淡江大學覺生紀念圖書館 (TKU Library)
進階搜尋


下載電子全文限經由淡江IP使用) 
系統識別號 U0002-2202201310422500
中文論文名稱 多義網絡與譬喻圖解於移動動詞、虛擬動詞及情態助動詞在外語學習之教學成效研究
英文論文名稱 A Study of the Efficacy of Polysemy Networks and Image Schemas in Teaching Motion Verbs, Fictive Verbs, and Modal Verbs in a FL Classroom
校院名稱 淡江大學
系所名稱(中) 英文學系博士班
系所名稱(英) Department of English
學年度 101
學期 1
出版年 102
研究生中文姓名 謝君青
研究生英文姓名 Chun-Ching Hsieh
學號 893010214
學位類別 博士
語文別 英文
口試日期 2013-01-16
論文頁數 344頁
口試委員 指導教授-胡映雪
委員-謝菁玉
委員-范瑞玲
委員-黃月貴
委員-張雅慧
中文關鍵字 譬喻  轉喻  多義網絡  譬喻圖解  移動動詞  虛擬動詞  情態助動詞 
英文關鍵字 metaphor  metonymy  polysemy  polysemy network  image schema  motion verb  fictive verb  modal verb  figurative 
學科別分類
中文摘要 本研究以提昇台灣大學生之譬喻能力為主要目的,以三類多義動詞為教學內容:移動動詞、虛擬動詞及情態助動詞,其研究對象是以七十一位南台灣英文系大學生為樣本,學生的英文程度包括初級、中級及中高級等三種等級,各等級皆分成兩組進行學習成效比對,實驗組 (PI) 接受多義網絡與譬喻圖解學習字義,對照組 (LI) 的學習則來自單字表及圖片。實驗進行約十一個月,包括十六次的教學,各階段的動詞教學前後進行前測及後測,至少在四週之後進行延遲後測,以便記錄學生在理解層面的進展。此外,虛擬動詞及情態助動詞的實驗亦包括寫作測驗,做為理解能力進化的印證。情態助動詞的實驗還在理解測驗中加入有聲思考於其中,做為追蹤學生認知進展的依據。本研究的實驗結果回應四個研究問題:一、教學成效方面,實驗組的學習成效比對照組明顯較佳,譬喻能力亦獲得提昇。二、在學生程度方面,中級受試者於三類動詞的表現最為穩定和明顯,初級學生需藉由教師的引導,避免長期實驗可能發生的學習焦慮,中高級學生在實驗初期較不易受教學影響,不過在逐漸適應後就漸入佳境。三、動詞類型方面,大致的結果顯示受試者在行為動詞的理解能力比方向動詞好,尤其在教學之後,學生在虛擬動詞方面寫作的結果亦是如此。四、理解測試和寫作測驗的關係研究,大部份的結果證明兩者是相關聯,或者寫作結果能補充理解結果的不足,研究結果更趨向完整。另外,情態助動詞的寫作結果發現學生的譬喻用法普遍較其原型用法少,will和can是最常用的情態助動詞,卻不是錯誤最頻繁的,教師在進行研究之前,對字義的全面理解實屬必要。
英文摘要 The study aims at enhancing figurative competence of college students in Taiwan through teaching certain groups of verbs, namely, motion verbs, fictive verbs, and modal verbs. 71 English-major students were recruited from a university in Southern Taiwan. Subjects consisted of basic, intermediate, and high-intermediate levels of language proficiency in English. Each level was divided into two groups. The experimental group (PI) received a full picture of meaning distribution through a CM based polysemy network and image schemas of each verb, while the control group (LI) was given a word list and pictures of conventional images. The study lasted approximately 11months and included 16 sessions of treatment. Each group took the pre-test prior to each phase of target verbs, the immediate post-test after instruction, and the delayed post-test was administered at least four weeks after instruction. Writing task was involved in each test of fictive verbs and modal verbs to mirror learners’ comprehension from intake to uptake; written protocol was also applied in modal verbs to investigate learners’ cognitive understanding. Results consist of the findings toward four research questions on instruction, learners’ proficiency level, typology, and interrelatedness between comprehension and production results. First, overall statistics indicate that the combination of polysemy network and image schema enhanced FL learners’ competence of figurative extension in metaphorical sense of motion verbs, fictive sense of fictive verbs, and epistemic sense of modal verbs. Second, intermediate level performed a consistent result in the study. On the other hand, basic level needs teachers’ guidance particularly in a long-term research as it may result in anxiety of subjects; advanced level seemingly not easily affected by instructions at the beginning, yet the results became consistent as subjects were used to it. Third, learners performed a better result in comprehending manner-of-motion (MOM) verbs, rather than path-of-motion (POM) verbs. Likewise, they applied more MOM verbs to produce fictive motion in writing, particularly after being exposed to instruction. Fourth, interrelatedness mostly occurred to portray how learners extend their intake of comprehension into uptake of production. Production occasionally compensated the shortcoming of comprehension and finally reached identical results as most cases. Written production of modal verbs also revealed the following: FL learners produced less modals of epistemic sense than root sense; will and can are the most frequent modal verbs yet not the most frequent errors FL subjects made; a complete understanding of modal verb’s polysemy is essential for instructors to conduct research.
論文目次 Chapter 1 Introduction
1.1 Research Background..2
1.2 Statement of the Problems..4
1.3 Purpose of the Study..9
1.4 Research Questions..13
1.5 Significance of the Study..14
1.6 Definition of Key Terms..17
1.7 Organization of the Study..20

Chapter 2 Review of Literature
2.1 Conceptual Metaphor and Metonymy..22
2.1.1 Traditional theories of metaphor and metonymy..23
2.1.2 Conceptual metaphor and metonymy in cognitive linguistics..25
2.2 Figurative Languages and Lexical Semantics..31
2.3 Polysemy..33
2.3.1 Polysemy and homonymy..33
2.3.2 Polysemy in the classical approach..36
2.3.3 Polysemy in cognitive linguistics..38
2.4 Polysemy Network..43
2.5 Image Schema..46
2.6 Semantics of Motion Verbs..50
2.6.1 Prototypical meaning of motion verbs..51
2.6.2 Extended meanings of motion verbs..53
2.6.3 Polysemy networks of motion verbs61
2.7 Semantics of Fictive Verbs..64
2.7.1 Prototypical meaning of fictive verbs..66
2.7.2 Fictive motion..69
2.7.3 Extended meanings of fictive verbs..71
2.7.4 Polysemy network of fictive verbs..78
2.8 Semantics of Modal Verbs..80
2.8.1 Prototypical meaning of modal verbs..83
2.8.2 Epistemic meanings of modal verbs..93
2.8.3 Polysemy network of modal verbs..97
2.9 Summary..99

Chapter 3 Methodology
3.1 Pilot study..102
3.1.1 Test items of pilot study..102
3.1.2 Teaching materials of pilot study..106
3.1.3 Result of pilot study..108
3.2 Participants..112
3.3 Instruments..114
3.3.1 Target vocabulary..114
3.3.2 Test items..117
3.3.3 Teaching materials..124
3.3.4 Questionnaire..129
3.3.5 Written protocol..130
3.3.6 Written production..131
3.4 Procedure..132
3.5 Data analysis..137

Chapter 4 Result & Discussion
4.1 Results and Discussion of the Research Question 1..139
4.1.1 Motion verbs..140
4.1.2 Fictive verbs..148
4.1.3 Modal verbs..159
4.2 Results and Discussion of the Research Question 2..178
4.3 Results and Discussion of the Research Question 3..183
4.4 Results and Discussion of the Research Question 4..191
4.4.1 Interrelatedness between comprehension and production..191
4.4.2 Analysis of written production of modal verbs..196
4.5 Summary..205

Chapter 5 Conclusion
5.1 General Discussion..209
5.2 Limitations of the Study..221
5.3 Suggestions for Future Research..224


References..226


Appendices
A. Test Items of Motion Verbs in the Pilot Study..235
B. Test Items of Extra 4 Motion Verbs..248
C. Test Items of Fictive Verbs..250
D. Test Items of Modal Verbs..261
E. Teaching Materials of Motion Verbs for the Experimental PI..273
F. Teaching Materials of Motion Verbs for the Control LI Group..284
G. Teaching Materials of Fictive Verbs for the Experimental PI Group..294
H. Teaching Materials of Fictive Verbs for the Control LI Group..309
I. Teaching Materials of Modal Verbs for the Experimental PI Group..326
J. Teaching Materials of Modal Verbs for the Control LI Group..334
K. Pictorial Stimuli of Scenery Writing..340
L. Writing Questions of Modal Verbs..342


LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1 Main Type of Modality..84
3.1 Number of Valid Data of 25 Motion Verbs..105
3.2 Reliability Result of 21 Motion Verbs..105
3.3 Results of Validity of 21 Motion Verbs’ Test Items..105
3.4 Distinct Treatment of Visual Inputs in the Pilot Study..108
3.5 P Value of Independent Samples Test about the Pilot Study..110
3.6 Percentage of Improvement between Tests in the Pilot Study..111
3.7 Subjects’ Quantity of Three Levels..114
3.8 Frequency of Target Words in British National Corpus (BNC)..116
3.9 Number of Valid Data of Extra 4 Motion Verbs..118
3.10 Reliability Result of Extra 4 Motion Verbs..118
3.11 Results of Validity of Extra 4 Motion Verbs’ Test Items..118
3.12 Number of Valid Data of Fictive Verbs..120
3.13 Reliability Result of Fictive Verbs..121
3.14 Results of Validity of Fictive Verbs’ Test Items..121
3.15 Number of Valid Data of Modal Verbs..122
3.16 Reliability Result of Modal Verbs..122
3.17 Results of Validity of Modal Verbs’ Test Items..123
3.18 Revised Visual Inputs in the Main Study of Motion Verbs..126
3.19 Image Schemas of Two Modal Verbs..128
3.20 Questionnaire in the Pre-test, the Immediate Post-test, and the Delayed Post-test..130
3.21 Weekly Syllabus of the Main Study..133
4.1 Quantity of Test Items on Motion Verbs..144
4.2 Paired Samples T-test of Basic Learners’ Comprehension Between the Delayed Post-test and the Pre-test on Motion Verbs..144
4.3 Independent Samples T-test of Intermediate Learners’ Comprehension on Fictive Verbs..146
4.4 Independent Samples T-Test of All Learners’ Comprehension on Fictive Verbs..150
4.5 Independent Samples T-Test of All Subjects’ Written Tokens on Fictive Motion..151
4.6 Independent Samples T-test of Basic Learners’ Comprehension on Fictive Verbs..152
4.7 Independent Samples T-Test of Basic Groups’ Written Tokens on Fictive Motion..153
4.8 Independent Samples t-test of Intermediate Learners’ Comprehension on Fictive Verbs..155
4.9 Independent Samples T-Test of Intermediate Groups’ Written Tokens on Fictive Motion..156
4.10 Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test of Advanced Learners’ Comprehension on Fictive Motion..157
4.11 Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test of Advanced Learners’ Written Tokens on Fictive Motion..159
4.12 Paired Samples T-Test of Basic Learners’ Comprehension Between the Immediate Post-test and the Pre-Test on Modal Verbs..165
4.13 Criteria & Examples of Coding on Modal Verbs..166
4.14 Basic Learner’s Protocols of Giving Right Answers on Modal Verbs..167
4.15 Result of Questionnaire & Written Feedback of Basic Learners on Modal Verbs..168
4.16 Independent Samples t-test of Basic Learners’ Writing of Modal Verbs..170
4.17 Paired Samples T-test of Basic PI Group’s Writing of Modal Verbs..171
4.18 Paired Samples T-test of Basic PI Group’s Writing of Modal Verbs..171
4.19 Paired Samples T-Test of Intermediate Learners’ Comprehension on Modal Verbs..172
4.20 Intermediate Learner’s Protocols of Giving Right Answers on Modal Verbs..172
4.21 Independent Samples T-test of Intermediate Learners’ Writing of Modal Verbs..173
4.22 Paired Samples T-test of Intermediate PI Group’s Writing of Modal Verbs..174
4.23 Paired Samples T-test of Intermediate LI Group’s Writing of Modal Verbs..174
4.24 Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test of Advanced Learners’ Comprehension on Modal Verbs..175
4.25 Advanced Learner’s Protocols of Giving Right Answers on Modal Verbs..177
4.26 Percentage of Improvement between Comprehension Tests of 21 Motion Verbs..186
4.27 Percentage of Improvement between Comprehension Tests of 25 Motion Verbs..186
4.28 Percentage of Improvement between Comprehension Tests of Fictive Verbs..187
4.29 Subjects’ Production of Fictive Verbs in Writing..189
4.30 Learner Population of Applying Fictive Verbs in Production..194
4.31 Comparison of Basic Learners on Modal Verb Usage..198
4.32 Comparison of Intermediate Learners on Modal Verb Usage..198
4.33 Comparison of Advanced Learners on Modal Verb Usage..198
4.34 Incorrect Use of Modal Verbs in the Pre-Writing..200
4.35 Incorrect Use of Modal Verbs in the Post-Writing..200
4.36 Incorrect Use of Modal Verbs in the Delayed Post-Writing..200
4.37 Frequency of Root Modality & Epistemic Modality in Basic Groups’Writing..201
4.38 Frequency of Root Modality & Epistemic Modality in Intermediate Groups’Writing..201
4.39 Frequency of Root Modality & Epistemic Modality in Advanced Groups’Writing..201
4.40 Frequency of Applying Distinct Modal Verbs in Writing..203


LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
2.1 Polysemy Network of the Preposition In..45
2.2 Spatial Sense of POM Verb Escape..52
2.3 Spatial Sense of POM Verb Capture..53
2.4 Vapor Sense of POM Verb Escape..54
2.5 Visual Sense of POM Verb Escape..55
2.6 Situation Sense of POM Verb Escape..56
2.7 Attention Sense of POM Verb Escape..57
2.8 Memory Sense of POM Verb Escape..58
2.9 Control Sense of POM Verb Capture..59
2.10 Success Sense of POM Verb Capture..60
2.11 Attraction Sense of POM Verb Capture..61
2.12 Polysemy Network of POM Verb Escape..63
2.13 Polysemy Network of POM Verb Capture..63
2.14 Spatial Sense of POM Verb Rise..66
2.15 Spatial Sense of MOM Verb Stretch..67
2.16 Elasticity Sense of MOM Verb Stretch..68
2.17 Hand Movement Sense of MOM Verb Stretch..69
2.18 Fictive Sense of POM Verb Rise..70
2.19 Fictive Sense of MOM Verb Stretch..71
2.20 Quantity Sense of POM Verb Rise..72
2.21 Success Sense of POM Verb Rise..73
2.22 Result Sense of POM Verb Rise..74
2.23 Resource Sense of MOM Verb Stretch..75
2.24 Limitation Sense of MOM Verb Stretch..75
2.25 Time Sense of MOM Verb Stretch..76
2.26 Skill or Intelligence Sense of MOM Verb Stretch..77
2.27 Change Sense of MOM Verb Stretch..78
2.28 Polysemy Network of POM Verb Rise..79
2.29 Polysemy Network of MOM Verb Stretch..80
2.30 Disposition Sense of Can..84
2.31 Deontic Sense of Can: Asking for Permission..85
2.32 Deontic Sense of Can: Giving Permission..86
2.33 Intrinsic Sense of Can: Description of Reality..86
2.34 Intrinsic Possibility Sense of Can: People..87
2.35 Intrinsic Possibility Sense of Can: Things..88
2.36 Intrinsic Possibility Sense of May..89
2.37 Deontic Modality of May: Giving permission..91
2.38 Deontic Modality of May: Asking for permission..92
2.39 Deontic Modality of May: Wish..93
2.40 Epistemic Possibility Sense of Can..94
2.41 Epistemic Possibility Sense of May..96
2.42 Polysemy Network of Modal Verb Can..98
2.43 Polysemy Network of Modal Verb May..99
4.1 Global Mean of Basic Learners on 25 Motion Verbs..143
4.2 Literal and Metaphorical Mean of Basic Learners on 25 Motion Verbs..143
4.3 Global Mean of Basic Learners on Modal Verbs..164

參考文獻 Achard, M. & Niemeier, S. (2004). Cognitive linguistics, second language acquisition, and foreign language teaching. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Allwood, J. (2003). Meaning potentials and context: Some consequences for the analysis of variation in meaning. In H. Cuyckens, R. Dirven & J. R. Taylor (Eds.), Cognitive approaches to lexical semantics (pp. 29-66). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Barcelona, A. (2002). Clarifying and applying the notions of metaphor and metonymy within cognitive linguistics: An update. In R. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp. 207-278). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Blank, A. (2003). Polysemy in the lexicon and in discourse. In B. Nerlich, A. Todd, V. Herman & D. D. Clarke (Eds.), Polysemy: Flexible patterns of meaning in mind and language (pp. 267-296). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Boers, F. (2004). Expanding learners’ vocabulary through metaphor awareness: What expansion, what learners, what vocabulary. In M. Achard & S. Niemeier (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics, second language acquisition, and foreign language teaching (pp. 211-232). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Boers, F., Demecheleer, M., & Eyckmans, J. (2004). Eymological laboration as a strategy for learning idioms. In P. Bogaards and B. Laufer (Eds.), Vocabualry in a second language: Selection, acquisition, and testing (pp. 53-78). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Boers, F. & Lindstromberg, S. (2006).Cognitive linguistic applications in second or foreign language instruction: rationale, proposals, and evaluation. In G. Kristiansen, M. Achard, R. Dirven, & F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics: current applications and future perspectives (pp. 305-358). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Boers, F., De Rycker, A., & De Knop, S. (2010). Fostering language teaching efficiency through cognitive linguistics: Introduction. In S. De Knop, F. Boers, & A. De Rycker, (Eds), Fostering language teaching efficiency through cognitive linguistics (pp. 1-26). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Bogaards, P. & Laufer B. (2004.), Vocabualry in a second language: Selection, acquisition, and testing. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Cadierno, T. (2004). Expressing motion events in a second language: a cognitive typological perspective. In M. Achard and S. Niemeier (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics, second language acquisition, and foreign language teaching (pp. 13-50). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Cadierno, T. & Lund, K. (2004). Cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition: Motion events in a typological framework. In B. Van Patten, J. Williams, S. Rott, & M. Overstreet (Eds.), Form-meaning connections in second language acquisition (pp. 139-154). NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Celce-Murcia, M. & Larsen-Freeman, D. (1999). The grammar book: An ESL/EFL teacher’s course. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Chacón-Beltrán, R., Abello-Contesse, C., & Torreblanca-Lopez, M. del M. (2010). Insights into non-native vocabulary teaching and learning. UK: Multilingual Matters.
Chang, T.-h. (2003). An analysis of the use of modal verbs in senior high school students’ English compositions (Master’s thesis). Retrieved from http://nccuir.lib.nccu.edu.tw/bitstream/
Chaudron, C. (1985). A method for examining the input/intake distinction. In S. Gass & Sl Selinker (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 285-300 ). Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.
Chen, L. & Guo, J. (2009). Motion events in Chinese novels: Evidence for an
equipollently-framed language. Journal of Pragmatics, 41, pp. 1749–1766. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2008.10.015
Chen, M-h & Chang, J-h (2010). The meaning extension of Xiang and its polysemy network. Taiwan Journal of Linguistics, 8(2), pp. 1-32.
Chepyshko, R. (2009). Semantic category effects in L2 vocabulary learning a
MOGUL perspective. An Unpublished Master’s Thesis. Ching Hwa Univesity, Taiwan.
Croft, W. (2002). The role of domains in the interpretation of metaphors and metonymies. In R. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp. 161-206). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Chomsky, N. (1995). The minimalist program. MA: MIT Press.
Crossley, S., Salsbury, T. & McNamara, D. (2010). The development of polysemy and frequeny use in English second language speakers. Language Learning, 60(3), p. 573-605).
Csábi, S. (2004). A cognitive linguistic view of polysemy in English and its implications for teaching. In M. Achard and S. Niemeier (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics, second language acquisition, and foreign language teaching (pp. 13-50). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Cuyckens H., Dirven R., & Taylor, J. R. (2003). Cognitive approaches to lexical semantics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Cuyckens H., Sandra, D., & Rice, S. (2007). Toward an empirical lexical semantics. In V. Evans, B. K. Bergen, & J. Zinken (Eds.), The cognitive linguistics reader (pp. 57-74). London/Oakville: Equinoz.
De Knop, S., Boers, F., & De Rycker, A. (2010). Fostering language teaching efficiency through cognitive linguistics. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
De Knop, S., & Dirven, R. (2008). Motion and location events in German, French and English: A typological, contrastive and pedagogical approach. In S. De Knop & T. De Rycker (Eds.), Cognitive approach to pedagogical grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Dirven R. (1985). Metaphor as a basic means for extending the lexicon. In D. Paprotte and R. Dirven (Eds.), The ubiquity of metaphor (pp. 85-119). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Dirven, R. (2002). Metonymy and metaphor: Different mental strategies of conceptualization. In R. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp. 75-112). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Dirven, R. & Pörings R. (2002). Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Doroodi, S. & Hashemian, M (2011). The relationship between reading comprehension and figurative competence in L2 learners. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 1(6), 711-717.
Evans, V., Bergen, B. K., & Zinken, J. (2007.). The cognitive linstuistics reader. London/Oakville: Equinoz.
Evans, V. & Green, M. (2006). Cognitive linguistics: An introduction. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Fillmore, C. J. (1975). An alternative to checklist theories of meaning. In C. Cosen (Ed.), Proceeding of first annual meeting of the Berkley Linguistic Society (pp. 123-131). Berkley, CA.
Fillmore, C. J. (1976). Frame semantics and the nature of language. In Annual of the New York Academy of Sciences: Conference on the Origin and Development of Language and Speech (Vol. 280, pp. 20-32)
Fillmore, C. J. (1977a). Scenes-and-frames semantics. In A. Zampolli (Ed.), Linguistics Structures Processing: Fundamental Studies in Computer Science, No. 59 (pp. 55-81). Amsterdam: North Holland Publishing.
Fillmore, C. J. (1977b). Topics in lexical semantics. In R. Cole (Ed.), Current issues in linguistic theory (pp. 76-138). Blooming: Indiana University Press.
Fillmore, C. J. (1982). Frame semantics. In L. S. O. Korea (Ed.), Linguistics in the morning calm (pp. 111-137). Soul, Korea: Hanshin.
Fillmore, C.J. (1985). Frame and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Semantica, 6(2), 222-254.
Fillmore, C. J. & Atkins, B. T. S. (2002). Describing polysemy: The case of ‘Crawl’. In Y. Ravin, Y. Ravin and C. Leacock (Eds.), Polysemy: Theoretical and computational approaches (pp. 91-110). NY: Oxford University Press.
Fordyce, K. (2010, September). The relationship between L2 proficiency and the use of epistemic stance in speaking and writing: A cross-sectional corpus-based study on Japanese EFL learners. Paper presented at the British Association for Applied Linguistics Annual Conference, Aberdeen, UK.
Gass, S. (1988). Integrating research areas: A framework for second language studies. Applied Linguistics, 9, 198-217.
Gawron, J.M. (2008). Frame semantics. Retrieved from www.hf.uib.no/forskerskole/new_frame_intro.pdf
Gibbs, R. W. (1999). Researching metaphor. In L. Cameron & G. Low (Eds.), Researching and applying metaphor (pp. 29-47). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Goddard, C. (2002). Polysemy: A problem of definition. In Y. Ravin, &. Ravin and C. Leacock (Eds.), Polysemy: Theoretical and computational approaches (pp. 129-151). NY: Oxford University Press.
Hsieh, C.-C. & Hsu, H.-F. (2011). Discrete and complete inputs on phrasal verbs learning. Proceedings of the 43rd Annual Meeting of the British Association for Applied Linguistics, UK, 151-162.
Hu, Y.-H. & Fong Y.-Y. (2010). Obstacles to CM-guided L2 idiom interpretation. In S. De Knop, F. Boers, & A. De Rycker, (Eds), Fostering language teaching efficiency through cognitive linguistics (pp. 293-316). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Hu, Y.-H. & Ho, Y.-C. (2009). Prepositions we live by: Implications of the polysemy network in teaching English prepositions in and on. In B. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk & K. Dziwirek (Eds.), Studies in cognitive corpus linguistics (pp. 336-370). Peter Lang.
Hu, Y.-H. & Kang, Y.-C. (2008 Oct). Bring and take: That’s the question in teaching deictic shifts in FL classroom. Paper presented at Second Language Research Forum, Honolulu, HI.
Johnson, M. (1987). The body in the mind. US: The University of Chicago Press.
Katz, J. J. (1972). Semantic theory. NY: Harper & Row.
Kövecses, Z., Palmer, G. B., & Dirven R. (2002). Language and emotion: The interplay of conceptualization with physiology and culture. In R. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp. 133-160). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Kristiansen, G., Achard, M., Dirven, R., & Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J. (2006), Cognitive linguistics: Current applications and future perspectives. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Lakoff, G. & Johnson M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago.
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things. What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago, London: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and Its Challenge to Western Thought. New York: Basic Books.
Lakoff, G. (2007). The contemporary theory of metaphor. In V. Evans, B. K. Bergen, & J. Zinken (Eds.), The cognitive linguistics reader (pp. 267-315). London/Oakville: Equinoz.
Lambert-Brétière, R. (2009). Serializing languages as satellite-framed: The case of Fon. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 7, 1–29. doi : 10.1075/arcl.7.01lam
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. I: Theoretical
prerequisites. Ca: Stanford University Press.
Laufer, B. (1997). What’s in a word that makes it hard or easy: some intralexical
factors that affect the learning of words. In N. Schmitt & M. McCarthy (Eds.),
Vocabulary: Description, acquisition and pedagogy (pp. 140-155). UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Lee, D. (2001). Cognitive linguistics: An introduction. NY: Oxford University Press.
Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, B. & Dziwirek, K. (2009). Studies in cognitive corpus
linguistics. Peter Lang.
Lien, C. (2000). A frame-based account of lexical polysemy in Taiwanese. Language
and linguistics, 1(1), 119-138.
Lindstronmberg, S. & Boers, F. (2005). From movement to metaphor with
manner-or-movement verbs. Applied linguistics, 26(2), 241-261. doi:
10.1093/applin/ami002
Littlemore, J. & Low, G. (2006a). Figurative thinking and foreign language learning.
NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Littlemore, J. & Low, G. (2006b). Metaphoric competence, second language learning,
and communicative language ability. Applied Linguistics, 27(2), 268-294. doi:
10.1093/applin/am1004
Luchjenbroers, J. (2006). Cognitive linguistics investigation: Across languages, fields,
and philosophical boundaries. Amsterdam/Phildelphia: John Benjamins.
Matlock, T. (2004). The conceptual motivation of fictive motion. In G. Radden &
K.-U. Panther (Eds.) Studies in linguistic motivations (pp. 221-248). Berlin/NY:
Mouton de Gruyter.
Matlock, T. (2006). Depicting fictive motion in drawings. In J. Luchjenbroers (Ed.).
Cognitive linguistics investigation: Across languages, fields, and philosophical
boundaries (pp. 67-86). Amsterdam/Phildelphia: John Benjamins.
231
Matsumoto, Y. (1996). Subjective motion in English and Japanese verbs. Cognitive
Linguistics, 7(2), p. 183-226.
Morimoto, S. & Loewen, S. (2007). A comparison of the effects of
image-schema-based instruction and translation-based instruction on the
acquisition of L2 polysemous words. Language Teaching Research, 11(3),
347-372.
Nerlich, B. (2003). Polysemy: Past and present. In B. Nerlich, Z. Todd, V. Herman, &
D. D. Clarke (Eds.), Polysemy: Flexible patterns of meaning in mind and
language (pp. 3-30). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Nerlich, B., Todd, A., Herman, V., & Clarke D. D. (2003). Polysemy: Flexible
patterns of meaning in mind and language. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Niemeier, S. & Dirven, R. (2000). Evidence for linguistic relativity. Amsterdam/PA:
John Benjamins.
Patten, B. V., Williams J., Rott S., & Overstreet M. (2004). Form-meaning
connections in second language acquisition. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Radden, G. & Dirven, R. (2007). Cognitive English grammar. Amsterdam/Phildelphia:
John Benjamin.
Raukko, J. (2003). Polysemy as flexible meaning: Experiments with English get and
Fininish pita. In B. Nerlich, Z. Todd, V. Herman & D. D. Clarke (Eds.), Polysemy:
Flexible patterns of meaning in mind and language (pp. 161-193). Berlin: Mouton
de Gruyter.
Ravin, Y. & Leacock, C. (2002). Polysemy: An Overview. In Y. Ravin, Y. Ravin and C.
Leacock (Eds.), Polysemy: Theoretical and computational approaches (pp. 1-29).
NY: Oxford University Press.
Rice, S. (2003). Growth of a lexical network: Nine English prepositions in acquisition.
In H. Cuyckens, R. Dirven & J. R. Taylor (Eds.), Cognitive approaches to lexical
semantics (pp. 243-280). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Richards J. C. & Schmidt R. (2002). Longman dictionary of language teaching &
applied linguistics (3rd ed.). UK: Pearson Education Limited.
Rojo, A. & Valenzuela, J. (2003). Fictive motion in English and Spanish. IJES, 3(2),
125-151.
Sandra, D. & Rice, S. (1995). Network analyses of prepositional meaning: Mirroring
whose mind—the linguist’s or the language user’s? Cognitive Linguistics, 6(1),
89-130
Schmidt, N. (1998). Tracking the incremental acquisition of a second language
vocabulary: A longitudinal study. Language Learning, 48(2), 281-317.
Schmidt, N. (2000). Vocabulary in language teaching. UK: Cambridge University
Press.
232
Schmidt, N. (2010). Key issues in teaching and learning vocabulary. In R.
Chacón-Beltrán, C. Abello-Contesse, & M. del M. Torreblanca-Lopez (Eds.),
Insights into non-native vocabulary teaching and learning (pp. 28-40). UK:
Multilingual Matters
Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.). Cognition and second language
instruction (pp. 3-32). UK: Cambridge University Press.
Shibatani, M. & Thompson, S. A. (1996). Grammatical constructions. US: Oxford
University Press.
Shie, J.-S. (2003). Metaphorized motion in English. Taiwan Journal of Linguistics,
1(2), 95-120.
Slobin, D. I. (1996). Two ways to travel: Verbs of motion in English and Spanish. In
M. Shibatani & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Grammatical constructions (pp. 195-220).
US: Oxford University Press.
Slobin D. I. (1997a), The crosslinguistic study of language acquisition. NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Slobin, D. I. (1997b). The universal, the typological, and the particular in acquisition.
In D. I. Slobin (Ed.), The crosslinguistic study of language acquisition (pp. 1-40).
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
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/PA: John Benjamins.
Slobin, D. I. (2006). What makes manner of motion salient? Explorations in linguistic
typology, discourse, and cognition. In M. Hickmann & S. Robert (Eds.), Space in
languages: Linguistics system and cognitive categories (pp. 59-82).
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Sweetser E. (1990). From etymology to pragmatics: Metaphorical and cultural
aspects of semantics structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sweetser E. (1991). From etymology to pragmatics: Metaphorical and cultural
aspects of semantics structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a cognitive semantics (Vols. 1-2). US: Massachusetts
Institute of Technology.
Taylor, J. R. (2002). Category extension by metonymy and metaphor. In R. Dirven
and R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp.
328-348). Berlin; New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Taylor, J. R. (2003). Cognitive models of polysemy. In B. Nerlich, A. Todd, V.
Herman & D. D. Clarke (Eds.), Polysemy: Flexible patterns of meaning in mind
and language (pp. 31-48). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Taylor, J. R. (20006). Polysemy and the lexicon. In G. Kristiansen, M. Achard, R.
233
Dirven, & F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics: Current
applications and future perspectives. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Taylor, J. R. (2008). Prototypes in cognitive linguistics. In P. Robinson & N. C. Ellis
(Eds.), Handbook of cognitive lingutistics and second language acquisition (pp.
39-65). NY: Routledge.
Taylor, J., Cuycken, H. & Dirven, R. (2003). New directions in cognitive lexical
semantic research. In H. Cuyckens, R. Dirven, & J. R. Talor (Eds.), Cognitive
approaches to lexical semantics (pp. 1-28). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Terence Langendoen, D. (1998). Bloomfield. In R. A. Wilson & F. C. Keil (Eds.),
The MIT Encyclopedia of Cognitive
Science (pp. 90-91). MA: MIT Press. Retrieved from
http://dingo.sbs.arizona.edu/~langendoen/Bloomfield.pdf
Tuggy, D. (2003). The Nawatl verb kîsa: A case study in polysemy. In H. Cuyckens, R.
Dirven & J. R. Taylor (Eds.), Cognitive approaches to lexical semantics (pp.
323-362). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Tyler, A. & Evans, V. (2003). Reconsidering prepositional polysemy networks: the
case of over. In B. Nerlich, A. Todd, V. Herman & D. D. Clarke (Eds.), Polysemy:
Flexible patterns of meaning in mind and language (pp.95-159). Berlin: Mouton
de Gruyter.
Tyler, A. & Evans, V. (2004). Applying cognitive linguistics to pedagogical grammar:
The case of over. In M. Achard and S. Niemeier (Eds.), Cogntive linguistics,
second language acquisition, and foreign language teaching (pp. 257-280). Berlin:
Mouton de Gruyter.
Tyler, A. & Evans, V. (2007). Reconsidering prepositional polysemy networks: the
case of over. In V. Evans, B. K. Bergen, and J. Zinken (Eds.), The cognitive
linguistics reader (pp. 186-237). London/Oakville: Equinoz.
Tyler, A. (2008). Cognitive linguistics and second language instruction. In P.
Robinson & N. C. Ellis (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second
language acquisition (pp. 456-488). N.Y. & London: Routledge.
Ungerer, F. & Schmidt, H.-J. (2006). An introduction to cognitive linguistics, 2nd Ed.,
UK: Pearson.
Verspoor, M. & Lowie, W. (2003). Making sense of polysemous words. Language
Learning, 53(3), 547-586.
Dictionairies
Cambridge Learner’s Dictionary (2001). UK: Cambridge University Press.
Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary (2005). UK: Cambridge University Press.
Collins Cobuild English-Chinese Language Dictionary (2000). Taipei: Tung Hwa.
Longman Advanced American Dictionary (2000). Essex: Pearson.
234
Macmillan English Dictionary for Advanced Learners of American English (2002).
London: Macmillan Publishers.
Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English AS Hornby (2005). 7th
Edition. UK: Oxford University Press.
Corpus
BNC (British National Corpus) http://www.natcorp.ox.ac.uk/
IWiLL (Intelligent Web-based Interactive Language Learning)
http://www.iwillnow.org/iwill/default.aspx
論文使用權限
  • 同意紙本無償授權給館內讀者為學術之目的重製使用,於2013-03-11公開。
  • 同意授權瀏覽/列印電子全文服務,於2013-03-11起公開。


  • 若您有任何疑問,請與我們聯絡!
    圖書館: 請來電 (02)2621-5656 轉 2281 或 來信