. Maclaury (Eds.), Language and the cognitive construal of the world (pp.137-151). Berlin: Gruyter.Miller, G. (1993). Images and models, similes, and metaphors. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (2nd ed., pp.357-400). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Minister of Education. (2004). 國內英語能力檢測比較參考表. Retrieved October 8, 2010, from http://www.cambridge.org.tw/English_Proficiency_Tests_Comparison_Table.pdf Nandy, M. (1994). English expressions with idioms, prepositions and metaphors. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: S. Abdul Majeed & Co.Odlin, T. (1989). Language transfer: Cross-linguistic influence in language learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Odlin, T. (2005). Crosslinguistic influence and conceptual transfer: What are the concepts? Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 25, 3–25.O’Malley, J. M, & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Leaning strategies in second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Ortony, A. (1975). Why metaphors necessary and not just nice. Educational Theory, 25, 45-53. Retrieved October 26, 2009, from http://www.cs.northwestern.edu/~ortony/Andrew%20Ortony_files/Why%20metaphors%20necessary.pdf Panther, K., & Radden, G. (Eds.) (1999). Metonymy in language and thought. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Pica, T., Young, R., & Doughty, C. (1987). The impact of interaction on comprehension. TESOL Quarterly, 21(4), 737-758. Pollio, H. R., Barlow, J. M., Fine, H. J., & Pollio, M. R. (1977). Psychology and the poetics of growth: Figurative language in psychology, psychotherapy, and education. Hillsdale: Erlbaum, 1977.Pollio, H. R., & Smith, M. K. (1979). Sense and nonsense in thinking about anomaly and metaphor. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 13, 323-326.Radden, G. (2003). How metonymic are metaphors? In R. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp. 407-434). Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Radden, G., & Kövecses, Z. (1999). Towards a theory of metonymy. In K. Panther & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (pp.17-60). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Richards, J. C., Platt, J., & Platt, H. (1998). Longman dictionary of language teaching and applied linguistics (English-Chinese edition). Hong Kong: Longman.Ringbom, H. (1987). The role of the first language in foreign language learning. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.Ringbom, H. (1992). On L1 Transfer in L2 Comprehension and L2 Production. Language Learning, 42(1), 85-112. Sági, O. (2002). Translating metaphors in literature from English to Hungarian: A case study of Nabokov’s Lolita. Term paper, Department of American Studies, Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest. Savignon, S. J. (1971). A study of the effect of training in communicative skills as part of a beginning college French course on student attitude and achievement in linguistic and communicative competence (Doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign).Savignon, S. J. (2005). Communicative language teaching: Strategies and goals. In E. Hinkle (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp.635-652). New York: McGraw Hill.Seitz, J. A. (1997). The development of metaphoric understanding: Implications for a theory of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 10(4), 347-353. Retrieved April 6, 2011, from http://pdfserve.informaworld.com/570249__790767489.pdf Schachter, J. (1974). An error in error analysis. Language Learning, 24, 205-214.Schmidt, R. W. (1990). The Role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129-158. doi: 10.1093/applin/11.2.129 Shinohara, K., & Matsunaka, Y. (2009) Pictorial metaphors of emotion in Japanese comics. In C. J. Forceville & U. Eduardo (Eds.), Multimodal metaphor (pp.265-296). Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Skinner, B.F. (1957). Verbal learning. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Skoufaki, S. (2005). Use of conceptual metaphors: A strategy for the guessing of an idiom`s meaning. In M. Mattheoudakis & A. Psaltou-Joycey (Eds.), Selected papers on theoretical and applied linguistics from the 16th international symposium (pp. 542-556). Thessaloniki: Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. Soriano, C. (2003). Some anger metaphors in Spanish and English: A contrastive review. International Study of English Study, 3(2), 107-122. Retrieved June 28, 2008, from http://www.um.es/ijes/vol3n2/06-Soriano.pdfTaylor, R. J. (1995). Linguistic categorization: Prototypes in linguistic theory (2nd ed.). Oxford: Claredon Press.Taylor, R. J. (2003). Category extension by metonymy and metaphor. In R. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.). Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp. 323-347). Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Test Center of Technological & Vocational Education. (2010a). 99學年度四技二專統一入學測驗各單科成績統計：平均值、前標、後標、標準差. Retrieved October 8, 2010, from http://www.tcte.edu.tw/four/99_4y/99-4y-GradeStand.pdf Test Center of Technological & Vocational Education. (2010b). 99學年度四技二專統一入學測驗-各單科原始成績組距. Retrieved October 8, 2010, from http://www.tcte.edu.tw/four/99_4y/99-4y-Grade-00.pdf Tomasello, M. (1995). Joint attention as social cognition. In C. Moore, & P. Dunham (Eds.), Joint attention: Its origins and role in development (pp.103-130). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Tomasello, M. (2006). Usage-based linguistics. In D. Geeraerts (Ed.), Cognitive linguistics: Basic readings (pp.439-458). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Ungerer, F., & Schmid, H. (2006). An introduction to cognitive linguistics (2nd ed.). Brittan: Person Longman.Verspoor, M., & Lowie, W. (2003). Making sense of polysemous words. Language learning, 53(3), 547-586. Weinreich, U. (1953). Languages in contact. The Hague: Mouton.Yu, N. (1995). Metaphorical expressions of anger and happiness in English and Chinese. Metaphor and Symbol, 10(2), 59-92. Retrieved June 28, 2008, from http://faculty-staff.ou.edu/Y/Ning.Yu-1/Yu-1995.pdfYu, N. (1998). The contemporary theory of metaphor: A perspective from Chinese. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: J. Benjamin. zh_TW
