本研究旨在探討分別以英文和中文為母語的外語學習者，對英語動作事件描述的差異性，並討論以中文為母語的外語學習者，如何從他們觀點轉譯所看見的動作事件，其中語言經驗模式、中文詞網、中英文語言結構等都是本研究探討的重點。本文共有三個測驗，以英文為母語的人士者為第一測驗的受試者，他們所使用的動作動詞、路徑、和動作動詞、路徑 和目的地三者配搭都將辨識和歸類。以中文為母語的英語學習者為第二和第三測驗的受試者，他們在測驗二所使用的動作動詞、路徑、和動作動詞、路徑 和目的地三者配搭都將辨識和歸類。在測驗三，參與測驗二的受試者將動作事件的中文描述翻譯成英文，其所使用的英文詞將會和題目的中文詞作比較。測驗一，23位以英文為母語受試者，首先依據料理鼠王的故事選出的18張手繪動作事件圖卡，並自由描述圖卡中的動作事件。結果顯示出受試者的動作動詞、路徑、和動作詞組呈現多樣性。此外動作詞組和目的地連結的模式，也將以圖表方式呈現。測驗二，將90位以中文為母語的英語學習者，依英文能力分為二組，寫出測驗一的18張手繪動作事件圖卡，並自由描述圖中的動作事件。結果顯示英語能力較好者可寫出似英文為母語者的表達動作詞組，但英語能力較差受試者，有較多的動詞詞組趨近於直接中文翻譯的動詞詞組。測驗三，測驗二受試者在一週後作中文動作事件翻譯為英文的測驗。測驗題目作事件也是依據18張測驗一的動作事件圖卡所編制中文句子。受試者句子表達的分析結果將做中、英動作動詞、路徑和動作詞組的三張對照表以顯示其差異性。其結果顯示受試者套用中文動作詞組（方法動詞＋路徑動詞）高於受試者看圖像寫作。本研究的結果回應研究問題，受試者的母語、和他們的語言經驗模式會影響他們在動作動詞、路徑和動作事件句型的表達方式。受試者寫作能力的表現受限於寫作參照的工具，透過看圖寫作勝於中翻英中的方式，受試者比較能呈現英文（動詞＋路徑）的結構。

This paper investigates and compares the expression of motion events between native speakers of English and native Chinese speakers. Learners’ experiencing schema, learners’L1 word net, and cross-linguistic language frameworks are noted as the main foci, while an exploration details how L2 learners interpret motion events from their perception of the world. Three tests were conducted. The first test focused on native English speakers’ use of lexical patterns of motion and their parent relationship with Ground. The second test focused on native Chinese participants’ use of lexical patterns of motion and their parent relationship with Ground. The third test was the supplementary test which is used to study native Chinese participants’ English translation from motion events written in Chinese.
   18 hand-drawn pictures containing motion events that were drawn from the story of “Ratatouille” were presented to 23 native English speakers in test 1 and 90 Chinese participants in test 2 who depicted the motion events in the pictures with open-questionnaire format. 90 Chinese participants in test 2 were required to translate these sentences from Chinese to English in test 3 one week after they have completed test 2. 
   The comparison of participants in test 1 and 2 presented that English native speakers used Path to express the relations of Motion and Ground but Chinese participants in test 2 often used Path to express the position of Motion. The analysis of the findings showed Chinese participants focused on the position of motion more than the elaboration of the Motion and Ground when they depicted the motion event in the 18 pictures. Besides, when the meaning of Path of motion in English can be translated as the same meaning of Path verb in Chinese, some students in test 2 used Chinese Path verb as the path of motion to describe the path of motion in their written English. These two findings might explain why Chinese EFL learners with limited English proficiency have difficult in learning or using proper preposition or particles to express the relation of Motion and Ground in English.   
   The comparison of test 2 and test 3 showed that the influence of first language to Chinese participants could be reduced on their written production in English if they depicted the 18 motion events from pictures but not from the written Chinese. Further, the results showed that participants with better English proficiency could produce more lexical patterns of motion corresponded to an English lexical patterns of motion (Motion + Path) then participants with limited English proficiency. Thus, the English proficiency plays an important role when Chinese participants want to reach native speakers like written production.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS	.................................................i
淡江大學論文題要	................................................ii
Abstract	...............................................iv
CONTENTS	................................................vi
LIST OF TABLES	........................................x
LIST OF FIGURES............................ ............xiii
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION	...............................1
1.1 Motivation and Background of the Study................1
1.2 Statement of the Problem	......................4
1.3 Purpose of the Study and Research Questions...........8
1.4 Significance of the Study	.....................11
1.5 Definition of key Terms	..............................12
1.6 Organization of the Study	...... ..............15
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW	..............................16
2.1 Language and Cognition	...................... .......16
2.1.1 Slobin “ Speaking and thinking” hypothesis.......19.
2.1.2 Categorization of Language.........................21
2.1.3 Grammar in Cognition	..............................25
2.1.4 Conceptual Blending Networks….....................27
2.1.5 Concepts and Elaboration	....................30
2.2 Lexical Concept and Cognitive Model..................33
2.3 Cognition and Culture	..............................35
2.4 Conception of Events	..............................41
2.4.1 Spatial schema	..............................43
2.5 Cross- Linguistic typology in Motion Events..........47
2.5.1 Overview of the phenomenon of typology in motion 
event....................................................47
2.5.2 Typology of Motion Event in English................50
2.5.3 Typology of Motion Event in Chinese................56
2.5.4 Cross-Linguistic Differences in Motion Events:  
      English and Chinese................................63
2.5.5 Difficulty of learning to express motion in a second 
      language...........................................66
2.6 Summary..............................................68
CHAPTER 3 METHOD	.......................................70
3.1 Pilot Study	.......................................70
3.2 Formal Study	.......................................73
3.3 Subjects	.......................................74
3.3.1 Subjects of Test 1	..............................74
3.3.2 Subjects of test 2 and 3	.....................74
3.4 Materials of the study	..............................75
3.4.1 Materials for test 1	..............................75
3.4.2 Materials for Test 2	..............................77
3.4.3 Materials for Test 3	..............................78
3.5 Procedure of the study	..............................78
3.5.1 Procedure of Test 1	..............................79
3.5.2 Procedure of Test 2	..............................80
3.5.3 Procedure of the Test 3............................81
3.6 Data collection......................................82
3.6.1 Test 1	.......................................82
3.6.2 Test 2	.......................................82
3.6.3 Test 3	.......................................82
3.7 Coding and Analysis	..............................83
CHAPTER 4 RESULTS	.......................................87
4.1 Results of Test One	..............................87
4.1.1 Motion and Path expressions for each picture.......88
4.1.2 Results of analysis of lexical patterns (Motion + Path) and its Ground.....................................91
4.1.2.1 Results of analysis of lexical patterns (Motion + Path ) and its Ground in category of directional path.	...............................................92
4.1.2.2 Results of analysis of lexical patterns (Motion + Path ) and its Ground in category of ground path........ 102
4.2 The Results of Test II	.........................113
4.2.1 Descriptive analysis of the vocabulary pretest of group A and B	......................................113
4.2.2 Category of Motion and Path in Test Two	.........114
4.2.3 The Parent Relation Between the Lexical Patterns of Motion and its Ground in Test Two	.................120
4.2.3.1 Results of analysis of lexical patterns (Motion + Path ) and its Ground in category of directional path.	.121
4.2.3.2 Results of analysis of lexical patterns (Motion + Path ) and its Ground in category of ground path.........133
4.2.4 The Structure of Lexical Patterns of Motion........146
4.3 The Results of Test Three............................149
4.4. The Comparison of test 2 and test 3.................153
4.5 Summary..............................................155
CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION.....................................156
5.1 In what ways are English L2 written sentences related to motion events influenced by L1 Chinese language construction?............................................156
5.2 Are English L2 written sentences related to motion influenced by the lexical semantic characteristics of Chinese verbs?...........................................164
5.3 Are English L2 written sentences related to motion influenced by Chinese L1 learners’ experiencing schema?..................................................170
5.4 Does a learner’s second language proficiency influence their interpretation from visual images to written production?..............................................174
5.5 Summary..............................................179
CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSION.....................................181
6.1 Summary of the findings	.............................181
6.2 Pedagogical implications.............................184
6.3 Limitations and suggestions for future study.........186
REFERENCES...............................................188
Appendix.................................................204

LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1 Sample of Lexicon…………………………………………………….	31
Table 2.2 conceptual change induced by L2 learning……………………………	39
Table 3.1 The background information of participants in test 1…………………
Table 3.2 Class of selected motion verbs………………………………………..
Table 3.3 Class of selected preposition…………………………………………..	74
	76
	77
Table 4.1 Motion expressions in each picture……………………………………	89
Table 4.2 Path description and its frequency for each picture…………………...	90
Table 4.3 Figure and Ground of picture 10, 11, 12, and 13……………………...
Table 4.4 The high and low frequency of lexical pattern of motions in figure 4.1-4.4………………………………………………………………
Table 4.5 Motion and Path of the category of directional spatial path…………..
Table 4.6 Figure and Ground of picture 3, 5, 8, and 18…………………………
Table 4.7 The high and low frequency of lexical pattern of motions in each figure…………………………………………………………………
Table 4.8 Motion and Path of the category of directional movement path………	93
	93
	97
	97
	
	98
	101
Table 4.9 Figure and Ground of pictures in two categories of ground path……..
Table 4.10 The high and low frequency of lexical patterns of motions in picture 15, 16, 17, 1, 2, 4, 6, 9, and 14……………………………………….
Table 4.11 Motion and Path of the category of ground path……………………	102
	
	103
	112
Table 4.12 Descriptive analyses………………………………………………
Table 4.13 Independent sample T-test……………………………………..	114
	114
Table 4.14 Variable of Motion and the frequency of each motion of Group A…	115
Table 4.15 Variable of Motion and the frequency of each motion of Group B…	116
Table 4.16 The path expressions and their frequency in group A and group B….	119
Table 4.17 Figure and Ground of pictures in two categories of directional path	121
Table 4.18 The comparsion of Motin + Path pattern of picture 10-13………….
Table 4.19 The high frequency of lexical pattern of motion in picture10-13…… 	126
	127
Table 4.20 The category of Motion and Path of picture 3,5,8,18 in test 1 and 2..	 132
Table 4.21 The high frequency of lexical pattern of motion in picture 3,5,8,18..
Table 4.22 Figure and Ground of pictures in two categories of ground path……	133
	134
Table 4.23 The category of Motion and Path of picture 15, 16, and 17 in test 1 and test 2…………………………………………………………..	137
Table 4.24 The high frequency of lexical pattern of picture 15, 16, and 17 in test 1 and 2………………………………………………………….	 137
Table 4.25. Motion and Path of Picture 1,2,4,6,7,9,14  in test 1 and test2 …	145
Table 4.26 The high frequency of lexical pattern of motion in picture 1,2, 4, 6,7,9, and 14……………………………………………………….	146
Table 4.27 Analysis of Chinese participants ‘motion events………………..	147
Table 4.28 Category of lexical patterns of motion in test 2…………………….	148
Table 4.29 Categories of Motion in Chinese and their translation in English…..	150
Table 4.30 Categories of Path verbs in Chinese and their translation in English..	151
Table 4.31 Lexical expressions of Motion in Chinese and their translation in English……………………………………………………………	152
Table 4.32 The comparison of Motion and Path among test 1, test 2, and test 3..	154
Table 4.33 Categories of Chinese participants’ motion events ……………… 	154
Table 5.1 The analysis of non qualified Motion + path lexical patterns of motion………………………………………………………………	157
Table 5.2 The list of Motion used alone in lower case………………………….	159
Table 5.3 Similarity and dissimilarity of motion in test 1 and test 2…………….	167
Table 5.4 The results of the comparison of the Path in Group A and B with native speakers in test 1………………………………………………	176
	


 
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1 The bike is in front of the car………………………………………...	17
Figure 2.2 Integration of Frames and Domains………………………………….	23
Figure 2.3 Semantic category “in” and “on” in English and Chinese……………	25
Figure2. 4. Funconnier and Turner Blending Network Model…………………..	28
Figure 2.5 An example illustrating Reigeluth’s ideas……………………………	30
Figure 2.6 The relationship between Conceptual system and Linguistic system..	34
Figure 2.7 A sample of role archetypes………………………………………….	42
Figure 2.8 Action Chain of Billiard-ball Model…………………………………	43
Figure 2.9 The Elaboration with the Ground……………………………………	54
Figure 2.10 Jeckendoff’s (1983) typology of path………………………………	55
Figure 2.11 Syntactic mapping of macro-event in verb-framed languages……..	56
Figure 3.1 The Procedure of implementing the study……………………………	72
Figure 3.2 The relationship among three tests…………………………………...	73
Figure 3.3 Procedure of the study………………………………………………..	79
Figure 3.4 Procedure of test 1……………………………………………………	80
Figure 3.5 Procedure of test 2……………………………………………………	81
Figure 4.1 Parent relations of lexical express of Motion and its Ground for picture 10………………………………………………………………	94
Figure 4.2 Parent relation of lexical express of Motion and its Ground in 
picture 11 …………………………………………………………....	95
Figure 4.3 Parent relation of lexical express of Motion and its Ground for picture12…………………………………………………………….	95
Figure 4.4 Parent relation of lexical express of motion and its ground for picture 13…………………………………………………………….	96
Figure 4.5 Parent relations of lexical patterns of motion and its ground for picture 3……………………………………………………………..	99
Figure 4.6 Parent relations of lexical expression of Motion and its Ground for picture 5……………………………………………………………..	100
Figure 4.7 Parent relations of lexical express of Motion and its Ground for picture8……………………………………………………………..	100
Figure 4.8 Parent relations of lexical express of Motion and its Ground for picture18…………………………………………………………	101
Figure 4.9 Parent relations of lexical express of Motion and its Ground for picture15…………………………………………………………….	104
Figure 4.10 parent relations of lexical express of motions and its Ground for picture 16…………………………………………………………	105
Figure 4.11 Parent relations of lexical express of Motion and its Ground for picture 17…………………………………………………………	105
Figure 4.12 Parent relations of lexical patterns of Motion and its Ground for picture 1……………………………………………………………	106
Figure 4.13 Parent relations of lexical express of Motion and its Ground for picture 2…………………………………………………………	107
Figure 4.14 parent relations of lexical patterns of Motion and its Ground for picture 4…………………………………………………………	108
Figure 4.15 parent relations of lexical patterns of Motion and its Ground for picture 6……………………………………………………………	108
Figure 4.16 Parent relations of lexical pattern of Motion and its Ground for picture 7…………………………………………………………	110
Figure 4.17 Parent relation of lexical express (Motion+ Path) and its Ground for picture 9……………………………………………………………	110
Figure 4.18 Parent relations of lexical pattern of Motion and its Ground for picture 14……………………………………………………………	111
Figure 4.19 Parent relations of lexical express of Motion and its Ground for picture 10…………………………………………………………..	123
Figure 4.20 Parent relations of lexical express of Motion and its Ground in picture 11…………………………………………………………..	123
Figure 4.21 Parent relations of lexical express of Motion and its Ground in picture 12………………………………………………………..	124
Figure 4.22 Parent relations of lexical express of Motion and its Ground in
picture 13………………………….……………………………..	125
Figure 4.23 Parent relations of lexical express of Motion and its Ground in picture3……………………………………………………………  	128
Figure 4.24 Parent relations of lexical express of Motion and its Ground in picture 5……………………………………………………………..	129
Figure 4.25 Parent relations of lexical express of Motion and its Ground in picture 8…………………………………………………………..	130
Figure 4.26 Parent relations of lexical express of Motion and its Ground in picture 18………………………………………………………..	131
Figure 4.27 Parent relations of lexical express of motion and its ground for picture15…………………………………………………………….	135
Figure 4.28 Parent relations of lexical express of Motions and its Ground for picture16……………………………………………………………	136
Figure 4.29 Parent relations of lexical express of Motion and its Ground for picture 17………………………………………………………..	136
Figure 4.30 Parent relations of lexical express of Motion and its Ground for picture 1…………………………………………………………	139
Figure 4.31 Parent relations of lexical express of Motion and its Ground for picture 2……………………………………………………………	139
Figure 4.32 Parent relations of lexical express of Motion and its Ground for picture 4…………………………………………………………..	140
Figure 4.33 parent relations of lexical express of motion and its ground for picture 6……………………………………………………………	141
Figure 4.34 Parent relations of lexical express of motion and its ground for picture 7………………………………………………………….	142
Figure 4.35 Parent relations of lexical express of motion and its ground for picture 9…………………………………………………………	143
Figure 4.36 Parent relations of lexical express of motion and its ground for picture 14……………………………………………………….	144
Figure 5.1 the motion of rise and ju(lift)…………………………………………	166
Figure 5.2The direction of crawl and climb in English and in Chinese…………	168
Figure 5.3 Lexical concepts of motion event and cognitive model……………...	170
Figure 5.4 The spatial schema of pao and run…………………………………..	171
Figure 5.5 the cognitive mapping of the path down and over of motion push…...	173
Figure 5.6 the comparison with native English speakers between Group A and Group B in motion…………………………………………………..	175

Anderson, S. R. & Lightfoot, D. W. (2002). The Language  Organ: Linguistics as Cognitive Physiology. Cambridge University Press. 
Arabski, J. (2006). Language transfer in language learning and language contact. Cross-linguistic influences in the second language lexicon, 12-21
Ackermann, F., Eden, C. &  Cropper ,S. (2004). Getting started with cognitive mapping. Retrieved January 20, 2013, from  /2008/01/19/getting-started-with-cognitive-mapping/
Baar, B.J. (1980). The competing plans hypothesis: an heuristic viewpoint on the causes of errors in speech in H. Dechert and M. Raupach (Eds): Temporal Variables in Speech. The Hague: Mouton.
Beavers, J., Levin, B. & Tham, S. W. (2009). The Typology of Motion Expressions Revisited. J. Linguistics, 1-82.
Berman, R. A. & Slobin, D. I. (1994). Relating Events in Narrative: A Crosslinguistic Developmental Study. Hillsdale, N. J. : Lawrence Erlbaum.
Brown, R. (1968). The Psychology of Language and Communication. New York:Guilford Press 
Bowerman, M. (1989). Learning a semantic system: what role do cognitive predispositions play? In M.L.Rice and R. I,. Schiefelbusch (Eds.), The teachability of language, (pp.133-168). Baltimore: Brookes.
Bowerman, M. (1996). Learning how to structure space for language: A cross- linguistic perspective. In P.Bloom, M. Peterson, L. Nadel, and M. Garrett (Eds), Language and space (pp. 385-436). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Bowerman, M and Choi, S. (2001). Shaping meanings for language: Universal and language-specific in the acquisition of spatial semantic categories. In M. Bowerman and S.C Levinson(Eds.), Language acquisition and conceptual development(pp.475-511).Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bowerman, M., & Choi, S. (2003). Space under construction: Language-specific spatial categorization in first language acquisition. In D. Gentner, & S. Goldin-Meadow (Eds.), Language in mind: Advances in the study of language and thought (pp. 387-427). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Bowerman, M. (2005). Linguistics. In B. Hopkins (Ed.), The Cambridge encyclopedia of child development (pp. 497-501). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Robert Brandom, R. (1994). Making It Explicit: Reasoning, Representing, and Discursive Commitment . Cambridge, Harvard University Press. 
Bohnemeyer, J. & Pederson, E. (Eds) (2011). Event Representation in Language and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cadierno, T. (2004). Expressing motion events in a second language: A cognitive typological perspective. In M. Achard & S. Niemeir (Eds), Cognitivie Llinguistics, Second Language Acquisition, and Foreign Language Teaching (pp.13-49). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Cadierno, T. (2008).  Learning to talk about motion in a foreign language. In P. Robinson, & N.C. Ellis (Eds.), A handbook of cognitive linguistics and SLA (pp.378-406). London: Routledge. 
Chao, Y-R. (1968). A grammar of Spoken Chinese. Berkeley: University of California Press. 
Chatttterjee, S.H., Freyd, J. J., & Shiffrar, M. (1996). Configural processing in the perception of apparent biological motion, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception an Performance, 22, 916-29.
Change, J-H. (2001). The Syntax of Event Structure in Chinese. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Hawai’i, USA.
Chao, Y-R. (1968). A grammar of Spoken Chinese. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Chen, L. & Guo, J. (2009). Motion Events in Chinese novels: Evidence for an equipollently-framed language. Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 1749-1766.
Chen, L. (2005). The acquisition and Use of motion event expression in Chinese, Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Louisiana at Lafayette. 
Chen, L. (2007). Second language acquisition and cognitive linguistics. In Jianguo, Ji and Nan Jiang (Eds). Developments in Applied Linguistics (pp 154-184) Beijing, china: People’s University Press.
Chen, J. (2004). Interpreting state-change: Learning the meaning of verbs and verb compounds in Mandarin. Paper presented in the 29th Boston Annual Conference on Language Development, Boston.
Chen, Yi. (2006). An Error Analysis of English Compositions Written By English Majors. Unpublished master thesis, National Kaohsiung Normal University
Choi, S (2000). Garegiver input in English and Korean: Use of nouns and verbs in book-reading and toy-play contexts. Journal of Child Language,27(1),69-96
Choi. S., & Bowerman, M. (1991). Learning to express motion events in English and Korean, The influence of language –specific lexicalization patterns. Cognition, 41, 83-121.
Chen, F. J.-G. (1999). The role of first language transfer and second language proficiency in the writing of Chinese learners of English as a second language. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, US
Chu, C. (2004). Event Conceptualization and Grammatical Realization: The case of Motion in Mandarin Chinese, Unpublished doctoral dissertation, East Asian Languages and Literatures.
Chomsky, N. (1959). Review of Skinner’s verbal behavior. Language.35, 26-28.
Corder, S. P. (1981). A Role for the Mother Tongue. Paper presented at the conference on Language Transfer in Language Learner, University of Michigan.
Croft, W. (2009). Toward a social cognitive linguistics. New directions in cognitive linguistics, (Eds).Vyvyan Evans and Stephanie Pourcel (pp.395-420). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 
Cruse, D. A. &Croft W. (2004). Cognitive Linguistics. UK: Cambridge University Press.
Crystal, D. (1987). The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language. Cambridge University Press,
David, S. T. (2006).The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis: Worlds Shaped by Words, In Conformity and Conflict: Readings in Cultural Anthropology (12ed) (pp.113-125), Spraley and McCurdy: Allyn & Bacon.
Dewaele. J & Palvlenko, A. (2002) Emotion vocabulary in interlanguage. Language Learning, 52, 2, 265-324.
Dechart, H. W. (1983). How a story is done in a second language in Fraerch and Kasper (Eds). Strategies in Interlanguage Communication. London: Longman.
Dechert, H., Monka, B, & Dietmar F. (1984). Transfer and Interference in Language: A Selected Bibliography. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 
Dirven, R. & Verspoor, M. (2004). Cognitive Exploration of Language and Linguistics. John Benjamins Publishing.
Dorit, D. R., & Hava B.-Z. S. (Eds) (2005). Perspectives on Language and Language Development: Essays in honor of Ruth A. Berman. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Dunn, M., Greenhill, S. J., Levinson, S.C., & Gray, R.D. (2011) Nature dio:10.1038/nature09923
Dummett, M. (1993).Origins of Analytical Philosophy. Harvard University Press.
Durst-Andersen, P., Smith, V., & Nedergaard Thomsen Evans, V. (2006). Lexical concepts, cognitive models and meaning-construction. Cognitive Linguistics 17–4, 491–534.
Erlam, R. (2006). Elicited imitation as a measure of L2 implicit knowledge: An empirical validation study. Applied Linguistic, 27, 464-491.
Evans, V. (2007). Towards a Cognitive Compositional Semantics. In U. Magnusson, H. 
Evans, V. (2009). Semantic representation in LCCM Theory. In V. Evans and S. Pourcel(eds.). New Directions in Cognitive Linguistics (pp.27–55).  Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Evans, V.& Pourcel, S. (2009).New Directions in Cognitive Linguistics. John Benjamins Publish.
Fries, C. (1945).Teaching and Learning English as a Foreign Language. An Arbor: University of Michigan Press
Fris, C. C. (1948). As we see it. Language Learning: 1(1), 12-16. 
Faerch, C. & Kasper, G. (1983). Strategies in Interlanguage Communication. Longman
Faerch, C. & Kasper, G. (1987). Perspectives on language transfer. Applied Linguistic 8(2), 111-136, Oxford University Press. 
Fauconnier, G. (1997). Mappings in Thought and Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 
Fauconnier, G. & Turner, M. (1998). Conceptual Intergration networks. Cognitive Science, 22(2), 133-187. Cognitive Science Society Inc.
Fauconnier, G. & Turner, M. (2002). The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind’s Hidden Complexities. New York NY: Basic Books.
Faerch, C,. Hasstrup, K & Phillipson, R. (1984). Learner Language and Language Learning. Clevedon Avon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Fillmore, C J. (1982). Frame semantics. In: The Linguistic Society of Korea (Ed), Linguistics in The Morning Calm (pp.111-138). Seoul: Hanshin Publishing Co.
Fodor, J. A. (1975). The Language of Thought. Thomas Y. US: Crowell Company, Inc.   
Fodor, J.A. (2008). Lot 2: The Language of Thought Revisted. New York. Oxford University Press.
Gabrys-Barker, D. (2006). The interaction of languages in lexical search of multilingual language users”. In  J. Arabski (Ed.) Cross-linguistic Influences in the Second Language Lexicon, Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Gopnik, A., Choi, S., & Baumberger, T. (1996). Cross-linguistic differences in early semantic and cognitive development, Cognitive Development, 11, 197-227. 
Gennair, S. P., Sloman, S. A., Malt, B. C., & Fitch, W. T. (2002). Motion event in language and cogniiton, Cogniton 83, 49-79. 
Giddens, A. (1984). Ihe Constitution of Society. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Granger S. (2003). The corpus approach: a common way forward for contrastive linguistics and translation studies. In Granger S., Lerot J. & Petch-Tyson S. (eds), Corpus-based Approaches to Contrastive Linguistics and Translation Studies,17-29. Amsterdam & Atlanta: Rodopi
Greenber, J. (1957). Essays in Linguistics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 
Gouverneur, C. (2005). The phraseological patterns of high-frequency verbs in advanced English for general purposes: new perspectives. Phraseology, (pp.13-15). Belgium: Louvain-la-Neuve.
Givon, T. (1983). Topic Continuity in Discourse: A Quantitative Cross-Language Study. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Hayes, C.W., Ornstein, J., & Gage, W. W. (2001). The ABC’s of Languages & Linguistics. NTC Publishing Group. 
Hung,Y. H. & Li, Y. H. (2009). A comparative study on the lexicalization patterns of path concept in Chinese and English. Foreign Language Research, 151, 55-58. 
Hong, W. M. (2008). Lexical Aspect and L1 Influence on the Acquisition of English Verb Tense and Aspect among the Hong Kong Secondary School Learners. Unpublished doctorial dissertation. Hong Knog: Polytechnic University. 
Humboldt, W. V. (1991). Humboldt: ‘On Language’ On the Diversity of Human Language Construction and Its Influence on the Mental Development of the Human Species 2nd . UK: Cambridge University Press.  
Hwang, J. L. (2000). Historical Development of Reported Speech in Chinese. The 26 the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. In BLS 26 Proceedings.
Hwang, J. L. (2000). On Grammaticalization in Serial Verb Constructions in Chinese. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Hawaii.
Ib, U. (1998). The origin of language and cognition. In James R Hurford, Michael Studdert-Kennedy, Chris Knight (Eds). Approaches to the Evaluation of Language (pp. 30-42). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Iraide, I.-A. (2008). Path salience in Motion Events. Crosslinguistic approaches to the psychology of language. In The Tradition of Dan Isaac Slobin (pp. 403-414) New York: Psychology Press. 
Javis, S. & Pavlenko, A.  (2008). Crosslinguistic Influence in Language and Cognition. Routledge.
Jackendoff, R. (1972). Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
Jackendoff, R. (1983). Semantics and Cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 
Jackendoff, R. (1990). Semantic Structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
Johnson, M. (1987) The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination, and Reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kim, M., McGregor, K. K., & Thompson, C. K. (2000). .Early lexical development in English and Korean-speaking children: language-general and language -specific patterns. Journal of Child Language, 27, 225-254. 
Kersten, A. W, Smith, L. B & Yoshida, H. (2006). Influences of Object knowledge on the Acquisition of Verbs in English and Japanese. In Kathryn.A, Hirsh-Pasek & Roberta (Eds), Action Meets Word: How Children Learn Verbs (pp. 499-524).Oxford University Press.
Kelly, G. (1955). The Psychology of Personal Constructs (Vol. 1 & 2). New York: WW Norton
Kleinmann, H.H. (1977). Avoidance behavior in adult second language acquisition. Language Learning, 27(1).93-107.
Enninger, W., Knapp-Potthoff, A., & Knapp, K. (1987). Analyzing intercultural Communication. Mouton De Gruyter.
Knapp-Potthoff, A., & Knapp, K. (1982). Fremdsprachenlernen und –lehren. Kohlhammer W.
Langacker, R. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Thoretical Prerequisities (Vol.1). Stanford: Stanford University Press. 
Langacker, R. W. (1990). Concept, Image, and Symbol: The Cognitive Basis of Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Langacker, R.W. (1991). Foundation of Cognitive Grammar: Descriptive Application. (Vol. 2). Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press
Lado, R. (1957). Linguistics Across Cultures. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (1986). Techniques and Principles in Language Teaching, Oxford University Press.
Liu, A. L. E. (2002) A corpus-based Lexical Semantic Investigation of Verb-Noun Miscollocations in Taiwan. Unpublished master thesis, Tamkang Univeristy, Tawian. 
Lihua, Z. (1993). A contrastive study of Aspectuality in German, English, and Chinese. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, US.
Lin, H. L. (2004). Spatial Terms and Spatial Cognition: On the Learning to English Locative Prepositions By Native Chinese Speakers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Normal Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan.
Loewenstein, J. & Ocasio, W. (2005). Vocabularies of organizing: How language links culture, cognition, and action in organizations. McCombs Research Paper Series No. OSSM-03-05 of University of Texas, Revieved May, 21, 2013 from Austin.http://ssrn.com/abstract/813344.
Mani, I. & Pustejovsky, J (2012). Interpreting Motion-Grounded Representations for Spatial Language. Explorations in language and Space 5. Oxford University Press.
Malt, B. C., Sloman, S. A., Gennair, S. Shi, M., & Wang.Y. (1999). Knowing versus naming; Similarity and the linguistic categorization of artifacts. Journal of Memeory and Language, 40, 230-262.
Majid, A., Bowerman, M., Van Staden, M., & Boster, J. S. (2007). The semantic categories of cutting and breaking events: A crosslinguistic perspective. Congnitive Lingusitics, 18(2), 133-152.doi:10.1515/COG.2007.005.
Milikan, G. R. (2000). On Clear and Confused Ideas: An Essay About Substance Concepts. Cambridge University Press.
Niemeier, S & Achard, M. ( 2004). Grammatical instruction in the natural approach. A cognitive grammar view. In: Michel Achard & Susanne Niemeier (eds.), Cognitive Linguistics, Second Language Acquisition, and Foreign Language Teaching. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter
Odlin, T. (1989). Language transfer. Cambridge: New York: Cambridge University Press
Otto, B. (2006). Culture and Language. Person Allyn Bacon Prentice Hall.
Parisi, D., Cangelosi, A., & Falcetta, I. (2002). Verbs, nouns, and simulated language games. Journal of Italian Linguistics, 14(1), 99-114. 
Pallent, A.; Timmer, P.; & McRae, S. (1996). Cognitive mapping as a tool for requirements capture. Contemporary Ergonomics (pp. 495-500). London: Talyor & Francis.
Pavlenko, A. (2000). L2 influence on L1 in late bilingualism. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 11,2, 175-205.
Pavlenko, A. & Javis, S. (2002) Bidirectional transfer. Applied Linguistic. 23.2, 190-214
Phillip, B. (2011). Are languages shaped by culture or cognition? Nature. dio:10.1038/news.2011.231
Radden, G. and Dirven, R. (2007). Cognitive English Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Radden, G. and Verspoor, M. (2004). Cognitive Exploration of Language and Linguistics (2nd edition). Amsterdem: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Reigeluth, C. M. (1979). In search of a better way to organize instruction: The elaboration theory. Journal of Instructional Development, 2 (3), 8-15.
Reigeluth, C.M., & Stein, R. (1983). Elaboration theory. In C.M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models: An overview of their current status. Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum.
Reigeluth, C. (1992). Elaborating the elaboration theory. Educational Technology Research & Development, 40(3), 80-86.
Reigeluth, C. M. (1999). The elaboration theory: guidance for scope and sequence decisions. In C.M Reigelth (ED). Instructional-Design Theories and Models: A New Paradigm of Instructional Theory (Vol.2) (pp.425-445).Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc.
Rivers, W. M. (1980). Foreign language acquisition: where the real problems lie. Applied Linguistics, 1, 48 - 59.
Ross, N. (2004). Culture and Cognition: implications for theory and method. US: Sage Publications, Inc
Sapir, E., Darnell, R., Irvin, J.T., & Handler, R. (1999). The Collected Words of Edward Sapir: Culture. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.  
Schachter, J. (1988). Second language acquisition and its relationship to universal grammar. Applied Linguistic, 9(3).Oxford University Press.
Smith, K. (1999) Cognitive Linguistics and Connectionist Models of Language Acquisition. Unpublished master thesis, Department of Linguistics, University of Edinburgh.
Smith, M. S. (1983). Cross-linguistic Aspects of Second Language Acquisition. Applied Linguistic, 4(3):193-199. Oxford University Press
Song, G. (1997). Cross linguistic difference in the Expression of Motion Events and Their Implications for Second Language Acquisition. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Univeristy of Illinois.
Slobin, D. I and Hoiting. N. (1994). Reference to movement in spoken and signed languages: Typological considerations. In Proceedings of the Twentieth Annual Meeting of Berkeley Linguistics Society (pp. 487-505). Berkeley: Linguistics society.
Slobin, D. I. (1996). Two ways to travel:verbs of motion in English and Spanish. Grammatical Constructions: Their Form and Meaning (Ed). By Masayoshi Shibatani and Sandra A. Thompson, 193-219. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 
Slobin, D. I. (1996) From thought and language to “thinking for speaking”. Rethinking Linguistic Relative (pp. 70-96). In J.J Gumpers & S.C. Levinson (Eds) Cambridge University Press. 
Slobin, D. I. (1997). The Crosslinguistic Study of Language Acquisition (Vol. 4). Taylor & Francis Group.
Slobin, D. I, & Bocaz, A. (1998). Learning to talk about movement through time and space: The development of narrative abilities in Spanish and English. Lenguas Modernas 14, 5-24
Slobin, D. I. (2000). Verbalized events :A dynamic approach to linguistic relativity and determinism. In S. Niemeier & R. Dirven (Eds), Evidence for Linguistic Relativity (pp.107-138).Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Slobin, D, I. (2005) Relating narrative events in translation. In D. Ravid & H.B.Perspectives on Langauge and Language development: Essays in Honor of Ruth A. Berman (pp.115-129). Dordrecht: Kluwer. 
Slobin, D. I. (2004). The many ways to search for a frog: Linguistic typology and the expression of motion events. In S. Stromqvist& L. Verhoeven (Eds) Relating Events in Narrative: Typological and Contextual Perspectives (Vol.2) (pp.219-257). NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Slobin, D. I. (2006). What makes manner of motion salient? Explorations in linguistic typology, discourse, and cognition. Space in Languages: Linguistic Systems and Cognitive Categories (pp.59-81). Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamin. 
Slobin, D.I., Bowerman, M., Brown, P., Eisenbeib, S., & Narasiman, B.(2011) Putting thing in places:Developmental oncsequences of linguistic typology (pp134-166). In J. Bohnemeyer & Pederson, E (Eds), Event Representation in Language and Cognition (pp. 166-188). Cambridge, MA; Cambridge University Press. 
Strevens, P. (1965). Papers in Language and Language teaching. London: Oxford University Press.
Sridhar, S. N. (1988). Cognition and Sentence Production: A Cross-Linguistic Study. NY: Springer-Verlag New York. Inc.
Svorou, S. (1988).  The Experimental Basis of The Grammar of Space: Evidence from The Language of The World. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of New York
Snell-Hornby, M. (1983). Verb-descriptivity in German and English. A contrastive Study in Mantic Fields. Heidelberg, Winter.
Tamly, L. (1978). The relation of grammar to cognition: a synopsis. Published in proceedings of the 1978 workshop of Theoretical Issues in Natural Langage Processing (pp12-24). Doi> 10.3115/980262.980266.
Tamly, L. (1985). Lexicalization patterns: Semantic structure in lexical forms. Language Typology and Syntactic Description (3): Grammatical Categories and the Lexicon (Ed). By T. Shopen (pp.36-149). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 
Talmy, L. (1991). Path to realization: A typology of event integration. Linguistics 91-01, 147-87. Buffalo: State University of New York
Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a Cognitive Semantics: Typology an Process in Concept Structuring. Cambridge: MIT Press. 
Talmy, L. (1999). Lexicalization Patterns: semantic structure in lexical forms. In Timothy Shopen (Ed), Language typology and syntactic description III. Grammatical categories and the lexicon (pp.57-149). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Tenny, C. (1995). How motion verbs are special: The interaction of semantic and pragmatic information in aspectual verb meanings. Pragmatics& Cognition, 3(1), 31-73, Frankfurt: John Benjamin Publishing Co.
Timothy, S. (Ed). (1999). Language Typology and Syntactic Description Grammatical Categories and Lexicon III. University of Cambridge Press. 
Tversky, B. Z, Jeffrey M., Morrison, J. B., & Hard, B. M. (2011). Talking about evets. Event Representation in Language and Cognitio (pp.216-227). UK: Cambridge University Press.
Ungerer. F & Schmid, H.J (1996) An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics. Addison Wesley Longman Limited.
Vulchanova, M & Zee, E. V. D. (2013). Motion Encoding in Language and Space. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wilcox, S., & Morfort, J. (2007). Empirical Methods in Signed Language Research. John Beenjamine.
Whorf, B. L & Carroll, J.B. (Eds.). (1956). Language, Thought, and Reality. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. 
Wilkins, D. P., & Hill, D. (1995). When “go” means ”come ”: questioning the baseness of basic motion verbs. Cognitive Linguistics, 6, 209-259.
Wilson, B., & Cole, P. (1992). A critical review of elaboration theory. Educational Technology Research and Development, 40 (3), 63-79
Wikipedia (2013). Gestalt Psychology. Retrieved 2013/6/5. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gestalt_psychology
Zlatev, J., David, C & Blomberg, J. (2006). Translocation, language, and the categorization of experience. In Evans, Vyvyan & Chilton, Paul (Eds.), Language, Cognition, and Space (pp.389-418), London: Equinox
Zlatev, J., & Yangklan, P. (2004). A third way of travel: the place of Thai in motion-Event typology. In Stronqvist, S & Verhoeven. L (Eds), Relating Events in Narrative: Typology & Contextual Perspectives. Mahwah, NJ:LEA Publishers, 159-90.
Zobl, H. (1982). A direction for contrastive analysis: the comparative study of developmental sequence. TESOL Quarterly, 16,169-183
張雙英 （1990），從比較中、英文字詞在詞句中的先後次序看中國國語的特色-一個文化觀點的考察。中華學院 (40) (頁 1-14）。
李納 、石毓智(1997)， 論漢語體表記誕生的機制﹝J﹞，中國語文(6)