許多研究發現，教導特定英語片語下的概念隱喻和借喻能幫助學生正確的理解並解釋這些片語(例如:Boers, 2000; Berendi, Csabi & Kovecses, 2008; Hu & Fong, 2010)。這種教授第二外語字彙的方式就是廣為人知的認知方法。這種方法也被運用到一些研究裡；這些研究顯示，清楚地指出第二外語組塊(L2 chunks)下的語意跟音韻動因，例如；類象次序(iconic ordering)跟音韻重複(phonological repetition)，學習者對這些詞彙的記憶會有相當程度的加深(例如: Boers & Lindstromberg, 2008; Lindstromberg & Boers, 2008a, 2008b)。
本研究即是探討兩種認知方法對於母語為中文的成人學習者在外語環境下學習英文雙詞片語的成效；第一種方法運用概念隱喻和借喻，另一種方法則是將概念隱喻和借喻跟語意或聲韻動因作了結合。為了探討這兩種認知方法的成效，此研究分為兩個階段–預試跟主實驗。兩實驗各徵求了三組受試者，第一組為控制組，第二組為實驗組A，第三組為實驗組B。控制組採用一種非認知的方式，用翻譯跟提供英文雙詞片語的中文對應詞來教學；實驗組A採用了認知方法，運用目標片語下的概念隱喻和借喻，而實驗組B也採用了認知方法，將英文雙詞片語裡的概念隱喻和借喻與語意或聲韻線索都提出來教導參與者。
兩階段的研究結果發現，單獨就從平均數來看，點出概念隱喻和借喻的方式在預試跟主實驗裡對於英文雙詞片語的短期記憶有較好的成效。然而,預試結果顯示，結合語意或音韻動因的方法,對於加強學習者對英文雙詞片語的長期記憶比其它兩種方法更為有效。但此優勢在主實驗裡並未顯現。總而言之，認知與非認知方法對於受試者學習英文雙詞片語都有幫助。從這些實驗所產生的統計結果發現，尚無法定論哪種教學方法是比較好的。或許有其它干擾因素相互影響這些教學方法。在檢視了學的最好跟最差的英文雙詞片語後發現，干擾因素有可能是這些英文雙詞片語的熟悉度跟透明度以及組成這些片語的字之出現頻率。此研究似乎實驗組B所採用的方法未必能幫助學習高度熟悉且透明的片語。需要進一步的研究來探討這些因素才能確立認知方法的成效。

Numerous empirical studies have shown that raising the awareness of conceptual metaphors and metonymies (CMs) underlying particular idioms in English is indeed helpful for learners to understand and interpret them correctly (e.g., Boers, 2000; Berendi, Csabi & Kovecses, 2008; Hu & Fong, 2010). Such an approach in instructing L2/FL vocabulary has come to be known as a “cognitive approach.” It was also applied to some empirical studies that show when explicitly raising the awareness of the semantic or phonological motivations such as iconic ordering and phonological repetition underlying L2 chunks, learner’s retention to them could be considerably enhanced (e.g., Boers & Lindstromberg, 2008; Lindstromberg & Boers, 2008a, 2008b). 
This study is to investigate the efficacy of two cognitive approaches, one with CMs, while the other with CMs and clues of semantic and phonological motivations on adult Mandarin speakers learning English binomials in a foreign language environment. For this investigation, this study was divided into two stages: the pilot and the main study. Both studies recruited subjects for a Control Group (CG), Experimental Group A (EGA), and Experimental Group B (EGB). CG adopted a non-cognitive approach, receiving the translation and Chinese equivalents of the target English binomial chunks, and EGA adopted a cognitive approach, incorporating the conceptual metaphors and metonymies of the target chunks, while EGB also employed a cognitive approach involving a treatment of the CMs and semantic and phonological clues underlying the binomials.
Results from both studies suggest that, from mean scores alone, CM approach seemed to be better in both pilot and main study for immediate recall, while results of long-term retention in the pilot study show that approach with semantic and phonological clues had an edge over the other two. However, this edge could not be replicated in the main study. To conclude, it seems that both cognitive and non-cognitive approaches benefited the recruited subjects in learning English binomials. Statistical results yielded from the experiments show that it is far from conclusive to suggest which approach is superior. It is suspected that there could be other confounding factors interacting with these approaches. After examining the best learned and worst learned English chunks, the factors could be familiarity, transparency of the chunks and the frequency of the words that constitute the chunks. It appears that retention of highly familiar and transparent chunks do not necessarily benefit from the approach employed in the EGB in this study. Further research is required to investigate these factors in establishing the efficacy of any cognitive approach.

Table of Contents
Acknowledgements	i
Abstract	vii
Table of Contents	v
List of Tables	vii

Chapter One Introduction	1
1.1 Background of the Study	1
1.2 Purpose and Significance of the Study	3
1.3 Research Questions	5
1.4 Organization of the Thesis	6
Chapter Two Literature Review	8
2.1 The definition and terminology of formulaic sequences	8
2.2 Conceptual Metaphor and Metonymy	9
2.3 Previous Research on the Efficacy of Cognitive Instruction involving Awareness-raising of Conceptual Metaphors and Metonymies to Teach Figurative Idioms	12
2.4 Semantic and Phonological Motivations Underlying Chunks	16
2.5 Previous Research on the Mnemonic Benefits of the Phonological Motivation	19
Chapter Three Methodology	22
3.1 Participants	22
3.2 Procedure	23
3.2.1 Materials	23
3.2.2 Procedure for the Pilot Study	25
3.2.3 Procedure for the Main Study	26
3.3 Treatment for the Main Study	28
3.3.1 The Control Lesson- A Non-cognitive Approach	29
3.3.2 The Experimental lesson: Cognitive Instruction Approach	30
3.3.3 The Experimental Lesson: Cognitive Instruction Approach with Awareness of Semantic or Phonological Motivation	32
3.4 Data Collection and Analysis	34
3.4.1 Pre-test, Post-test, and Delayed Post-test	34
3.4.2 Think Aloud Protocols	34
3.4.3 Data Analysis: the Coding Scheme of the Verbal Protocols and the Inter-Rater Reliability	35
3.4.4 Statistical Tools	38
Chapter Four Results and Discussion	39
4.1 Results and Discussion of the Pilot Study	40
4.2 Main Study: Results and Discussion of Research Question 1 and Question 2	41
4.3 Main study: Results and discussion of Research Question 3	49
4.4 Learnability, Transparency, and Frequency Effect	59
4.5 Summary	60
Chapter Five Conclusion	62
5.1 Summary of the study	62
5.2 Implications and limitations of the study	63
5.3 Recommendation for future research	65
References	67
Appendices	72

List of Tables
Table 3.1 chronological Arrangement of Activity Sessions................................................. 28
Table 3.2 A teaching sample for the CG Group ................................................................... 30
Table 3.3 A Sample of Activities used in the CG Group ..................................................... 30
Table 3.4 A Teaching Sample for the EGA Group ............................................................... 31
Table 3.5 A Sample of activities used in the EGA Group ................................................... 32
Table 3.6 A Sample of Teaching Materials for the EGB Group ......................................... 33
Table 3.7 A Sample of Activities for the EGB Group .......................................................... 33
Table 3.8 Examples of Categorization of Participants’ Verbal Interpretations to
Binomial Chunks .................................................................................................... 37
Table 4.1 Paired Sample T-test of the Mean Scores of the Progress from Pre-test to
Post-test of Comprehension Test in the Pilot Study ............................................ 41
Table 4.2 Paired Sample T-test of the Mean Scores of the Regression from Post-test to
Delayed Post-test of Comprehension Test in the Pilot Study ............................. 41
Table 4.3 The Mean Scores of the Pre-test, Immediate Post-test and Delayed Post-test of
Each Group ............................................................................................................. 43
Table 4.4 Paired Sample T-test of the Mean Score of the Progress from the Pre-test to
Immediate Post-test within Each Group .............................................................. 43
Table 4.5 One-way ANOVA of the Mean Scores of the Improvement from the Pre-test to
Immediate Post-test of the Three Groups ............................................................ 43
Table 4.6 Paired Sample T-test of the Mean Score of the Regression from the Immediate
Post-test to Delayed Post-test within Each Group .............................................. 45
Table 4.7 One-way ANOVA of the Mean Scores of the Regression from the Immediate
Post-test to Delayed Post-test of the Three Groups............................................. 45
Table 4.8 Paired Sample T-test of the Mean Score of the Progress from the Pre-test to
Delayed Post-test within Each Group .................................................................. 47
Table 4.9 One-way ANOVA of the Mean Scores of the Improvement from the Pre-test to
Delayed Post-test of the Three Groups................................................................. 47
Table 4.10 LSD Test of Multiple Comparisons among Groups ......................................... 47
Table 4.11 The Attempts Participants Used in the Pre-test and Post-test in the EGA
Group (N=25) ......................................................................................................... 50
Table 4.12 Paired Sample T-test of the EGA Group’s Increase from the Pre-test to
Post-test on Attempts that Match Each Categorization ..................................... 51
Table 4.13 The Attempts Participants Used in the Pre-test and Post-test in the CG
Group (N=30) ......................................................................................................... 52
Table 4.14 Paired Sample T-test of the CG Group’s Increase from the Pre-test to
Post-test on Attempts that Match Each Categorization ..................................... 52
Table 4.15 The Attempts Participants Used in the Pre-test and Post-test in the EGB
Group (N=29) ......................................................................................................... 55
Table 4.16 Paired Sample T-test of the EGB Group’s Increase from the Pre-test to
Post-test on Attempts that Match Each Categorization ..................................... 56
Table 4.17 Attempts that Match Underlying CMs or Semantic/Phonological Motivations
................................................................................................................................ 57

References
Barcelona, A. (2000). The cognitive theory of metaphor and metonymy. In A. Barcelona (ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads. P. 1-28. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 
Benor, S. B. & Levy, R. (2006). The chicken or the egg? A probability analysis of English binomials. Language, 82, 233-278.
Berendi, M., Csabi, S., &Kovecses, Z. (2008). Using conceptual mataphors and metonymies in vocabulary teaching. In Cognitive Linguistic Approach to Teaching Vocabulary and Phraseology, Franks Boers, and Seth Lindstromberg (eds.), P.65-99. Berilin, New York: Mounton de Gruyter. 
Boers, F. (2000). Metaphor awareness and vocabulary retention. Applied Linguistics, 21, 553-571.
Boers, F. & Lindstromberg, S. (2005). Finding ways to make phrase-learning feasible: The mnemonic effect of alliteraiton. System, 33, 225-238.
Boers, F., Eyckmans, J., Kappel, J., Stengers, H., & Demecheleer, M. (2006). Formulaoc sequences and perceived oral proficiency: putting a lexical approach to the test. Language Teaching Research 10, 245-261.
Boers, F. & Lindstromberg, S. (2008). Structural elaboration by the sound (and feel) of it. In Cognitive Linguistic Approaches to Teaching Vocabulary and Phraseology, Frank B. & Lindstromberg S. (Eds.), 330-353. (ACL 6). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Boers, F. & Lindstromberg, S. (2009). Optimizing a Lexical Approach to Instructed Second Language Acquisition. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. 
Boers, F., Deconinck, J., & Lindstromberg, S. (2010). Choosing motivated chunks for teaching. In Fostering Language Teaching Efficiency through Cognitive Linguistics. Berlin: New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Cook, G. (2010). Translation in Language Teaching. Oxford University Press.
Ejzenberg, R. (2000). The juggling act of oral fluency; a psycho-sociolinguistic metaphor. In: Boersm, Darquennes, J., Temmerman, R.(Eds), Multilingualism and Applied Comparative Linguistics: Pedagogical Perspectives. Cambridge Scholars Publishing, Cambridge, p. 89-104.
Fong, Y. Y. (2006). An experimental investigation to determine the utility of conceptual metaphors and metonymies in enhancing idiom comprehension and production for EFL undergraduate learners of English. MA thesis, Department of English at Tamkang University, Taipei, Taiwan.
Gibbs, R. W., Jr. (1997). How Language reflects the embodied nature of creative cognition. In T. Ward; S.M. Smith& J vaid (eds), Creative thought. P. 351-374. Washington D.C:American Psycological Association.
Gibbs, R. W., Jr., & O’Brien, J. (1990). Idioms and mental imagery: The metaphorical motivation for idiomatic meaning. Cognition, 36, 35-68.
Gibbs, R. W., Jr., Kushner, J. M. & Mills, W. R. (1991). Authorial Intentions and Metaphor Comprehension. Journal of Phycholinguistc Research, 20, 11-30.
Gibbs, R. W., Jr. & Nayak, N.P. (1991). Why idioms mean what they do. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 120, 93-95.
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 and K. Dziwirek (eds.).Studies in cognitive corpus linguistics (pp. 336-370). Peter Lang.
Hu, Y.H. & Fong, Y.Y. (2010). Obstacles to CM-guided L2 idioms comprehension. In Fostering Language Teaching Efficiency through Cognitive Linguistics. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
K, Y.C. (2009). Bring or Take: That is the Question in Teaching Deictic Shifts in FL Classrooms. MA thesis, Department of English at Tamkang University, Taipei, Taiwan.
Lai, V. T., Curran, T., & Menn, L. (2009). Comprehending conversational and novel metaphors: An ERP Study. Brain Research, 1284, 145-155.
Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphor we live by. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (1989). Philosophy In The Flesh: The Embodied Mind and Its Challenge to Western Thought. Basic Books.
Lewis, M. (1993). The Lexical Approach. Hove, UK: LTP.
Lewis, M. (Ed.). (2000). Teaching Collocation: Further Developments in the Lexical Approach. Hove, UK: LTP.
Lin, K. H. (2009). Cognitive Categorization of Count/ Mass Distinction in English Common Nouns: A Case Study Among Learners of English as a Foreign Language. MA thesis, Department of English at Tamkang University, Taipei, Taiwan.
Lin, P. N. S. (2012). Sound evidence: The missing piece of the jigsaw in formulaic language research. Applied Linguistics, 2012, 1-7.
Lindetromberg, S. & Boers, F. (2008a). Teaching Chunks of Language. Rum, Austria: Helbling Languages.
Lindetromberg, S. & Boers, F. (2008b). The mnemonic effect of noticing alliteration in lexical chunks. Applied Linguistics, 29, 200-222.
Lindetromberg, S. & Boers, F. (2008c). Phonemic repetition and the learning of lexical chunks: The mnemonic power of assonance. System, 36, 423-436.
Meunier, S. & Granger, S. (Ed.). (2008). Phraseology in Foreign Language Learning and Teaching. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing.
Nattinger, J. R. & DeCarrico, J. S. (1992). Lexical Phrases and language teaching. Oxford University Press.
Nayak, N. P. & Gibbs, R. W., Jr. (1990). Conceptual knowledge in the interpretation of idioms. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 119(3), 315-330.
Schmitt, N. (Ed.). (2004). Formulaic sequences: acquisition, processing and use. Jon Benjamins.
Titone, D. A. & Connie, C.M. (1994). Descriptive norms for 171 idiomatic expressions: Familiarity, compositionality, predictability, and reliability. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 9(4), 247-240.
Tseng, Y. Y. & Hu, Y. H. (2012, March). The Pedagogical Implication of Cognitive-based Instruction of Binomial Chunks to Learners of English in Taiwan. A paper presented at the Fifth Formulaic Language Research Network (FLaRN) Conference, Tilburg, Netherlands.
Wray, A. (2002). Formulaic Language and the Lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ye, W. Y. (2010). Comprehension of body-part idioms of emotions with CM-guided instruction: A comparative study. MA thesis, Department of English at Tamkang University, Taipei, Taiwan.