慣用語是隱喻性語言中一種，無法完全用字面上的意思來判讀的特性，也造成學生學習與認知上很大的障礙。對以英語為第二語言或外語的學習者而言，學習慣用語的策略已被侷限在將慣用語視為不可分割的單位以及透過上文下、其組成單字之字面意思、學習者的背景知識來瞭解其意思，甚至是以反覆背誦的方式來學習。然而，近年來，許多研究 (Boer & Demecheleer, 2001; Cacciari & Glucksberg, 1991; Gibbs, 1992; Gibbs and O’Brien, 1990; Gibbs, Bogdanovich, Sykes, and Barr, 1997; Glucksberg, 1993; Li, 2002; Nayak & Gibbs, 1990; Ruwet, 1983) 建議可藉由概念隱喻和換喻的功用和運用協助第二語言學習者瞭解並習得慣言語的意義。
    以往的慣用語研究多在分析和研究慣用語本身的特性，較少涉足有關學習的部分(Matlock, 1998).然而老師不可能只教特定某種類的慣用語，當學生在學習和本國文化沒有重疊性的英文慣用語時，仍有一定的障礙。(Boers et al., 2004).當學生必須在短時間內習得慣用語，視覺輔助或許會是一個好方法來幫助學生的認知思考及增強記憶能力。因此，在概念隱喻和換喻教學之外，再加入了視覺輔助的教學。Krashen(1982)提到教學中語言輸入的重要性，而Swain(1985)則是強調語言輸出的功能，語言輸出不僅是被動接受，還牽涉到概念思考和轉換。因此本實驗也將結合圖片和輸入與輸出教學法，將其運用在慣用語中隱喻和換喻的習得上。
    本研究即是比較(1)概念隱喻和換喻、(2)語言輸入、(3)語言輸出，這三者對提升以英語為外語學習者英語慣用語理解效用之實驗探討，是否能幫助台灣學生克服文化的障礙，達成英語慣用語認知的效果。
    此研究之目的在於第一，提升隱喻和換喻和慣用語的關聯是否能幫助受試者的慣用語學習; 而視覺輸入和視覺輸出是否能幫助受試者的慣用語學習，若是，其三者的學習效果為何；第二，提升隱喻和換喻和慣用語的關聯或視覺輸入或視覺輸出是否能幫助受試者是否能幫助受試者記住慣用語，若是，其三者的學習效果為何；第三，受試者理解概念隱喻之能力是否和慣用語之隱喻性的複雜度有關。總計有一百二十位學生參與本研究，依教學法分成三個組別。上述研究參與者均參與了十周的實驗，以問卷了解學生對學習方式的滿意度，以選擇題考卷測試慣用語的理解程度，受試者習得換喻和複合性隱喻的成效則是用寫作思考方式蒐集語料。
    研究結果發現，經過不同方式的教學後，三個組別的受試者皆能習得教授的慣用語，也能習得慣用語中的隱喻和換喻。而視覺輸出最能夠幫助受試學生提升其對陌生慣用語的理解和記憶。此外，理解概念隱喻之能力與慣用語之隱喻性的複雜度相關。

Previous researchers have demonstrated that it is problematic for ESL/ EFL students to understand English idioms (Cooper, 1998, 1999; Liu, 2003,; Qualls & Harris 1999l; Wu, 2002, 2003, Feng, 2006). Cooper (1999) stated, “because figurative meaning is unpredictable, idioms present a special learning problem for virtually all groups of learners” (p. 233). The strategies of learning idioms for second language or foreign language learners have been restricted to treating them as inseparable units and to predict their figurative interpretations by using contextual cues, the literal meanings of the individual components, the learners’ background knowledge, or even by rote. In recent years, some research claimed that conceptual metaphor can facilitate the learning and comprehension of idioms which was based on Conceptual Metaphor theory by Lakoff and Johnson (1980). Results of the research suggest that metaphorical and metonymical understanding plays an important role in idiom comprehension. (Gibbs and Orien, 1990; Gibbs, 1992; Hamblin and Gibbs, 1999; Ruwet, 1983.)
    However, there was still something missing in research of idioms. Studies on idioms do not look at learning (Matlock, 1998). A lot of research was related to idioms types, and the differences in processing and comprehending various types of idioms. However, in a classroom, it is not likely for instructors to teach certain types of idioms and to skip another. Besides, learners may have difficulties to comprehend the underlying metaphors and metonymies in a short time. Visual aids are the other way to enhance students’ learning in idioms. As a result, a pilot study has been done to investigate the utility of visual input to enhance learner’s understanding of idioms. The result shows that visual aids provide learners relevant contextual information when the linguistic input is ambiguous to them. 
    According Krashen (1982), linguistic input is crucial to language acquisition. While Swain (1985) refers that linguistic output should be viewed as important as linguistic input. Linguistic output involved more than passive understanding. It is a way to know how much student comprehend the languages, and to see if students store what they have learned conceptually and turn the knowledge into their own. 
    As a result, in the present study, idioms would be taught with not only metaphors and metonymies but also visual aids. The participants are divided into three groups with different ways of idiom teaching. The first group is taught with the underlying metaphors and metonymies, the second with the underlying metaphors and metonymies plus visual input and the third with the underlying metaphors and metonymies plus visual output. 
The present study is an investigation of the utility of (1)conceptual metaphors and metonymies, (2) visual input, (3) visual output in enhancing the idiom comprehension of EFL learners. Participants were 120 Chinese learners of English divided into three groups of different idiom teaching. Data are collected by means of multiple-choice test without the benefit of context to know how they comprehend the selected idioms after teaching. 
    Results show that, three different treatments of idiom teaching can all increased their comprehension of unfamiliar idioms and facilitated the understanding of underlying metaphors and metonymies. The group of visual output outperformed other two groups in idiom comprehension and retention of memory. Also, the ability to comprehend conceptual metaphors and metonymies is correlated with the complexity of conceptual metaphors underlying idioms. This study implies how visual aids and hand-on experience facilitate the comprehension of idioms by linking the metaphorical meaning with life experience.

CHINESE ABSTRACT.........................................ii
ENGLISH ABSTRACT..........................................v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS........................................vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS .....................................viii
LIST OF TABLES............................................x
LIST OF FIGURES.........................................xii

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of the.....................................1
1.2 Statement of the Problem..............................6
1.3 Research Questions...................................11
1.4 Organization of the Thesis...........................12

CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
2.1 Introduction.........................................13
2.2 The Definition and Comprehension of Idioms...........13
2.3 Why Idioms are Viewed as Dead Metaphors..............17
2.4 Beyond Dead Metaphors................................19
2.5 Metaphorical Structure of Idioms.....................22
2.6 Metonymical Structure of Idioms......................24
2.7 The Role of Conceptual Metaphor in L1 Idiom Comprehension............................................26
2.8 L2 Idiom Processing Research.........................27
2.9 Teaching Idioms through Pictures.....................31
2.10 Cognition and Second Language Learning..............35
2.11 Multiple Intelligences..............................38
2.12 Input Hypothesis and Output Hypothesis..............41
2.13 Conclusion..........................................43

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
3.1 Introduction.........................................45
3.2 Pilot Study..........................................46
    3.2.1 Pilot Study Participants.......................46
3.2.2 Pilot Study Materials .............................47
3.2.3 Pilot Study Procedures ............................48
3.2.4 Pilot Study Results................................48
3.3 Participants of Present Study........................49
3.4 Procedure............................................50
3.5 Instrument...........................................52
3.6 Treatment............................................54
3.6.1 The Control Group (Metaphor Instruction)...........58
3.6.2 The Experimental Groups (Visual Input and Visual Output)..................................................58
3. 7 Analysis of the Data................................60

CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Instruction..........................................64
4.2 Subjects’ English Proficiency.......................64
4.3 Results and Discussion of Research Question 1........66
4.4 Results and Discussion of Research Question 2........71
4.5 Results and Discussion of Research Question 3........75
4.6 Summary..............................................99

CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS
5.1 Summary of the study................................100
5.2 Significance of the study...........................103
5.3 Pedagogical Implications, Limitations of the Study..105

REFERENCES..............................................107APPENDICES..............................................120

LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1 Description of Gardner’s Eight Intelligences….………..………………....39
Table 3.1 Results of the Pilot Study …………………………………………………49
Table 3.2 The chronological activities of each week……………………………...…51
Table 3.3 Material Used in the metaphor group…………………………………...…56
Table 3.4 Summary of Three Treatments…………………………………………….57
Table 3.5 The Example of Materials Used in Visual Input Group…………………...60
Table 3.6 The Example of Materials Used in Visual Output Group………………….62
Table 4.1 One-way ANOVA of the Mean Scores of the English Proficiency between the Control Group and Experimental Groups…………………..………….65
Table 4.2 One-way ANOVA of the Mean Scores of the Idiom Pretest between the Control Group and Experimental Groups…………………………………65
Table 4.3 Paired Samples T-Test of the Mean Scores of Control Group Before and After the Teaching (Metaphor Teaching)………………………………….67
Table 4.4 Paired Samples T-Test of the Mean Scores of Experimental Group Before and After the Teaching (Visual Input)……………………………………..67
Table 4.5 Paired Samples T-Test of the Mean Scores of Experimental Group Before and After the Teaching……………………………………………………..68
Table 4.6 One-Way ANOVA of the Mean Scores of the Improvements in Three Treatments…………………………………………………………………68
Table 4.7 One-Way ANOVA of the Mean Scores of the Improvements in Three Treatments…………………………………………………………………69
Table 4.8 Paired Samples T-Test of the Mean Scores of the Delay- and the Post-test of Control Group and Experimental Groups…………………………………71
Table 4.9 One-Way ANOVA of the Mean Scores of the Regression in Three Treatments…………………………………………………………………72
Table 4.10 One-Way ANOVA of the Mean Scores of the Improvements in Three
Treatments…………………………………………………………………73
Table 4.11 Four Categories of Idioms used in this Study…………………………….76
Table 4.12 Types and Number of Idioms Used………………………………………79
Table 4.13 Pretest of Four Types of Idioms in Three Treatments……………………81
Table 4.14 Pretest of Idiom Type One in Three Treatments………………………….81
Table 4.15 Pretest of Idiom Type Two in Three Treatments…………………………82
Table 4.16 Pretest of Idiom Type Three in Three Treatments ……………………….83
Table 4.17 Pretest of Idiom Type Four in Three Treatments…………………………84
Table 4.18 Paired Samples T-test Between Pretest and Posttest of Four Types of Idioms in Three Treatments………………………………………………88
Table 4. 19 Improvement of Idiom Type One in Three Treatments (Posttest-pretest).90
Table 4. 20 Improvement of Idiom Type Two in Three Treatments (Posttest-pretest).91
Table 4. 21 Improvement of Idiom Type Three in Three Treatments (Posttest-pretest)….………………………………………………………92
Table 4. 22 Improvement of Idiom Type Four in Three Treatments (Posttest-pretest)…...……………………………………………………..93
Table 4. 23 Improvement of Four Types of Idioms in Three Treatments (Posttest-pretest)…….……………………………………………………94
Table 4. 24 Table Paired Samples T-test Between Posttest and Delayed Posttest of Four Types of Idioms in Three Treatments……………………………..95
Table 4. 25 Improvement of Idioms in Three Treatments……………………………97
 
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure2.1 The Three Phases of Visual input, Memory and Conceptual Processing and
Visual output…………..…………………………………………………...35
Figure 4.1 CONTROLLER FOR CONTROLLED Metonymy…………………...…78

Adkins, P. (1968). Teaching idioms and figures of speech to non-native speakers.Modern Language Journal, 52, 148-152.
Armstrong, T. (2000). Multiple intelligences in the classroom (2nd ed.). Alexandria,Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. J. (1974). Working memory. In G. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (pp. 47–90). New York: Academic Press.
Bauer, M. & Johnson-Laird, P. (1993) How diagrams can improve reasoning? Psychological Science , 4, 372-378.
Boers, F., & Demecheleer, M. (1998). A few metaphorical models in (western)economic discourse. In W. A. Liebert, G. Redeker, & L. Waugh (Eds.), Discourse and perspective in cognitive linguistics (pp. 115-129). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Boers, F., & Demecheleer, M. (2001). Measuring the impact of cross-cultural differences on learners’ comprehension of imageable idioms. EJT Journal, 55(3), 255-262.
Boers, F., Demecheleer, M. & Eyckmans, J. (2004). Cross-cultural variation as a variable in comprehending and remembering figurative idioms. European Journal of English Studies, 8(3), 375 
Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy. White Plains, NY: Longman.
Cacciari, C. (1993). The place of idioms in a literal and metaphorical world. In C. Cacciari & P. Tabossi. (Eds.), Idioms: Processing, structure, and interpretation (pp. 27-55). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Campbell, L., Campbell, B., & Dickinson, D. (1996). Teaching and learning through multiple intelligences (2nd ed.). New York: Allyn & Bacon.
Chomsky, N. (1980). Rules and representation. New York: Columbia University
Cook, V. (2001). Second language learning and language teaching. New York: Oxford University Press Inc.
Cooper, T. (1998). Teaching idioms. Foreign Language Annals, 31, 255-266.
Cooper, T. (1999). Processing of idioms by L2 learners of English. TESOL Quarterly, 33(2), 233-262.
Coulmas, F. (1981). Idiomaticity as a problem of pragmatics. In H. Parret, M. Sbísa, and J. Verschueren (Eds.) Possibilities and Limitations of Pragmatics: Proceedings of the Conference on Pragmatics (pp. 139-151). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins
Ellis, N. C. (2001). Memory for language. In P. Robinson, (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 33–68).
Feng, Y. Y. (2006). An experimental investigation to determine the utility of conceptual metaphors and metonymies in enhancing idiom comprehension for EFL undergraduate learners of English (Master thesis, Tamkang University).
Fillmore, C. J. (1978). On the organization of the semantic information in the lexicon. In D. Farkas, W. M. Jacobsen, & K. W. Todrys (Eds.), Papers from the parasession on the lexicon (pp. 148-173). Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
Fraser, B. (1970). Idioms with a transformational grammar. Foundations of Language, 6, 22-42.
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books.
Gambrell, L.B. & Jawitz, P.B. (1993). Mental imagery, text illustrations, and children's story comprehension and recall. Reading Research Quarterly, 28, 264-276
Gibbs, R. W., Jr. (1980). Spilling the beans on understanding and memory for idioms in context. Memory and Cognition, 8, 149-156.
Gibbs, R. W. Jr. (1984). Literal meaning and psychological theory. Cognitive psychology, 8, 191-219.
Gibbs, R. W., Jr. (1987). Linguistic factors in children’s understanding of idioms.Journal of Child Language, 14, 569-586.
Gibbs, R. W., Jr. (1990). Psycholinguistic studies on the conceptual basis of idiomaticity. Cognitive Linguistics, 1, 417-451.
Gibbs, R. W., Jr. (1992). What do idioms really mean? Journal of Memory and Language, 31, 485-506.
Gibbs, R. W., Jr. (1993). Why idioms are not dead metaphors. In C. Cacciari & P. Tabossi (Eds.), Idioms: Processing, structure, and interpretation (pp. 
57-77). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Gibbs, R. W. (1995). Idiomaticity and human cognition. In M. Everaert, E. van der Linden, A. Schenk, & r. Schreuder (Eds.), Idioms: Processing, structure and interpretation (pp. 97-116). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Gibbs, R. W. Jr. (1997). Taking metaphor out of our heads and putting it into the cultural world. In R. W. Jr. Gibbs & G. J. Steen (Eds.), Metaphor in cognitive linguistics: Selected papers from the Fifth International Cognitive Linguistics Conference. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Gibbs, R. W. Jr. & Nayak, N. P. (1989). Psycholinguistic studies on the syntactic behaviour of idiom. 21, 100-138.
Gibbs, R. W., Jr., & Nayak, N. P. (1991). Why idioms mean what they do. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 120, 93-95.
Gibbs, R. W., Jr., Nayak, N. P., Bolton, J., & Keppel, M. (1989). Speakers’assumptions about the lexical flexibility of idioms. Memory and Cognition,17, 58-68.
Gibbs, R. W., & O’Brien, J. E. (1990) Idioms and mental imagery : The metaphorical motivation for idiomatic meaning. Cognition, 36, 35-68.
Gibbs, R., Bogdanovich, J., Sykes, J., & Barr, D. (1997). Metaphor in idiom comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 37, 141-154.
Glucksberg, S., Keysar, B. (1990). Understanding metaphorical comparisons: Beyond similarity. Psychological Review, 97, 3-18.
Glucksberg, S. (1993). Idiom meanings and allusional content. In C. Cacciari & P. Tabossi. (Eds.), Idioms: Processing, structure, and interpretation (pp. 3-26). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Glucksberg, S. (2001). Understanding figurative language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Goolkasian, P. (1996). Picture-word differences in a sentence verification task. Memory & Cognition, 24, 584-594.
Goossens, L. (1990). Metaphonymy: The interaction of metaphor and metonymy in expressions for linguistic action. Cognitive Linguistics, 1, 323-340.
Grady, J. E., Taub, S. & Morgan, P. (1996). Primitive and compound metaphors. In A. E. Goldberg (Ed.), Conceptual structure, discourse, and language (pp.177-187). Standford, CA: CSLI.
Grady, J. E. (1997). Theories are buildings revisited. Cognitive Linguistics, 8(4), 267-290. 
Gregg, K. R. (1984). Krashen’ s monitor and Occam’s razor. Applied Linguistics, 5, 79-100
Hadley, A. O. (2001). Teaching language in context (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.
Hamblin, J. L., & Gibbs, R. W., Jr. (1999). Why you can’t kick the bucket as you slowly die: Verbs in idiom comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 28(1), 25-39.
Hoffman, R. R. (1984). Recent psycholinguistic research on figurative language. Annals of the New York Academy of Science, 433, 137-166.
Hoffman, R. R., & Honeck, R. P. (1980). A peacock looks at its legs: Cognitiven science and figurative language. In R. P. Honeck & R. R. (Eds.), Cognition and figurative language (pp.3-24). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Honeck, R. P., & Hoffman, R. R. (1980). (Eds.) Cognition and figurative language. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hu, Y. H. (2002). A Cross-cultural Investigation of Mandarin Chinese Conceptual Metaphors of Anger, Happiness and Romantic Love. Doctoral Thesis, University of Edinburgh.
Hu, Y. H. (2006) An exploration of incorporating conceptual metaphors in the teaching of idiomatic expressions in EFL classrooms. In: (Eds.), Tamkang Studies of Foreign Languages and Literatures, No. 8, (pp.39-54). Tamkang University, Taipei.  
Hudson, T. (1982). The effects of induced schemata on the “short circuit” in L2 reading: Non-decoding factors in L2 reading performance. Language Learning, 32, 1-31.
Irujo, S. (1986). Don’t put your leg in your mouth: Transfer in the acquisition of idioms in a second language. TESOL Quarterly, 20(2), 287-304.
Johnson, M. (1987). The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Katz, J. J. (1973). Compositionality, idiomaticity and lexical substitution. In S. R.Anderson & P. Kiparsky. (Eds.), A festschrift for Morris Halle (pp. 357-376). NewYork: Holt, Reinhart & Winston.
Kindler. A. M. (1999). From endpoints to repertoires: A challenge to art education. Studies In Art Education, 40(4), 330-349.
Kovecses, Z. & Szabo, P. (1996). ‘Idioms: A View from Cognitive Semantics. Applied Linguistics, 17(3), 326-355
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Pergam on Press: New York
Krashen, S. (1985). The Input Hypothesis. London: Longman. 
Krashen, S. D. (1988). Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning. Prentice-Hall International.
Krashen, S. (1989). We acquire vocabulary and spelling by reading: Additional evidence for the input hypothesis. The Modern Language Journal, 73, 440-464
Krashen , S. (1997). The comprehension hypothesis: Recent evidence. English Teachers’ Journal, 51, 19-29
Kulhavy, R. W., Lee, J. B., & Caterino, L. C. (1985). Conjoint retention maps & related discourse. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 10, 28-37.
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G. (1990). “The invariance hypothesis: Is abstracting reasoning based on image schemas?” Cognitive Linguistics, 1, 5-38.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Lazaraton, A. (2001). Teaching oral skills. In Celce-Murcia, M. (ed.). TeachingnEnglish as a second or foreign language (pp. 103-115). Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.
Lehrer, A. (1974). Semantic field and lexical structure. Amsterdam, Netherlands: North Holland.
Li, F. Y. (2002). The acquisition of metaphorical expressions, idioms and proverbs by Chinese learners of English: A conceptual metaphor and image schema approach. A Ph.D. Dissertation, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong.
Li, F. Y.. (2003).The Acquisition of Metaphorical Expressions, Idioms, and Proverbs by Chinese Learners of English: A Conceptual Metaphor and Image Schema Based Approach. Ann Arbor, Michigan: UMI, ProQuest Information and Learning Company. 
Lin, Y. P. (2004). EFL learners’ processing of unknown idioms. Unpublished master’s thesis, Nation Kaohsuing Normal University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.
Linda & Flavell, R. (1992). Dictionary of idioms and their origins. London: Kyle Cathie.
Liu, J. (2004). Effects of comic strips on L2 learners’ reading comprehension. TESOL Quarterly, 38(2), 225-243
Longman Dictionary of English Idioms. (1979). Harlow, England: Pitman Press.
Makkai, A. (1972). Idiom structure in English. The Hague, Netherlands & Paris: Mouton.
Mayer, R.E. (1999). Research-based principles for the design of instructional messages. The case of multimedia explanations. Document Design, 1, 7-20.
McGlone, M. S. (1996). Conceptual metaphors and figurative language understanding. Journal of Memory and Language, 35, 544-565.
McGlone, M. S., Glucksberg, S., & Cacciari, C. (1994). Semantic productivity and idiom comprehension. Discourse Processes, 17,167-190.
Mclaughlin, B. (1987). Theories of Second Language Learning. London: Edward Arnold 
Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63, .81-97
Nayak, N. P., & Gibbs, W. R. Jr. (1990). Conceptual knowledge in the interpretation of idioms. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 119(3), 315-330.
Nunberg, G. (1979). The non-uniqueness of semantic solutions: Polysemy. Linguistics and Philosophy, 3(2), 143-184.
Penny, C. (1989). Modality effects and the structure of short-term verbal memory. Memory and cognition, 17(4),. 398-422.
Pollio, H. R., & Burns, B. C. (1977). The anomaly of anomaly. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 6, 247-260.
Purnell, K. N. et Solman, R. T. (1991). The influence of technical illustrations on students' comprehension in geography. Reading Research Quarterly, 26 (3), 277-299.
Qualls, C. C., & Harris, J. L. (1999). Effects of familiarity on idiom comprehension in African American and European American fifth graders. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 30, 141-151
Ruwet, N. (1983). Du bon usage des expressions idiomatiques. Recherches Linguistiques, 11, 5-84.
Schweigert, W. A., & Moate, D. R. (1988). Familiar idiom comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 17(4), 281-296.
Shah, P., & Miyake, A. (1996). The separability of working memory resources for spatial thinking and language processing: An individual differences approach. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 125(1),. 4-27
Sole,Y. R. (1994). The input hypothesis and the bilingual learner. Bilingual Review, 19(2), 99-110
Stroop. J. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reaction. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18, 643-662.
Swain, M. (1983).The output hypothesis: Just speaking and writing aren’t enough. Canadian Modern Language Review, 50, 158-164
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input in its development. In Gass, S. M. & Madden, C. G. (Eds). Input in Second Language Acquisition. MA: New bury House, 235-253
Swain , M. & Lapkin, S. (1995) Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A step towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 16, 371-391
Sweller, J., van Merrienboer, J. J. G., Paas, F. F. W. C (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10, 251-296
Tabossi, P. (1988). Accessing lexical ambiguity in different types of sentential contexts. Journal of Memory and Language, 27, 324-340.
Tang, G. (1992). The effect of graphic representation of knowledge structures on ESL reading comprehension. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 14, 177–195.
Ullmann, S. (1962). Semantics: An introduction to the science of meaning. Oxford, England: Basil Blackwell & Mott.
Weinreich, U. (1969). Problems in the analysis of idioms. In J. Puhvel. (Ed.), Substance and structure of language (pp. 23-81). Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Willis, J. (1990). Teaching English through English. New York: Longman.
Wright, A. (2002). Pictures for language learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Wu, S-Y. (2003). The effects of group discussion on idiom comprehension. Paper presented at GA TESOL Conference, Atlanta, GA, USA.