主修英語為第二語言或外語（ 英文：English as a Foreign Language ）的學生通常會閱讀和學習西方詩歌，從認知的角度來看，似乎沒有很充足的研究資源來作為教英語作為外語（ EFL ）的環境詩歌給主修英語的大學生。因此，本研究的宗旨在於通過使用理論和實證的方法回答以下幾個問題：一）《荒原》的文字裡引用了《漁夫王傳說》裡的文字到了什麼程度？二）經過教學的融合﹑隱含的概念﹑和文本的分析與說明，一批高等的英語學習者更能理解《荒原》的這個主題嗎 ？三）經過教學的融合﹑隱含的概念﹑和文本的分析與說明，包括概念的整合與《漁夫王傳說》本文的說明，一批高等的英語學習者更能理解《荒原》的這個主題嗎？以及 四）這兩組學生經過指導後，對於《荒原》這個主題的理解會如何比較？要探索T.S。艾略特對於《荒原》背後的思維過程，利用《漁夫王傳說》和《荒原》的相關研究信息來創建本文的分析圖表。將認知詩意的概念教給兩組主修英語的學生，但第二組也接受到了《漁夫王》民俗文字的課程。研究結果證實，從《漁夫王傳說》題材顯然被呈現在《荒原》。此外，雖然這項研究有所限制（即短的時間內），其結果顯示認知概念的出現，以促使學生的批判性思維的行為以及理論知識的發展，和某些人為了了解作品的本文往往應用信息來了解它的內容。

Although students majoring in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) are commonly tasked with reading and studying Western poetry, there does not appear to be a wealth of studies about teaching university English majors in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) environments poetry, especially from a cognitive standpoint. Therefore, this study aims to answer the following questions through the use of both theoretical and empirical methods: a) To what extent do The Waste Land’s text world borrow from the Fisher King myth? b) Will a group of advanced ELLs better understand the major themes of The Waste Land after instruction on blending, conceptual metaphor, and text world analysis? c) Will a group of advanced ELLs better understand the major themes of The Waste Land after instruction on blending, conceptual metaphor, and text world analysis, including conceptual blending and the Fisher King myth’s text worlds? and, d) How will the two groups of students’ understanding of the major themes of The Waste Land compare after instruction? To explore T.S. Eliot’s thought process behind The Waste Land, text world analysis charts were created for the Fisher King myth and The Waste Land using information from relevant research. Cognitive poetic concepts were then taught to two groups of English majors, yet the second group also received a lesson on the text worlds behind Fisher King folklore. Findings confirm that themes from the Fisher King myth are clearly replicated in The Waste Land. Furthermore, though there were limitations to this study (i.e., a short time span), the results indicate cognitive concepts appear to promote students’ critical thinking behavior and development of schematic knowledge, and those who learn about a work’s text worlds tend to apply the information to understand a text.

List of Tables ........................................................................................................................................ x
List of Figures .................................................................................................................................... xvi
Chapter 1: Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Background ................................................................................................................................. 1
1.2 Statement of the Problem ............................................................................................................. 3
1.3 Purpose of the Study .................................................................................................................... 4
1.4 Research Questions ...................................................................................................................... 5
1.5 Significance of the Study ............................................................................................................. 6
1.6 Definition of Terms ...................................................................................................................... 7
1.7 Outline ......................................................................................................................................... 7
Chapter 2: Literature Review ................................................................................................................. 9
2.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 9
2.2 Stylistics ...................................................................................................................................... 9
2.2.1 Cognitive stylistics .......................................................................................................... 12
! 2.2.1.1 Poetry ........................................................................................................................... 14
2.3 Cognitive Linguistics and Grammar ......................................................................................... 18
2.3.1 Construal ......................................................................................................................... 19
2.3.2 Frames and schema ......................................................................................................... 21
2.3.2.1 Image schemas ................................................................................................. 23
2.3.2.2 Constructions ................................................................................................... 24
2.3.3 Blending .......................................................................................................................... 25
2.3.3.1 Mental spaces ................................................................................................... 27
2.3.3.2 Metaphor and metonymy ................................................................................. 30
2.3.4 Figure and ground ........................................................................................................... 32
2.3.4.1 Role archetypes ................................................................................................ 34
2.4 Cognitive Poetics ........................................................................................................................... 35
2.4.1 World creation ................................................................................................................ 37
2.4.2 Poetic frame and distance ............................................................................................... 44
2.4.3 Metaphorical language in poetry .................................................................................... 45
2.5 Studying Poetry and Implications for Language Learning ............................................................ 48
2.5.1 Using stylistics to teach ELLs literature ......................................................................... 49
2.5.2 Using cognitive linguistics to teach ELLs literature ....................................................... 51
2.6 T.S. Eliot & The Waste Land ......................................................................................................... 52
2.6.1 Past literature .................................................................................................................. 55
2.6.2 Arguing the centrality of the Fisher King myth .............................................................. 56
Chapter 3: Methodology ...................................................................................................................... 61
3.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 61
3.2 Research Design ......................................................................................................................... 62
3.2.1 Text world analysis ......................................................................................................... 63
3.2.2 Participants ...................................................................................................................... 65
3.2.3 Procedure ........................................................................................................................ 67
3.2.4 Treatment ........................................................................................................................ 69
3.2.4.1 Blending group ................................................................................................. 69
3.2.4.2 Blending plus Fisher King myth group ............................................................ 76
3.3 Materials ................................................................................................................................... 78
3.3.1 The Waste Land ............................................................................................................... 78
3.3.2 Lesson presentations ....................................................................................................... 79
3.4 The Tests ................................................................................................................................... 80
3.5 Instruments ................................................................................................................................ 82
3.5.1 The Waste Land test written protocol ............................................................................. 82
3.5.2 Poetry questionnaire ........................................................................................................ 82
3.6 Data Analysis ............................................................................................................................. 83
3.6.1 Quantitative analysis ....................................................................................................... 84
3.6.1.1 Coding .............................................................................................................. 85
3.6.1.2 Paired t-test ...................................................................................................... 88
3.6.1.3 Independent t-test ............................................................................................. 88
3.6.1.4 Wilcoxon signed-rank test ............................................................................... 88
! 3.6.2 Qualitative data analysis ................................................................................................. 88!
Chapter 4: Text World Analysis of The Waste Land ........................................................................... 90
4.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 90
4.2 Fisher King Folklore Text World Analysis ............................................................................... 92
4.2.1 Input space 1: Pagan vegetation rituals ........................................................................... 93
4.2.2 Input space 2: Organized religion in the Western world (Christianity and Judaism) ..... 97
4.2.3 Blended space: Fisher King folklore ............................................................................... 99
4.3 Summary of the Fisher King Text World Analysis .................................................................. 102
4.4 The Waste Land Text World Analysis ...................................................................................... 102
4.4.1 Input space 2: Desolation in the modern world ............................................................ 103
4.4.2 Blended space: The Waste Land ................................................................................... 106
4.5 Summary of the Waste Land Text World Analysis .................................................................. 110
Chapter 5: Results of the Waste Land Test ........................................................................................ 112
5.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 112
5.2 The Waste Land Test Results ................................................................................................... 113
5.2.1 BG test results ............................................................................................................... 113
5.2.2 B+FKG test results ........................................................................................................ 117
5.2.3 BG and B+FKG comparative test results ...................................................................... 121
5.3 Summary of the Waste Land Test Results ................................................................................... 124
5.4 Quantitative Written Protocol Results ......................................................................................... 125
5.4.1 BG quantitative written protocol results ....................................................................... 125
5.4.2 B+FKG quantitative written protocol results ................................................................ 127
5.4.3 BG and B+FKG comparative quantitative written protocol results .............................. 131
5.5 Qualitative Written Protocol Results ........................................................................................ 133
5.5.1 BG qualitative written protocol results ......................................................................... 133
5.5.1.1 General comprehension questions ................................................................. 133
5.5.1.2 Conceptual metaphor questions ..................................................................... 134
5.5.1.3 Text world questions ...................................................................................... 137
5.5.1.4 Posttest high and low performers ................................................................... 139
5.5.2 B+FKG qualitative written protocol results .................................................................. 157
5.5.2.1 General comprehension questions ................................................................. 157
5.5.2.2 Conceptual metaphor questions ..................................................................... 158
5.5.2.3 Text world questions ...................................................................................... 161
5.5.2.4 Posttest high and low performers ................................................................... 163
5.6 Summary of the Qualitative Written Protocol Results ............................................................. 187
Chapter 6: Results of the Poetry Questionnaire ................................................................................. 189
6.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 189
6.2 Questionnaire Results .............................................................................................................. 189
6.2.1 BG questionnaire results ............................................................................................... 190
6.2.2 B+FKG questionnaire results ........................................................................................ 195
6.2.3 Comparative questionnaire results ................................................................................ 200
6.3 Summary of the Poetry Questionnaire Results ......................................................................... 207
Chapter 7: Discussion ........................................................................................................................ 209
7.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 209
7.2 Research Question 1: Text World Analysis ............................................................................. 209
7.3 Research Question 2: Research Question 2: Blending Group ................................................. 211
7.4 Research Question 3: Blending Plus Fisher King Group ........................................................ 212
7.5 Research Question 4: The Groups Compared ......................................................................... 213
7.6 Summary ................................................................................................................................ 214
Chapter 8: Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 216
8.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 216
8.2 Implications for Teaching ........................................................................................................ 216
8.3 Limitations of the Study ........................................................................................................... 217
8.4 Suggestions for Future Research ............................................................................................. 218
8.5 Summary ................................................................................................................................. 219
References ......................................................................................................................................... 220
Appendix A: The Waste Land Test .................................................................................................... 236
Appendix B: The Poetry Questionnaire ............................................................................................. 243
Appendix C: A Summary of the Written Protocol Responses for the BG ......................................... 246
Appendix D: A Summary of the Written Protocol Responses for the B+FKG ................................. 259

List of Tables
Table 1.1. An Overview of the Chapters ................................................................................... 8
Table 2.1. An Overview of Chapter 2’s Contents ...................................................................... 9
Table 2.2. Conceptual Metaphors from Bob Dylan’s “Hurricane” According to Level of
Salience ....................................................................................................................... 14
Table 2.3. Common Body Metaphors Used in Everyday Interaction ...................................... 31
Table 2.4. Common Role Archetypes and Their Definitions .................................................. 34
Table 2.5. A Summary of Versions of the Grail Myth which Include the Fisher King .......... 57
Table 3.1. A Detailed Preview of Chapter 3’s Contents .......................................................... 61
Table 3.2. A Summary of the Participant Demographics ........................................................ 67
Table 3.3. A Summary of the Waste Land Test Question Types ............................................. 81
Table 3.4. A Summary of the Poetry Questionnaire Question Formats .................................. 83
Table 3.5 The Written Protocol Coding Scheme ..................................................................... 85
Table 3.6 The Ten Codes Created for the Poetry Questionnaire Open Questions .................. 87
Table 4.1. A Detailed Preview of Chapter 4’s Contents .......................................................... 92
Table 5.1. A Detailed Preview of Chapter 5’s Contents ........................................................ 113
Table 5.2. Descriptive Statistics of the Waste Land Tests for the BG ................................... 114
Table 5.3. Paired Sample t-test for the Mean Scores of the Waste Land Test for the BG ..... 114
Table 5.4. Paired Sample Wilcoxon Signed-ranks Test for the Individual Student Scores on
the Waste Land Test for the BG ................................................................................. 114
Table 5.5. Descriptive Statistics of the Waste Land Tests for the B+FKG ........................... 118
Table 5.6. Paired Sample t-test for the Mean Scores of the Waste Land Tests Between the
Tests for the B+FKG .................................................................................................. 118
Table 5.7. Paired Sample Wilcoxon Signed-ranks Test for the Individual Student Scores on
the Waste Land Test for the B+FKG ......................................................................... 118
Table 5.8. A Review of the Descriptive Statistics for the Waste Land Quiz for Both Groups
................................................................................................................................... 122
Table 5.9. Independent Sample t-test for the Mean Scores of the Waste Land Quiz Between
the Tests for Both Groups .......................................................................................... 122
Table 5.10. Descriptive Statistics for the Response Types to the Test Questions Across Both
Tests for the BG ......................................................................................................... 126
Table 5.11. Paired Sample Wilcoxon Signed-ranks Test for the Written Protocol Response
Types for the BG ........................................................................................................ 127
Table 5.12. Descriptive Statistics for the Response Types to the Test Questions Across Both
Tests for the B+FKG .................................................................................................. 129
Table 5.13. Paired Sample Wilcoxon Signed-ranks Test for the Ranks of Protocol Response
Types Across Both Tests for the B+FKG .................................................................. 130
Table 5.14. Paired Sample Wilcoxon Signed-ranks Test for the Ranks of Protocol Response
Types Across Both Tests for Both Groups ................................................................ 131
Table 5.15. Descriptive Statistics for the Response Types to the Test Questions on the Pretest
for BG students with the Greatest Change Between Pre- and Posttest Scores .......... 142
Table 5.16. Descriptive Statistics for the Response Types to the Test Questions on the
Posttest for BG students with the Greatest Change Between Pre- and Posttest Scores
................................................................................................................................... 144
Table 5.17. Descriptive Statistics for the Response Types to the Test Questions on Both Tests
for BG students with the Greatest Positive Change Between the Tests .................... 147
Table 5.18. Descriptive Statistics for the Response Types to the Test Questions on Both Tests
for BG students with the Greatest Negative Change Between the Tests ................... 152
Table 5.19. Descriptive Statistics for the Response Types to the Test Questions on the Pretest
for B+FKG students with the Greatest Change Between Pre- and Posttest Scores ... 167
Table 5.20. Descriptive Statistics for the Response Types to the Test Questions on the
Posttest for B+FKG students with the Greatest Change Between Pre- and Posttest
Scores ......................................................................................................................... 169
Table 5.21. Descriptive Statistics for the Response Types to the Test Questions on Both Tests
for B+FKG students with the Greatest Positive Change Between the Tests ............. 172
Table 5.22. Descriptive Statistics for the Response Types to the Test Questions on Both Tests
for B+FKG Students with the Greatest Negative Change Between the Tests ........... 181
Table 6.1. A Detailed Preview of Chapter 6’s Contents ........................................................ 189
Table 6.2. Descriptive Statistics for the Poetry Questionnaire Closed Questions for the BG
................................................................................................................................... 190
Table 6.3. Paired Sample t-test for the Mean Scores of the Poetry Questionnaire Between the
Tests’ Closed Questions for the BG ........................................................................... 190
Table 6.4. Paired Sample Wilcoxon Signed-ranks Test for the Individual Student Scores on
the Poetry Questionnaire Closed Questions for the BG ............................................. 191
Table 6.5. A Review of the Descriptive Statistics for the Poetry Questionnaire Closed
Questions by Section for the BG ............................................................................... 192
Table 6.6. A Review of the Paired Sample t-tests for the Mean Scores of the Closed
Questions by Section for the BG ............................................................................... 192
Table 6.7. A Review of the Open Question Response Frequencies for the BG .................... 194
Table 6.8. Descriptive Statistics for the Frequency of Response Types to Q9 for the BG .... 194
Table 6.9. Descriptive Statistics for the Poetry Questionnaire Closed Questions for the
B+FKG ....................................................................................................................... 195
Table 6.10. Paired Sample t-test for the Mean Scores of the Poetry Questionnaire Between
the Tests’ Closed Questions for the B+FKG ............................................................. 196
Table 6.11. Paired Sample Wilcoxon Signed-ranks Test for the Individual Student Scores on
the Poetry Questionnaire Closed Questions for the B+FKG ..................................... 196
Table 6.12. A Review of the Descriptive Statistics for the Poetry Questionnaire Closed
Questions by Section for the B+FKG ........................................................................ 197
Table 6.13. A Review of the Paired Sample t-tests for the Mean Scores of the Closed
Questions by Section for the B+FKG ........................................................................ 197
Table 6.14. A Review of the Open Question Response Frequencies for the B+FKG ........... 198
Table 6.15. Descriptive Statistics for the Frequency of Response Types to Q9 for the B+FKG
................................................................................................................................... 200
Table 6.16. Descriptive Statistics for the Poetry Questionnaire Closed Questions for Both
Groups on Both Tests ................................................................................................. 201
Table 6.17. Independent Sample t-test for the Mean Scores of the Poetry Questionnaire
Closed Questions Between the Tests’ Closed Questions for Both Groups ............... 201
Table 6.18. A Review of the Descriptive Statistics for the Poetry Questionnaire Closed
Cognitive Questions for Both Groups ........................................................................ 202
Table 6.19. A Review of the Independent Sample t-tests for the Mean Scores of Each
Questionnaire Section for the Closed Questions on the Pretest for Both Groups ..... 204
Table 6.20. A Review of the Independent Sample t-tests for the Mean Scores of Each
Questionnaire Section for the Closed Questions on the Posttest for Both Groups .... 204
Table 6.21. A Review of the Open Question Response Frequencies for the Pretest for Both
Groups ........................................................................................................................ 205
Table 6.22. A Review of the Open Question Response Frequencies for the Pretest for Both
Groups ........................................................................................................................ 205
Table C.1. BG Written Protocol Responses for Question 1 .................................................. 246
Table C.2. BG Written Protocol Responses for Question 2 .................................................. 247
Table C.3. BG Written Protocol Responses for Question 5 .................................................. 247
Table C.4. BG Written Protocol Responses for Question 9 .................................................. 248
Table C.5. BG Written Protocol Responses for Question 3 .................................................. 249
Table C.6. BG Written Protocol Responses for Question 7 .................................................. 250
Table C.7. BG Written Protocol Responses for Question 8 .................................................. 251
Table C.8. BG Written Protocol Responses for Question 10 ................................................ 252
Table C.9. BG Written Protocol Responses for Question 11 ................................................ 252
Table C.10. BG Written Protocol Responses for Question 12 .............................................. 253
Table C.11. BG Written Protocol Responses for Question 13 .............................................. 254
Table C.12. BG Written Protocol Responses for Question 4 ................................................ 255
Table C.13. BG Written Protocol Responses for Question 6 ................................................ 255
Table C.14. BG Written Protocol Responses for Question 14 .............................................. 256
Table C.15. BG Written Protocol Responses for Question 15 .............................................. 257
Table C.16. BG Written Protocol Responses for Question 16 .............................................. 258
Table C.17. BG Written Protocol Responses for Question 17 .............................................. 258
Table D.1. B+FKG Written Protocol Responses for Question 1 ........................................... 259
Table D.2. B+FKG Written Protocol Responses for Question 2 ........................................... 260
Table D.3. B+FKG Written Protocol Responses for Question 5 ........................................... 261
Table D.4. B+FKG Written Protocol Responses for Question 9 ........................................... 262
Table D.5. B+FKG Written Protocol Responses for Question 3 ........................................... 263
Table D.6. B+FKG Written Protocol Responses for Question 7 ........................................... 264
Table D.7. B+FKG Written Protocol Responses for Question 8 ........................................... 265
Table D.8. B+FKG Written Protocol Responses for Question 10 ......................................... 266
Table D.9. B+FKG Written Protocol Responses for Question 11 ......................................... 267
Table D.10. B+FKG Written Protocol Responses for Question 12 ....................................... 268
Table D.11. B+FKG Written Protocol Responses for Question 13 ....................................... 269
Table D.12. B+FKG Written Protocol Responses for Question 4 ......................................... 270
Table D.13. B+FKG Written Protocol Responses for Question 6 ......................................... 271
Table D.14. B+FKG Written Protocol Responses for Question 14 ....................................... 272
Table D.15. B+FKG Written Protocol Responses for Question 15 ....................................... 273
Table D.16. B+FKG Written Protocol Responses for Question 16 ....................................... 274
Table D.17. B+FKG Written Protocol Responses for Question 17 ....................................... 275

List of Figures
Figure 2.1. Text structure according to cognitive poetics ........................................................ 39
Figure 2.2. The two mental spaces involved in “Mrs. Midas” (Semino, 2009, p. 62) ............. 42
Figure 2.3. The blended space of “Mrs. Midas” (Semino, 2009, p. 62) .................................. 43
Figures 2.4. Different ways textual information can be construed depending on the situation
(Zerkowitz, p. 169, 2007) ........................................................................................ 50
Figure 3.1. A graphical representation of “cherry jeans” metaphor (Ungerer & Schmid, 2006)
with pertinent questions ............................................................................................... 70
Figure 3.2. Two of the four body metaphors (nose of a plane; eye of a needle, mouth a of
cave, hands of a clock) shown to the students ............................................................. 71
Figure 3.3. A depiction of the melding of the ideas behind “argument” and “war” ................ 71
Figure 3.4. Examples of the conceptual metaphor “Cinderella story” from COCA ............... 72
Figure 3.5. The participants were shown pictures depicting the metaphor in question along
with relevant vocabulary .............................................................................................. 73
Figure 3.6. A simplified visual representation of text world theory ........................................ 73
Figure 3.7. The extended metaphor in Raleigh’s poem was reformulated in cognitive terms
and explained to the students as the conceptual metaphor LIFE IS A PLAY ............. 74
Figure 3.8. A real-life, non-literary example of conceptual metaphor and text worlds ........... 75
Figure 3.9. Information regarding ancient gods, rituals, and symbols linked to vegetation .... 76
Figures 3.10. Information regarding Western organized religion ............................................ 77
Figure 3.11. The blended space of the Fisher King myth as present to the students ............... 77
Figure 4.1. A selection of the pagan gods, religious acts, and holy symbols mentioned in
Frazier’s The Golden Bough (1890) and Weston’s From Ritual to Romance (1920) . 94
Figure 4.2. Major themes from the Christian and Jewish religions mentioned in Frazier’s The
Golden Bough (1890) and Weston’s From Ritual to Romance (1920) ....................... 98
Figure 4.3. A graphical interpretation of how the two input spaces influence and form the
major themes of the Fisher King myth ..................................................................... 100
Figure 4.4. The main concepts and themes found in a desolate modern world ..................... 104
Figure 4.5. A graphical interpretation of how the two input spaces influence and form the
major themes of The Waste Land .............................................................................. 108
Figure 5.1. A comparison of the BG’s pretest and posttest scores ........................................ 115
Figure 5.2. A comparison of the BG’s pretest and posttest performance by question .......... 115
Figure 5.3. Questions which showed the most noticeable difference in responses between the
tests for the BG, charted by percent ........................................................................... 117
Figure 5.4. A comparison of the B+FKG’s pretest and posttest scores ................................. 119
Figure 5.5. A comparison of the B+FKG’s pretest and posttest performance by question ... 120
Figure 5.6. Questions which showed the most noticeable difference in responses between the
tests for the B+FKG, charted by percent ................................................................... 121
Figure 5.7. A comparison of the groups’ pretest performance by question ........................... 123
Figure 5.8. A comparison of the groups’ posttest performance by question ......................... 123
Figure 5.9. The frequencies of the BG written protocol response types for both tests .......... 127
Figure 5.10. The frequencies of the B+FKG written protocol response types for both tests 130
Figure 5.11. The frequencies of the written protocol response types for the pretest for both
groups ......................................................................................................................... 132
Figure 5.12. The frequencies of the written protocol response types for the posttest for both
groups ......................................................................................................................... 132
Figure 5.13. The mean scores for BG students with the most noticeable change in scores
between the tests ........................................................................................................ 140
Figure 5.14. The number of BG students (with either improved or worse posttest scores) who
answered correctly on each question on the pretest ................................................... 140
Figure 5.15. The number of BG students (with either improved or worse posttest scores) who
answered correctly on each question on the posttest ................................................. 141
Figure 5.16. The frequencies of the written protocol response types for the posttest for both
groups ......................................................................................................................... 143
Figure 5.17. The frequencies of the written protocol response types for the posttest for BG
students with the greatest positive of negative posttest change in scores .................. 145
Figure 5.18. The number of BG students with the greatest positive posttest change in scores
who answered correctly on each question on both tests ............................................ 146
Figure 5.19. The frequencies of the written protocol response types for both tests for BG
students with the greatest positive posttest change in scores ..................................... 148
Figure 5.20. The number of BG students with the greatest negative posttest change in scores
who answered correctly on each question on both tests ............................................ 151
Figure 5.21. The frequencies of the written protocol response types for both tests for BG
students with the greatest negative posttest change in scores .................................... 153
Figure 5.22. The mean scores for B+FKG students with the most noticeable change in scores
between the tests ........................................................................................................ 164
Figure 5.23. The number of B+FKG students (with either improved or worse posttest scores)
who answered correctly on each question on the pretest ........................................... 165
Figure 5.24. The number of B+FKG students (with either improved or worse posttest scores)
who answered correctly on each question on the posttest ......................................... 166
Figure 5.25. The frequencies of the written protocol response types for the pretest for B+FKG
students with the greatest positive or negative posttest change in scores .................. 168
Figure 5.26. The frequencies of the written protocol response types for the posttest for
B+FKG students with the greatest positive or negative posttest change in scores .... 170
Figure 5.27. The number of B+FKG students with the greatest positive posttest change in
scores who answered correctly on each question on both tests ................................ 171
Figure 5.28. The frequencies of the written protocol response types for both tests for B+FKG
students with the greatest positive posttest change in scores. .................................... 173
Figure 5.29. The number of B+FKG students with the greatest negative posttest change in
scores who answered correctly on each question on both tests ................................ 180
Figure 5.30. The frequencies of the written protocol response types for both tests for B+FKG
students with the greatest negative posttest change in scores .................................... 182
Figure 6.1. The mean scores for the poetry questionnaire closed questions between tests for
the BG ........................................................................................................................ 193
Figure 6.2. The mean scores for the poetry questionnaire closed questions between tests for
the B+FKG ................................................................................................................. 198
Figure 6.3. The mean scores for the poetry questionnaire closed questions on the pretest for
both groups ................................................................................................................. 203
Figure 6.4. The mean scores for the poetry questionnaire closed questions on the pretest for
both groups ................................................................................................................. 203
Figure 6.5. The mean scores for the Q9 on the pretest for both groups ................................. 206
Figure 6.6. The mean scores for the Q9 on the posttest for both groups ............................... 206

References
Berendi, M., Csabi, S., & Kovecses, Z. (2008). Using conceptual metaphors and metonymies in vocabulary teaching. In F. Boers, & S. Lindstromberg (Eds), Cognitive linguistic approaches to teaching vocabulary and phraseology, (pp. 65-100). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co.
Bishop, J. P. Unpublished letter to Edmund Wilson. 3 Nov. 1922, Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library, Edmund Wilson Papers.
Black, M. (1962). Models and metaphors. Ithica, NY: Cornell University Press.
Blistein, B. (2008). The design of “The Waste Land”. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
Boers, F., & Lindstromberg, S. (2008a). From empirical findings to pedagogical practice. In F. Boers, & S. Lindstromberg (Eds), Cognitive linguistic approaches to teaching vocabulary and phraseology, (pp. 375-393). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co.
Boers, F., & Lindstromberg, S. (2008b). How cognitive linguistics can foster effective vocabulary teaching. In F. Boers, & S. Lindstromberg (Eds), Cognitive linguistic approaches to teaching vocabulary and phraseology, (pp. 1-64). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co.
Brandt, L., & Brandt, P. A. (2005). Cognitive poetics and imagery. European Journal of English Studies, 9(2), 117-130.
Brone, G., & Vandaele, J. (2009). Cognitive poetics in practice. London/New York: Routledge.
Brooker, J. S. (1992). Reading “The Waste Land”: Modernism and the limits of interpretation. Boston: University of Massachusetts Press.
Brown, H. D. (2007). Principles of language learning and teaching. White Plains, NY: Pearson Education, Inc.
Buhler, K. (1934). Sprachtheorie: Die darstellungsfunktion der sprache. Jena, Germany: Fischer.
Burke, M., & Evers, K. (2014). Formalist stylistics. In M. Burke (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of stylistics, (pp. 31-44). London/New York: Routledge.
Canning, P. (2014). Functionalist stylistics. In M. Burke (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of stylistics, (pp. 45-67). London/New York: Routledge.
Chafe, W. (2000). Loci in diversity and convergence in though and language. In M. Putz, & M. H. Verspoor (Eds), Explorations in linguistic relativity, (pp. 101-123). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Chang, C. Y., & Mao, S. L. (1999). Comparison of Taiwan science students’ outcomes with inquiry-group versus traditional instruction. Journal of Educational Research, 92(6), 340-346.
Chomsky, N. (1966). Topics in the theory of generative grammar. Amsterdam: Mouton & Co., N.V.
Chomsky, N. (1972). Studies on semantics in generative grammar. Amsterdam: Mouton & Co., N.V.
Chomsky, N. (2002). On nature and language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Christiansen, M. H., & Chater, N. (2008). Language as shaped by the brain. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 31(5), 489-509.
Cienki, A. (1998). Metaphoric gestures and some of their relations to verbal metaphoric extensions. In J. P. Koenig (Ed.), Discourse and cognition: Bridging the gap, (pp. 18-204). Stanford, CA: CSLI.
Cienki, A. (2007). Frames, idealized cognitive models, and domains. In D. Geeraerts, & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguists, (pp. 170-187). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Crisp, P. (2003). Conceptual metaphor and its expressions. In J. Gavins & G. Steen (Eds), Cognitive poetics in practice, (pp. 99-113). London/New York: Routledge.
Crystal, D., & Davy, D. (1969). Investigating English style. London: Longman.
Culler, J. (1997). Literary theory: A very short introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dancygier, B. (2014). Stylistics and blending. In M. Burke (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of stylistics, (pp. 297-312). London/New York: Routledge.
Dancygier, B., & Vandelanotte, L. (2009). Judging distances: Mental spaces, distance, and viewpoint in literary discourse. In G. Brone, & J. Vandaele (Eds), Cognitive poetics: Goals, gains, and gaps, (pp. 319-377). New York: Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co.
Davidson, H. (1993). Improper desire: Reading The Waste Land. In A.D. Moody (Ed.), The Cambridge companion to T. S. Eliot, (pp. 108-120). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Deignan, A., Littlemore, J., & Semino, E. (2013). Figurative language, genre and register. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Doležel, L. (1998). Heterocosmica: Fiction and possible worlds. Baltimore/London: John Hopkins University Press.
Duffy, C. A. (1999). Mrs. Midas. In The world’s wife, (pp. 11-13). London: Picador.
Eco, U. (1979). The role of the reader. London: Hutchinson.
Ehrenzweig, A. (1970). The hidden order of art. London: Paladin.
Eliot, T. S. (1957). The frontiers of criticism. In E. Pound (Ed.), On poetry and poets, (pp. 109-110). London: Faber.
Eliot, T. S. (2011). The Waste Land. New York: Bartleby. www.bartleby.com/201/1.html. (Original work published 1922)
Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Emmott, C. (1997). Narrative comprehension: A discourse perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Emmott, C. (2003). Reading for pleasure: A cognitive poetic analysis of ‘twists in the tale’ and other plot reversals in narrative texts. In J. Gavins & G. Steen (Eds), Cognitive poetics in practice, (pp. 145-159). London/New York: Routledge.
Emmott, C., Alexander, M., & Marszalek, A. (2014). Schema theory in stylistics. In M. Burke (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of stylistics, (pp. 268-283). London/New York: Routledge.
Everett, D. (2012). Language: The cultural tool. London: Profile Books LTD.
Fauconnier, G. (1994). Mental space: Aspects of meaning construction in natural language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (1998). Conceptual integration networks. Cognitive science, 22, 133-187.
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (2002). The way we think: Conceptual blendings and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.
Fialho, O., & Zyngier, S. (2014). Quantitative methodological approaches to stylistics. In M. Burke (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of stylistics, (pp. 329-345). London/New York: Routledge.
Fillmore, C. J. (1977). Topics in lexical semantics. In R.W. Cole (Ed.), Current issues in linguistic theory, (pp. 76-138). Bloomington, IN/London: Indiana University Press.
Fillmore, C. J. (1982). Frame semantics. In Linguistic Society of Korea (Eds.), (pp. 111-137). 
Fillmore, C. J. (1985). Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni de Seamntica, 6, 222-254.
Fillmore, C. J. (1990). Epistemic stance and grammatical form in English conditional sentences. CLS, 26, 137-162.
Fillmore, C. J. (2006). Frame semantics. In D. Geeraerts, R. Dirven, & J. R. Taylor (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics Research, (pp. 323-398). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co.
Fillmore, C. J., & Atkins, B. T. (1992). Toward a frame-based lexicon: The semantics of RISK and its neighbors. In A., Lehrer, & E. Kittay (Eds.), Frames, fields, and contrasts, (pp. 75-102). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Fleischman, S. (1989). Temporal distance: A basic linguistic metaphor. London/New York: Routledge.
Fleischman, S. (1990). Tense and narrativity: From medieval performance to modern fiction. London/New York: Routledge.
Forceville, C. (1996). Pictorial metaphor in advertising. London/New York: Routledge.
Forrest-Thomson, V. (1978). Poetic artifice: A theory of twentieth-century poetry. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Frazier, J. (2006). The Golden Bough. Sioux Falls, SD: NuVision Publications. (Originally printed in 1890).
Freeman, M. H. (1995). Metaphor making meaning: Dickinson’s conceptual universe. Journal of Pragmatics, (24), 643-266.
Freeman, M. H. (2000a). Momentary stays, exploring forces: A cognitive linguistic approach to the poetics of Emily Dickinson and Robert Frost. Journal of English Linguistics, (30), 73-90.
Freeman, M. H. (2000b). Poetry and the scope of metaphor: Toward a cognitive theory of literature. In A. Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads, (pp. 253-281). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Freeman, M. H. (2002). The body in the word: A cognitive approach to the shape of a poetic text. In E. Semino, & J. Culpeper (Eds.), Cognitive stylistics: Language and cognition in text analysis, (pp. 23-47). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Freeman, M. H. (2007). Cognitive linguistic approaches to literary studies: State of the art in cognitive poetics. In D. Geeraerts, & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguists, (pp. 1175–1176). New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hosp, M. K., & Jenkins, J. R. (2009). Oral reading fluency as an indicator of reading competence: A theoretical, empirical, and historical analysis. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5(3), 239-256.
Gavins, J., & Steen, G. (Eds). (2003). Cognitive poetics in practice. London/New York: Routledge.
Giovanelli, M. (2013). Text world theory and Keats’ poetry: The cognitive poetics of desire, dreams, and nightmares. New York: Bloomsbury Academic.
Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Gamlin, G. (2010). Language in The Waste Land as intermediate area of meaning. Kobe University Faculty of Letters Bulletin, 37, 61-83.
Grady, J. E., Oakley, T., & Coulson, S. (1999). Blending and metaphor. In R.W. Gibbs, & G.J. Steen (Eds), Metaphor in cognitive linguistics, (pp. 104-124). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Grice, P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole, & J. Morgan (Eds), Syntax and semantics 3: Speech acts, (pp. 41-58). New York: Academic Press.
Gugin, D. L. (2007). From syntax to schema: Teaching Flannery O’Connor in the Persian Gulf. In G. Watson, & S. Zyngier (Eds.), Literature and stylistics for language learners: Theory and practice, (pp. 129-139). New York: Palgrave MacMillan.
Hall, G. (2007). Stylistics in second language contexts: a critical perspective. In G. Watson, & S. Zyngier (Eds.), Literature and stylistics for language learners: Theory and practice, (pp. 3-14). New York: Palgrave MacMillan.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar, (2nd edn.). London: Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. K. (2002). J. Webster (Ed.), Linguistic studies of text and discourse. London & New York: Continuum.
Hamilton, C. (2006). Stylistics or cognitive stylistics? Bulletin de la Societe de Stylistique Anglaise, 28, 55-56.
Harbus, A. (2012). Cognitive approaches to old English poetry. Cambridge, UK: D.S. Brewer.
Harding, J. R. (2014). Reader response criticism and stylistics. In M. Burke (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of stylistics, (pp. 68- 84). London/New York: Routledge.
Hemingway, E. (1998). A very short story. In The complete short stories of Ernest Hemingway: The Finca Vigia edition, (pp. 105-108). New York: Scribner.
Heywood, J., Semino, E., & Short, M. H., (2002). Linguistic metaphor identification in two extracts from novels. Language and literature, 11, 35-54. DOI: 10.1177/096394700201100104
Jackson, T. E. (2005). Explanation, interpretation, and close reading: The progress of cognitive poetics. Poetics Today, 26(3), 519-533.
Jakobson, R. (1960). Closing statement: Linguistics and poetics. In T.A. Sebeok (Ed.), Style in language, (pp. 350-377). Cambridge, MA: M.I.T Press.
Jakobson, R. (1981). Selected writings: Poetry of grammar and grammar of poetry. The Hague and New York: Mouton.
Johnston, M. (1987). The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Jeffries, L, & McIntyre, D. (2010). Stylistics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Kember, D., McKay, J., Sinclair, K., & Wong, F. K. Y. (2008). A UQ assessment brief on ‘A four-category scheme for coding and assessing the level of reflection in written work’. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(4), 369-379.
Kenner, H. (2007). The Waste Land. In H. Bloom (Ed.), Bloom’s modern critical interpretations: T.S. Eliot’s The Waste Land, (pp. 7-34). New York: Infobase Publishing.
Koeszegi, G. Z., & Srnka, K. J. (2007). From words to numbers: How to transform qualitative data into meaningful quantitative results. SBR, 59, 29-57.
Kramsch, C. (2002). Second language acquisition, applied linguistics, and the teaching of foreign languages. The Modern Language Journal, 84(3), 311-326.
Krifka, M. (1992). Thematic relations as links between nominal reference and temporal constitution. In I. A. Sag, & A. Szabolcsi (Eds.), Lexical Matters, (pp. 29-54). Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information, Leland Stanford Junior University.
Laas, S. (2005). How Flaubert’s “Madame Bovary” transports us into an imaginary universe. Norderstedt, Germany: Books on Demand GmbH.
Lahey, E. (2014). Stylistics and text world theory. In M. Burke (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of stylistics, (pp. 284- 296). London/New York: Routledge.
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G. (1992). The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (2nd edn.), (pp. 202-251). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980/2003). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G., & Turner, M. (1989). More than cool reason: A field guide to poetic metaphor. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Lam, Y. L. J., Wei, H. C. P., Pan, H. L. W., & Chan, C. M. M. (2006). In search of basic sources that propel organizational learning under recent Taiwanese school reforms. International Journal of Educational Management, 16(5), 216-228.
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. I, Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Langacker, R. W. (1990). Concept, image, and symbol: The cognitive basis of grammar. New York: Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co.
Langacker, R. W. (1991). Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. II, Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Langacker, R. W. (2007). Cognitive grammar. In D. Geeraerts, & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics, (pp. 421-462). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Langacker, R. W. (2009). Investigations in cognitive grammar. New York: Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co.
Lawrence, D. H. (1964). Song of a man who has come through. Complete Poems, (p. 250). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Lee, D. (2001). Cognitive linguistics: An introduction. New York: Oxford University Press.
Leech, G. (1969). A linguistic guide to English poetry. Harlow, UK: Longman.
Leech, G. (2008). Language in literature: Style and foregrounding. Harlow, UK: Longman.
Liu, G. Z. (2013). The trend and challenge for teaching EFL at Taiwanese universities. RELC Journal, 36(2), 211-221.
Louwerse, M., & van Peer, W. (2009). How cognitive is cognitive poetics? The interaction between symbolic and embodied cognition. In G. Brone, & J. Vandaele (Eds), ga, (pp. 423-453). New York: Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co.
Mahfoodh, O. H. A. (2011). A qualitative case study of EFL students’ affective reactions to and perceptions of their teachers’ written feedback. English Language Teaching, 4(2), 14-25. DOI: 10.5539/elt.v4n3p14
Mahlberg, M. (2014). Corpus stylistics. In M. Burke (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of stylistics, (pp. 378-392). London/New York: Routledge.
Margolin, U. (1994). Russian formalism: The Johns Hopkins guide to literary theory and criticism. In M. Groden, M. Kreiswirth, & I. Szeman (Eds.), Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
McIntyre, D. (2013a). Context, cognition, discourse, history: Peter Verdonk’s stylistics of poetry. In D. McIntyre (Ed), The stylistics of poetry: Context, cognition, discourse, history, (pp. 1-10). London/New York: Bloomsbury Academic.
McIntyre, D. (2013b). Poetic artifice and literary stylistics. In D. McIntyre (Ed), The stylistics of poetry: Context, cognition, discourse, history, (pp. 11-22). London/New York: Bloomsbury Academic.
Meyer, L. B. (1956). Emotion and meaning in music. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Miller, J. E. (2007). Personal mood transmuted into epic: T.S. Eliot’s “Waste Land". In H. Bloom (Ed.), Bloom’s modern critical interpretations: T.S. Eliot’s The Waste Land, (pp. 49-74). New York: Infobase Publishing.
Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.
Mukařovsky, J. (1970). Aesthetic function, norm and value as social facts. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan.
Narayan, S. (2009). The way in which text worlds are furnished. In G. Brone, & J. Vandaele (Eds.), Cognitive poetics: Goals, gains, and gaps, (pp. 73-77). New York: Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co.
Nunberg, G. (1979). The non-uniqueness of semantic solutions. Linguistics and Philosophy, 3, 143-184.
Oakley, T. (2007). Image schemas. In D. Geeraerts, & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguists, (pp. 214-235). New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Palmer, F. R. (1981). Semantics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Picken, J. D. (2007). Literature, metaphor, and the foreign language learner. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Porter, D. T. (1981). Dickinson: The modern idiom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Rainey, L. (2005a). Introduction. In L. Rainey (Ed.), The annotated Waste Land with Eliot’s contemporary prose, (pp. 1-56). New Haven, CN: Yale University Press.
Rainey, L. (2005b). Revisiting “The Waste Land”. Devon, PA: Duke & Company.
Roediger, H. L., & Karpicke, J. D. (2006). Test-enhanced learning: Taking memory tests improves long-term retention. Psychological Science, 17(3), 249-255.
Rosner, B., Glynn, R. J., & Lee, M. L. T. (2007). Wilcoxon signed rank test for paired comparisons of clustered data. Biometrics, 62, 185-192. 
Ryan, M. L. (1991). Possible words, artificial intelligence and narrative theory. Bloomington, IN/Indianapolis: Indian University Press.
Sampson, G. (1989). Language acquisition: Growth or learning? Philosophical Papers, 18(3), 203-240.
Schmid, H. J. (2007). Entrenchment, salience, and basic levels. In D. Geeraerts, & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguists, (pp. 117-138). New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sell, R. D. (1993). The difficult style of The Waste Land: A literary-pragmatic perspective on modernist poetry. In P. Verdonk (Ed.), Twentieth-century poetry: From text to context, (pp. 134-158). London/New York: Routledge.
Semino, E. (1997). Language and world creation in poems and other texts. London: Longman.
Semino, E. (2002). A cognitive stylistic approach to mind style in narrative fiction. In E. Semino, & J. Culpeper (Eds.), Cognitive stylistics: Language and cognition in text analysis, (pp. 95-122). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Semino, E. (2008). Metaphor in discourse. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Semino, E. (2009). Text worlds. In G. Brone, & J. Vandaele (Eds), Cognitive poetics: Goals, gains, and gaps, (pp. 33-71). New York: Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co.
Semino, E., & Culpeper, J. (2002). Forward. In E. Semino, & J. Culpeper (Eds.), Cognitive stylistics: Language and cognition in text analysis, (pp. IX-XVI). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Semino, E., Deignan, A., & Littlemore, J. (2013). Metaphor, genre and recontextualization. Metaphor and Symbol, 28(1), 41-59.
Semino, E., Short, M. (2004). Corpus stylistics: Speech, writing and thought presentation in a corpus of English writing. London/New York: Routledge.
Shkloveskij, V. (1998). Art as technique. In J. Rivkin, & M.L. Ryan (Eds.), Literary theory: An anthology, (pp. 15-21). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Short, M., Semino, E., & Culpeper, J. (1996). Using a corpus for stylistics research: Speech presentation. In J. Thomas, & M. Short (Eds.), Using corpora for language research, (pp. 110-131). London: Longman.
Simpson, P. (2004). Stylistics: A resource book for students. London/New York: Routledge.
Simpson, P. (2007). Non-standard grammar in the teaching of language and style. In G. Watson, & S. Zyngier (Eds.), Literature and stylistics for language learners: Theory and practice, (pp. 140-154). New York: Palgrave MacMillan.
Sinclair, J. (1966). Taking a poem to pieces. In R. Fowler (Ed.) Essays on style and language, (pp. 68-81). London/New York: Routledge.
Sinclair, J. (2004). R. Carter (Ed.) Trust the text: Language, corpus and discourse. London/New York: Routledge.
Singh, S. (2001). T.S. Eliot’s concept of time and the technique of textual reading: A comment on “cross” in “The Waste Land” 3, line 175. A Quarterly Journal of Short Articles, Notes and Reviews, 14(1), 34-39.
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1995). Relevance, communication and cognition (2nd edn). Oxford: Blackwell.
Steen, G. (1999). Metaphor and discourse: Towards a linguistic checklist for metaphor analysis. In L. Cameron & G. Low (Eds.), Researching and applying metaphor, (pp. 81-104). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Steen, G. (2002). Metaphor in Bob Dylan’s “Hurricane”. In E. Semino, & J. Culpeper (Eds.), Cognitive stylistics: Language and cognition in text analysis, (pp. 183-209). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Steen, G., & Gavins, J. (2003). Contextualizing cognitive poetics. In J. Gavins & G. Steen (Eds.), Cognitive poetics in practice, (pp. 1-12). London/New York: Routledge.
Stockwell, P. (2000). Towards a critical cognitive poetics. Discourses of War and Conflict. Potchefstroom, South Africa: Potchefstroom University Press.
Stockwell, P. (2002a). Cognitive poetics: An introduction. New York: Taylor & Francis Group.
Stockwell, P. (2002b). Miltonic texture and the feeling of reading. In J. Culpeper & E. Semino (Eds.), Cognitive Stylistics, (pp. 73–94). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Stockwell, P. (2008). On cognitive poetics and stylistics. Retrieved October 12, 2014.
Svensson, E. (2001). Guidelines to statistical evaluation of data from rating scales and questionnaires. J Rehab Med, 33, 47-48.
Sweetser, E. (1996). Mental spaces and the grammar of conditional constructions. In G. Fauconnier, & E. Sweetser (Eds.), Spaces, worlds and grammar, (pp. 318-333). Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Talmy, L. (1985). Lexicalization patterns: Semantic structure in lexical forms. In T. Shopen (Ed.), Language topology and syntactic description, vol. 3: Grammatical categories and the lexicon, (pp. 57-149). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a cognitive semantics, Vol. 1: Concept structuring systems, language speech, and communication. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Tsur, R. (1977). A perception-oriented theory of metre. Tel Aviv: Porter Israeli Institute for Poetics and Semiotics, Tel Aviv University.
Tsur, R. (1983). What is cognitive poetics. Tel Aviv: Katz Research Institute for Hebrew Literature, Tel Aviv University.
Tsur, R. (1992). Toward a theory of cognitive poetics. Amsterdam: North Holland.
Tsur, R. (1998). Poetic rhythm – structure and performance: An empirical study in cognitive poetics. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang Verlag.
Tsur, E. (2003a). Deixis and abstractions: Adventures in space and time. In J. Gavins, & G. Steen (Eds.), Cognitive poetics in practice, (pp. 41-98). London/New York: Routledge.
Tsur, R. (2003b). On the shore of nothingness: A study in cognitive poetics. Exeter, UK: Imprint Academic.
Tsur, R. (2009). Metaphor and figure-ground relationship: Comparisons from poetry, music, and the visual arts. In G. Brone, & J. Vandaele (Eds), Cognitive poetics: Goals, gains, and gaps, (pp. 237-277). New York: Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co.
Turner, M. (1991). Reading minds: The study of English in the age of cognitive science. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Turner, M. (1996). Conceptual blending and counterfactual argument in the social and behavioral sciences. In P.E. Tetlock, & A. Belkin (Eds.), Counterfactual though experiments in world politics: Logical, methodological, and psychological, (pp. 291-295). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Turner, M. (1996). The literary mind: The origins of language and thought. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Turner, M., & Fauconnier, G. (1995). Conceptual integration and formal expression. Metaphor and symbolic activity, 10, 183-203.
Tyler, A. (2012). Cognitive linguistics and second language learning: Theoretical basics and experimental evidence. Florence, Kentucky: Routeledge.
Ungerer, F., & Schmid, H. J. (2006). An introduction to cognitive linguistics. Harlow, UK: Pearson Education Limited.
Vandaele, J., & Brone, G. (2009). Cognitive poetics: A critical introduction. In G. Brone, & J. Vandaele (Eds), Cognitive poetics: Goals, gains, and gaps, (pp. 423-453). New York: Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co.
van Peer, W. (1986). Stylistics and psychology: Investigations of foregrounding. London: Croom Helm.
van Peer, W., & Graf, E. (2002). Between the lines: Spatial language and its developmental representation in Stephen King’s IT. In E. Semino, & J. Culpeper (Eds.), Cognitive stylistics: Language and cognition in text analysis, (pp. 123-152). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
van Peer, W., & Nousi, A. (2007). What reading does to readers: stereotypes, foregrounding and language learning. In G. Watson, & S. Zyngier (Eds.), Literature and stylistics for language learners: Theory and practice, (pp. 181-193). New York: Palgrave MacMillan.
Verdonk, P. (2013a). Poetic artifice and literary stylistics. In D. McIntyre (Ed), The stylistics of poetry: Context, cognition, discourse, history, (pp. 11-22). London/New York: Bloomsbury Academic.
Verdonk, P. (2013b). The language of poetry: The application of literary stylistic theory in university teaching. In D. McIntyre (Ed), The stylistics of poetry: Context, cognition, discourse, history, (pp. 55-78). London/New York: Bloomsbury Academic.
Verdonk, P. (2013c). The liberation of the icon: A brief survey from classical rhetoric to cognitive stylistics. In D. McIntyre (Ed), The stylistics of poetry: Context, cognition, discourse, history, (pp. 113-122). London/New York: Bloomsbury Academic.
Werth, P. (1999). Text worlds: Representing conceptual space in discourse. London: Longman.
Weston, J. L. (2005). From ritual to romance. New York: Cosimo. (Originally printed in 1920).
Wetherill, P. M. (1974). S. Ullman (Ed.). The literary text: an examination of critical methods. Berkley: University of California Press.
Widdowson, H. G. (1992). Practical stylistics: An approach to poetry. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Zerkowitz, J. (2007). Language teaching through Gricean glasses. In G. Watson, & S. Zyngier (Eds.), Literature and stylistics for language learners: Theory and practice, (pp. 155-166). New York: Palgrave MacMillan.