多年以來,片語式動詞的學習對於英語為外國語（EFL）的學習者而言, 一直是一個關鍵性的議題。研究表示（Talmy, 1998, 2000）,片語式動詞存在於衛星框架式語言（satellite-framed language）當中, 像是英語以及德語。這類語言會藉由一個主要動詞,並附帶一個介副詞,來表示動作的方向。然而,像是西班牙語及法語,則屬於動詞框架式語言（verb-framed language）,因為這類語言只需要一個單一的動詞,便能表達動作以及其方向這兩個訊息。在台灣,英語為外國語的學習者主要以中文為母語。根據認知語言學家,像是Talmy（2000）以及Slobin（2004）指出,中文可歸類於衛星框架式語言;然而,近年來有越來越多的語言學家相信（Chen and Guo, 2008; Niguchi, 2011）,中文應該被劃分到一個新的屬性當中,也就是等量框架式語言（equipollently-framed language）。不管是衛星框架式語言或是等量框架式語言,就動詞的結構來說,中文並非完全與英文迴異。因此,可以假設的是,對於英語中使用介副詞（如in, out以及on）表達動作的方向的概念,台灣的英語學習者比起日本的英語學習者（母語為動詞框架式語言）應具有較良好的理解能力才是（Yasuda, 2010）。即便語言的屬性不同於英語,藉由明確地教授存在於人類的經驗中,以身體對空間及方向概念為基礎所延伸出來的方向性譬喻,此一認知為導向的教學（cognitive instruction）對片語式動詞的學習是有所助益的。既使對於日語為母語的成人英語學習者來說,此認知為導向的教學法具有相當正面的效果（Yasuda, 2010）,但對台灣擁有初級英語程度的青少年來說,效果似乎不甚理想（Yang and Hsieh, 2010）。因此,本研究即是探討,以認知為導向的教學法是否能幫助擁有中等英語程度的台灣青年學習片語式動詞。共計168名來自台灣北部某所大學的學生參與本實驗的預試及主試,在這兩次的實驗中,受測者皆被分為認知組（CI group）與非認知組（Non-CI group）。兩組非認知組皆授與傳統導向教法,而兩組認知組則接受認知導向教法。非認知組與認知組皆以中文教授,差別在於非認知組使用的教材是中文翻譯文本,而認知組則是使用圖像基模以及多義詞網路。本研究中所使用的片語式動詞結合了由美國當代語料庫所截取的74個最常使用的動詞,以及最高頻的三個方向性介副詞：out, up以及off,所產生出的204種組合。在研究者進行了初步的難度測試之後,篩選出92個片語式動詞,並以之替實驗教材與實驗考題建立資料庫。這些片語式動詞包含15種意義（out具有6個多義, up具有5個多義,而off具有4個多義）,而每一個意義皆平均地由基礎意義和延伸意義組合而成。在預試當中,36個片語式動詞以兩堂各三十分鐘的課程授與完畢;然而,在主試中,75個片語式動詞以二十三週的課程教授（一周一堂,一堂課40分鐘）。除了在預試的兩個組別僅接受選擇題型的前測與後測之外,主試的兩個組別皆參與了選擇題型與填空題型的前測,後測以及延遲後測。預試的結果顯示,以認知為導向的教法在短期學習的角度看來,並未優於傳統教法,且同樣的結果也一再重複於主試中的選擇題型。但是,就長期學習以及延伸意義學習此兩種角度來看,主試中的填空題型顯示,認知組的表現優於非認知組。簡單來說,本研究發現傳統導向教法對短期學習有某種程度的幫助,但就前測到延遲後測的結果看來,認知導向的教法卻能幫助長期的學習。

Mastering phrasal verbs (PVs) has been a critical issue for learners in EFL environment for many years. PVs are often observed in satellite-framed language (S-language), such as English and German, which expresses the path of a motion by a main verb accompanied by a particle, while languages such as Spanish and French are referred to as verb-framed language (V-language), since their verbs alone convey both path and motion information (Talmy, 1988,2000). Mandarin Chinese, which is spoken by the majority of EFL learners in Taiwan, as some cognitive linguists argue, belongs to S-language (Talmy, 2000, Slobin, 2004), although in recent years, more and more linguists believe Chinese should be categorized into a separate typology that is referred to as an equipollently-framed language (Chen and Guo 2008, Noguchi, 2011), where the concepts of manner and path are expressed in a series of verbs following the main motion verb. Be it a S- or E-language, Mandarin Chinese is not that entirely different from English in terms of motion construction. Arguably, Taiwanese learners should have relatively less difficulties in understanding the path trajectories depicted by various particles such as in, out, on, etc. in English than, let say, Japanese EFL learners whose first language, Japanese, is a V-language (Yasuda, 2010). Even languages of different typology from English could benefit from the cognitive instruction (CI) in learning PVs by explicitly teaching the fact that they converge on orientational metaphors that are extended from spatial orientations grounded in the experiences of human body. This was true for adult subjects in a Japanese EFL study (Yasuda, 2010), but not so for Taiwanese teenagers of basic English level who did not respond positively to this approach (Yang and Hsieh, 2010). In view of this, this present study is designed to investigate whether CI benefited the learning of PVs among young adults of intermediate proficiency in Taiwan.168 subjects in a university in northern Taiwan were recruited for a pilot study and a main study, and the participants in both studies were divided into two groups (CI and Non-CI group). The two Non-CI groups received a traditional approach, which in Taiwanese context is providing idiomatic Chinese translation, while the two CI groups were given CI with image schemas and polysemy networks linking all the senses of tested PVs. The PVs chosen for the study consist of 74 most frequent verbs in COCA (http://corpus.byu.edu/coca/) combining with three most frequent orientational particles, out, up, and off, yielding 204 combinations. After a familiarity and degree of difficulty test, these items were reduced to 92 PVs of 15 different senses (6 of out, 5 of up, and 4 of off) with a comparable distribution of basic senses and extended senses in usage to form an item bank for teaching and testing. In the pilot phase 36 PVs were taught over two sessions (30mins x 2), whereas in the main study 75 PVs were taught over a period of 23 weeks (one session per week and 40mins. per session). Except for the groups in the pilot study which only received comprehension pre-test and post-test, the groups in the main study were given comprehension and production pre-tests, post- and delayed post-tests. The results from the pilot study indicate that CI did not show any advantage over translation instruction in the short-term retention in the comprehension tasks. Such results were somewhat repeated in the main study in the comprehension tasks as well. However, in the productive tasks in the main study, CI group performed better than Non-CI group, particular in the long-term extension and extended senses. To conclude, although the translation approach still shows certain efficacy in this study, it is only limited to short-term retention. CI indeed helped learners attain better learning outcome than translation approach in long-term retention especially from pre-test to delayed post-test.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chinese abstract	i
English abstract	iii
Table of contents	v
List of tables	vii
List of figures	xi

CHAPTER ONE: INREODUCTION	1
1.1 Research background	1
1.2 Purpose and Significance of the Study	2
1.3 Research Questions	6
1.4 Organization of the thesis	6

CHAPTER TWO: LITERSTURE REVIEW	8
2.1 Embodiment hypothesis and image schemas	8
2.2 Metaphor and metonymy	10
2.3 Polysemy	12
2.4 Phrasal Verbs and semantic network	15
 2.4.1 Semantic meaning of particle out	19
  2.4.1.1 Prototype and extended senses of particle out	20
 2.4.2 Semantic meaning of particle up	28
  2.4.2.1 Prototype and extended senses of particle up	28
2.4.3 Semantic meaning of particle off	35
  2.4.3.1 Prototype and extended senses of particle off	35
2.5 Typology	40
2.6 Teachability of Phrasal Verbs with Cognitive Instruction	42

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY	46
3.1 Participants	46
3.2 Materials	47
 3.2.1 The selection of the most frequent particles	48
 3.2.2 The selection of the most frequent verbs	50
 3.2.3 The selection of the most frequent phrasal verbs	51
 3.2.4 Establishing the proficiency level of tested PVs	51
 3.2.5 Materials for Pilot Study and Main Study	53
3.3 Measurements	54
 3.3.1 Measurements for the pilot study	55
 3.3.2 Measurement for the main study	55
3.4 Procedure	56
 3.4.1 Procedure for the Pilot Study	56
 3.4.2 Procedure for the Main Study	57
3.5 Treatment	59
 3.5.1 Treatment of the main study	60
3.6 Data analysis	64
 3.6.1 Statistical Tools	64
 3.6.2 Reliability	66

CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION	67
4.1 Results and Discussions of Research Question 1	78
4.2 Results and Discussions of Research Question 2	82
4.3 Results and Discussions of Research Question 3	87
4.4 Results and Discussions of Research Question 4	100
4.5 Summary	108

CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSION	111
5.1 Summary of the study	111
5.2 Implications and limitations of the study	112
5.3 Recommendations for future research	113

REFERENCES	115
APPENDIX	122 
 
LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.1 Continuum of the level of difficulty	53
Table 3.2 Chronological arrangement of the main study	58
Table 3.3 Category of the coding for participants’ verbal protocol	66
Table 3.4 Reliability test for the measurements	66
Table 4.1 Validity Test of the Pilot Study	68
Table 4.2 Intragroup comparison between the pre-test and post-test in the overall mean scores of all PVs	69
Table 4.3 Intergroup comparison of the pre-test and post-test in the mean scores of all PVs	70
Table 4.4 Paired Sample T-test of the Mean Score of the Exposed PVs of CI group and Non-CI group in Comprehension Test After the Treatment	70
Table 4.5 Paired Sample T-test of the Mean Score of the Unexposed PVs of CI group and Non-CI group in Comprehension Test After the Treatment	71
Table 4.6 Independent T-test of the Mean Score of the progression of the Exposed PVs of CI group and Non-CI group in Comprehension Test After the Treatment	71
Table 4.7 Independent T-test of the Mean Score of the progression of the Unexposed PVs of CI group and Non-CI group in Comprehension Test After the Treatment	72
Table 4.8 Reliability Test of the Comprehension task and Production task in the Main Study	76
Table 4.9 Validity Test of the Comprehension task in the Main Study	77
Table 4.10 Validity Test of the Production task in the Main Study	78
Table 4.11 Paired Sample T-test of the Mean Score of CI group and Non-CI group in Comprehension Test After the Treatment	79
Table 4.12 Independent T-test of the Mean Score of CI group and Non-CI group in Comprehension Test After the Treatment	79
Table 4.13 Paired Sample T-test of the Mean Score of CI group and Non-CI group in Production Test Immediately After the Treatment	80
Table 4.14 Independent T-test of the Mean Score of CI group and Non-CI group in Production Test After the Treatment	81
Table 4.15 Paired Sample T-test of the Mean Score of CI group and Non-CI group in Comprehension Test Two Months After the Treatment	82
Table 4.16 Independent T-test of the Mean Score of CI group and Non-CI group in Comprehension Test Two Months After the Treatment	83
Table 4.17 Paired Sample T-test of the Mean Score of CI group and Non-CI group in Production Test Two Months After the Treatment	83
Table 4.18 Independent T-test of the Mean Score of CI group and Non-CI group in Production Test Two Months After the Treatment	84
Table 4.19 Paired Sample T-test of the Mean Score of CI group and Non-CI group in Comprehension Test Before and Two Months After the Treatment	85
Table 4.20 Independent T-test of the Mean Score of CI group and Non-CI group in Comprehension Test Before and Two Months After the Treatment	85
Table 4.21 Paired Sample T-test of the Mean Score of CI group and Non-CI group in Production Test Before and Two Months After the Treatment	86
Table 4.22 Independent T-test of the Mean Score of CI group and Non-CI group in Production Test Before and Two Months After the Treatment	86
Table 4.23 Paired sample T-test of the Mean Score of PVs with Basic Meanings of CI group and Non-CI group in Comprehension Test After the Treatment	88
Table 4.24 Independent T-test of the Mean Score of PVs with Basic Meanings of CI group and Non-CI group in Comprehension Test After the Treatment	89
Table 4.25 Paired Sample T-test of the Mean Score of PVs with Basic Meanings of CI group and Non-CI group in Comprehension Test Before and Two Months After the Treatment	90
Table 4.26 Independent T-test of the Mean Score of PVs with Basic Meanings of CI group and Non-CI group in Comprehension Test Before and Two Months After the Treatment	90
Table 4.27 Paired Sample T-test of PVs with Basic Meanings of CI group and Non-CI group in Production Test After the Treatment	91
Table 4.28 Independent T-test of the Mean Score of PVs with Basic Meanings of CI group and Non-CI group in Production Test After the Treatment	92
Table 4.29 Paired Sample T-test of the mean score of PVs with Basic Meanings of CI group and Non-CI group in Production Test Before and Two Months After the Treatment	93
Table 4.30 Independent T-test of the Mean Score of PVs with Basic Meanings of CI group and Non-CI group in Production Test Before and Two Months After the Treatment	93
Table 4.31 Paired Sample T-test of the Mean Score of PVs with Extended Meanings of CI group and Non-CI group in Comprehension Test After the Treatment	94
Table 4.32 Independent T-test of the Mean Score of PVs with Extended Meanings of CI group and Non-CI group in Comprehension Test After the Treatment	94
Table 4.33 Paired Sample T-test of the Mean Score of PVs with Extended Meanings of CI group and Non-CI group in Comprehension Test Before and Two Months After the Treatment	96
Table 4.34 Independent T-test of the Mean Score of PVs with Extended Meanings of CI group and Non-CI group in Comprehension Test Before and Two Months After the Treatment	97
Table 4.35 Paired Sample T-test of the Mean Score of PVs with Extended Meanings of CI group and Non-CI group in Production Test After the Treatment	98
Table 4.36 Independent T-test of the Mean Score of PVs with Extended Meanings of CI group and Non-CI group in Production Test After the Treatment	99
Table 4.37 Paired Sample T-test of PVs with Extended Meanings of CI group and Non-CI group in Production Test Before and Two Months After the Treatment	100
Table 4.38 Independent T-test of the Mean Score of PVs with Extended Meanings of CI group and Non-CI group in Production Test Before and Two Months After the Treatment	100
Table 4.39 Think-Aloud Verbal Protocols of the Non-CI Group, comprehension test	102
Table 4.40 Think-Aloud Verbal Protocols of the CI Group, comprehension test	103
Table 4.41 Think-Aloud Verbal Protocols of the Non-CI Group, production test	105
Table 4.42 Think-Aloud Verbal Protocols of the CI Group, production test	105
Table 4.43 Overall percentage of the response for the first question from both groups 	107

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1 Radial network of over	14
Figure 2.2 Prototype of particles	17
Figure 2.3 Figure and ground: book and table	18
Figure 2.4 Proto-scene for out	20
Figure 2.5 Extended senses of particle out: bodies, minds and mouth are containers 	22
Figure 2.6 Extended senses of particle out: sets, groups are container 	23
Figure 2.7 Extended senses of particle out: state, situation are containers	25
Figure 2.8 Extended senses of particle out: non-existence, ignorance, and invisibility are containers	26
Figure 2.9 Extended senses of particle out: reflexivity	27
Figure 2.10 Polysemous network of particle out	28
Figure 2.11 Proto-scene for up	29
Figure 2.12 Extended senses of particle up: aiming at or reaching a goal, an end or a limit	30
Figure 2.13 Extended senses of particle up: moving up to a higher degree, value or measure	31
Figure 2.14 Extended senses of particle up: covering an area completely, reach a highest limit	33
Figure 2.15 Extended senses of particle up: higher up is more visible, accessible and known	34
Figure 2.16 Polysemous network of particle up	35
Figure 2.17 Proto-scene for off	36
Figure 2.18 Extended senses of particle off: separation of spatial contact	37
Figure 2.19 Extended senses of particle off: separation as interruption of flow/supply	38
Figure 2.20 Extended senses of particle off: separation due to motion away from its former state, condition or point of reference	39
Figure 2.21 Polysemous network of particle off	40
Figure 3.1 Polysemous network of particle “out”	49
Figure 3.2 Polysemous network of particle “up”	50
Figure 3.3 Polysemous network of particle “off”	50
Figure 3.4 Teaching sample 1 for CI group	61
Figure 3.5 Teaching sample 2 for CI group	61
Figure 3.6 Teaching sample 3 for CI group	62
Figure 3.7 Teaching sample for Non-CI group	62

References
Abreu, A. S. & Vieira, S. B. (2009). Learning Phrasal Verbs through Image Schemas: A New Approach. Retrieved January 11, 2012, from http://ssrn.com/abstract=1491689
Alejo, R., Piquer, A. & Reverirgo, G. (2010). Phrasal verbs in EFL course books. In Knop, S., Boers, F. & Rycker, A. (Eds.), Fostering Language Teaching Efficiency Trough Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 61-77). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Boers, F. (1996). Spatial Prepositions and Metaphor: A Cognitive Semantic Journey along the UP-DOWN and the FRONT-BACK Dimensions. Tubingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.
Boers, F. (2000). Metaphor awareness and vocabulary retention. Applied linguistics, 21(4), 553-571.
Boers, F. (2004). Expanding Learners’ Vocabulary through Metaphor Awareness: What Expansion, What Learners, What Vocabulary?. In Achard, M. & Niemeier, S. (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics, Second Language Acquisition, and Foreign Language Teaching (pp. 211-232). New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Boers, F. & Lindstromberg, S. (2009). Optimizing a Lexical Approach to Instructed Second Language Acquisition. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillian.
Brugman, C. & Lakoff, G. (2006). Cognitive topology and lexical networks. In Geeraerts, D. (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics: Basic Readings (pp. 109-139). New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Csabi, S. (2002). Polysemous Words, Idioms and Conceptual Metaphors. Cognitive Linguistics and Lexicography. In BRAASCH, Anna; POVLSEN, Claus. Proceedings of the Tenth EURALEX International Congress. EURALEX (pp. 13-17).
Csabi, S. (2004). A Cognitive Linguistic View of Polysemy in English and its Implication for Teaching. In Achard, M. & Niemeier, S. (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics, Second Language Acquisition, and Foreign Language Teaching (pp. 233-256). New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Condon, N. (2008). How cognitive linguistic motivations influence the learning of phrasal verbs. APPLICATIONS OF COGNITIVE LINGUISTICS, 6, 133.
Cook, R. & Stevenson, S. (2006). Classifying Particle Semantics in English Verb-Particle Constructions. In Begona Villada Moiron, Aline Villavicencio, Diana McCarthy, Stefan Evert and Suzanne Stevenson (Chiar), Multiword Expressions: Identifying and Exploiting Underlying Properties. Association for Computational Linguistics, Sydney.
Croft, W. & Cruse, D. A. (2004). Cognitive Linguistics. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Croft, W. (2006). The role of domains in the interpretation of metaphors and metonymies. Cognitive Linguistics, 4, 335-370. 
Dirven, R. (2001a). The Metaphoric in Recent Cognitive Approaches to English Phrasal Verbs. Retrieved December 8, 2011, from http://metaphoric.de/01/dirven.htm.
Dirven, R. (2001b). English phrasal verbs: theory and didactic application. In Putz, M., Niemeier, S. & Dirven, R. (Eds.), Applied Cognitive Linguistics I: Theory and Language Acquisition (pp. 3-27). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Fiumara, G. C. (1995). The Metaphoric Process: Connections between Language and Life. New York: Routledge.
Gardner, D. & Davis, M. (2007). Pointing Out Frequent Phrasal Verbs: A Corpus-Based Analysis, TESOL QUARTERLY, 41(2), 339-359.
Gibbs, R. W. Jr. (1994). The Poetics of Mind. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Gibbs, R. W. & Colston, H. L. (2006). The cognitive psychological reality of image schemas and their transformations. In Geeraerts, D. (Ed.), Cognitive Linguistics: Basic Readings (pp. 239-268). New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Grady, J. (2005). Primary metaphors as inputs to conceptual integration, Journal of Pragmatics, 37 (2005), 1595–1614. 
Guo, J., & Chen, L. (2008). Learning to Express Motion in Narratives by Mandarin-Speaking Children1. Crosslinguistic Approaches to the Psychology of Language: Research in the Tradition of Dan Isaac Slobin, 1.
Hu, Y.H. & Fong, Y.Y. (2010). Obstacles to CM- guide L2 idiom interpretation. In Knop, S., Boers, F. & Rycker, A. (Eds.), Fostering Language Teaching Efficiency through Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 293-316). New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Hu, Y. H. & Ho, Y. C. (2009). Prepositions We Live By: Implications of The Polysemy Network in Teaching English Prepositions In and On. In Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, B. & Dziwirek, K. (Eds.), Studies in Cognitive Corpus Linguistics (pp. 336-370). Frankfurt: Peter Lang Verlagsgruppe.
Hu, Y-H and Kang Y-C (in preparation). The efficacy of Cognitive Instruction in teaching deictic verbs: Bring and Take.
Johnson, M. (1987). The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. University of Chicago Press.
Kovecses, Z., & Szabo, P. (1996). Idioms: A view from cognitive semantics. Applied Linguistics, 17, 326–355. doi:10.1093/applin/17.3.326.
Kurtyka, A. (2001). Teaching Phrasal Verbs: A Cognitive Approach. In Putz, M.; Niemeier, S. & Dirven, R. (Eds.), Applied Cognitive Linguistics II: Language Pedagogy (pp. 29-54). New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G. & Brugman, C. (1986). Argument Forms in Lexical Semantics. Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 12, 442-454.
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G. (1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor. In Ortony, A. (Ed.), Metaphor and Thought (pp. 202-251). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 
Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the Flesh. New York: Basic Books.
Lakoff, G. (2006) Conceptual Metaphor. In Geeraerts, D. (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics: Basic Readings (pp. 185-238). New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Linder, S. (1981). A Lexico-Semantic Analysis of English Verb-Particle Constructions with UP and OUT (Doctorial dissertation, University of California). Retrieved from http://www.academia.edu/1540896/Lindner_1981
Lindquist, H. (2009). Corpus Linguistics and the Description of English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. 
Liu, D. (2011). The Most Frequent Used English Phrasal Verbs in American and British English: A Multicorpus Examination, TESOL QUARTERLY, 45 (4), 661-687
Morgan, P.S. (1997). Figuring out figure out: Metaphor and the semantics of the English verb-particle construction. Cognitive Linguistics 8 (4), 327-357.
Neagu, M. (2007). English Verb Particles and Their Acquisition. A Cognitive Approach. Spanish Journal of Applied Linguistics, 20, 121-138.
Noguchi, H. (2011). Talmy’s Dichotomous Typology and Japanese Lexicalization Patterns of Motion Events. Teachers College, Colombia University Working Papers in TESOL & Applied Linguistics, 11(1), pp. 29-47.
Norvig, P. & Lacoff, G. (1987). Taking: A Study in Lexical Network Theory. Berkeley Linguistics Society, 13, 195-206.
Oakley, T. (2007). Image schemas. In Geeraerts, D. & Cuyckens, H. (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 214-235). New York: Oxford University Press.
Rudzka-Ostyn, B. (2003). Word Power: Phrasal Verbs and Compounds. A Cognitive Approach. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Side, R. (1990). Phrasal Verbs: Sorting Them Out. ELT Journal, 44(2), 144-151.
Siyanova, A. & Schmitt, N. (2007). Native and nonnative use of multi-word vs. one-word verbs. IRAL, 45, 119-139.
Slobin, D. I. (2000). Verbalized Events: A Dynamic Approach to Linguistic Relativity and Determinism. In Niemeier, S. & Dirven, R. (Eds.), Evidence for Linguistic Relativity (pp. 107-138). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
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 (pp. 219-257). London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
Sweester, E. (1987). The Definition of Lie: An Examination of the Folk Teories Underlying a Semantic Prototype. In Holland, D. and Quinn, N. (Eds.), Cultural models in language and thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sweester, E. (1990). From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure. Cambridge: C. U. P.
Talmy, L. (1988). Force dynamics in language and cognition. Cognitive Science, 10(2), 117-149
Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a cognitive semantics, Vol. II: Typology and process in concept structuring. Language, Speech, and Communication. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. 
Tseng, Y.Y. (2012). Teaching and Learning of English Binominals-A Cognitive Approach (Master’s thesis). Department of English at Tamkang University, Taipei, Taiwan.
Turner, M. (1996). The Literary Mind. New York: Oxford University Press.
Tyler, A. & Evans, V. (2003). The Semantics of English Prepositions: spatial senses, embodied meaning and cognition. United Kindom: Cambridge University Press.
Ungerer, F. & Schmid, H. J. (1996). An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics. New York: Pearson Education Limited.
Yang, Y. Y. & Hsieh, C. Y. (2010). Conceptual metaphor awareness on English phrasal verbs teaching and learning for adolescents in Taiwan. Retrieved February 15, 2012 from http://ir.lib.ncku.edu.tw/bitstream/987654321/108255
/4/Conceptual%20metaphor%20awareness%20on%20English%20phrasal
%20verbs%20teaching%20and%20learning%20for%20adolescents%20in
%20Taiwan.pdf
Yasuda, S. (2010). Learning Phrasal Verbs through Conceptual Metaphors: A Case of Japanese EFL Learners. TESOL Quarterly, 44, 250-273.

Dictionary
Collins Cobuild Dictionary of Phrasal Verbs (1989). London and Glasgow: Collins.