English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 11 |  Items with full text/Total items : 88866/118573 (75%)
Visitors : 23556926      Online Users : 191
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
Scope Tips:
  • please add "double quotation mark" for query phrases to get precise results
  • please goto advance search for comprehansive author search
  • Adv. Search
    HomeLoginUploadHelpAboutAdminister Goto mobile version
    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/60011


    Title: 隱喻及轉喻對英語為外語學習者之教學成效:以情緒語言為例
    The effects of teaching EFL learners metaphor and metonymy: With reference to emotion expressions
    Authors: 陳怡蓁
    Chen, Yi Chen
    Contributors: 賴惠玲
    Lai, Huei Ling
    陳怡蓁
    Chen, Yi Chen
    Keywords: 隱喻
    轉喻
    譬喻能力
    概念引喻
    隱喻映射
    文化普同性及差異性
    Metaphor
    Metonymy
    Metaphoric competence
    Conceptual metaphor
    Metaphoric mapping
    Cultural universality and specificity
    Date: 2011
    Issue Date: 2013-09-04 14:48:02 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 隱喻及轉喻被廣泛的使用在日常生活語言中。認知語言學主張:隱喻及轉喻實為人類思想與溝通的中心。因此,語言學習者必須具備覺察及理解用以表示抽象概念的隱喻及轉喻用語的能力。然而,因為語言及文化的顯著差異,第二語言學習者在發展溝通能力時,也應培養譬喻能力。
    許多學者提出各式教學方法。現存文獻中,使用以概念引喻為主的教學方式,著重於點出用以對比的兩者間之相對特徵,已獲得實驗證實能提升語言學習者之覺察能力、理解能力、及記憶力。然而此教學方法忽略了語言文化間的差異填補,亦輕忽了轉喻的重要性。另一方面,使用隱喻映射為主的教學方式,能藉由實體映射及知識映射有系統條理的闡述用以對比的兩者間之對照關係,不僅有助於彌補因文化不同而造成的認知差異,亦將轉喻與譬喻視為同等重要。因而以隱喻映射為主的教學方式被認為是具備潛力的教學方法,但仍缺少實證。
    本論文旨在以實證方式,研究以概念引喻及以隱喻映射為主的兩種教學方式對於以英語為外語學習者在覺察能力、理解能力、及記憶力之學習成效。共有115位、分別來自一般大學及科技大學之大學一年級學生參與本實驗。參與者分成兩組,分別接受兩種教學方式。實驗分兩週進行:第一週先完成電腦化的譬喻能力測驗之前測,接著進行教學,第二週則進行電腦化的譬喻能力測驗之後測。測驗之結果則經由量化及質化方式進行分析。
    實驗結果發現:兩種教學方式均對於參與者在覺察能力、理解能力、及記憶力有正面成效。然而儘接受以隱喻映射為主之教學方式的參與者在覺察能力測驗中獲得顯著進步,特別是對於不包含體驗性描述的轉喻性隱喻及隱喻用語,表現尤佳。至於理解力測驗部分,以隱喻映射為主之教學方式對於解讀含有文化差異性的用語特別有助益。另一方面,相較兩組教學方式的表現成果而言,以隱喻映射為主之教學方式造成參與者的學習成果呈現較一致且穩固的成長。總而言之,以隱喻映射為主之教學方式因為提供了具結構性、系統性及邏輯性的映射過程,而促進學習者較容易覺察包含抽象概念的譬喻用語,克服因文化差異性而造成的理解困難,及獲致較穩固的學習成長。
    本研究為以英語為外語學習者在學習譬喻用語—包含隱喻及轉喻—上提供了三點貢獻。其一,透過學習者培養譬喻能力之實驗成果,直接教學方式對於第二語言習得的效益再次獲得證實。其二,本實驗成果顯示:轉喻與隱喻實為密不可分的兩種概念,在教學過程中應把轉喻列為與隱喻一樣重要。其三,學習者的中介語包含了語言的普同性及差異性概念,因此應被視為連續體而非階段性結構;在設計教學教材時,應把此連續體的概念併入考量。總結而言,本實驗的成果不只在應用語言學領域提出見解,亦在第二語言習得領域有所貢獻。
    Metaphor and metonymy, pervasively found in everyday language, has been shown by cognitive linguistic research to lie at the heart of human thought and communication. Thus, ability to notice and comprehend metaphoric and metonymic expressions in expressing abstract concepts is indispensible for language users. However, since languages and cultures vary in a wide array of ways to employ metaphor and metonymy, L2 learners should develop metaphoric competence along with communicative competence.
    Various methods to develop L2 learners’ metaphoric competence have been proposed. In the extant literature, instruction involving conceptual metaphors (CM), which focuses on correspondences of general traits, has been proved effective in raising learners’ awareness, comprehension, and retention for Hungarian and Dutch EFL learners. Its effectiveness in Chinese speaking context is worth attested empirically. On the other hand, metaphoric mappings, which illustrate both ontological mappings and epistemic mappings of two concepts in more systematic and detailed manners, offer a promising method for EFL language learning. Hence, instruction involving metaphoric mappings (MM) is assumed to be more effective than instruction of CM. The effectiveness of such a method is also worth attested empirically.
    The present study aimed to test the effects of CM and MM on EFL learners’ awareness, comprehension, and retention of metaphoric and metonymic expressions with empirical evidence from a carefully-designed experiment. Finer-grained analyses on three important issues were provided: first, an in-depth examination of the intricate interaction of metonymy and metaphor as a continuum, and its influences on figurative language learning was conducted. Second, cultural universality and specificity among languages and the different degrees of difficulties for EFL learners in transferring expressions between L2 and L1 were also investigated. Third, whether structural and logical mappings between languages and cultures could assist learners to better grasp abstract concepts was examined.
    The participants included 115 Taiwanese EFL learners, who were freshmen of a general university and a four-year technological university. The English proficiency of the former group was high-intermediate and that of the latter was low-intermediate. The experiment contained three phases: pre-teaching, teaching and post-teaching. The participants were divided into two sub-groups: one received instruction involving CM, and the other received instruction involving MM. They were asked to complete the computerized metaphoric competence test before and after receiving instructions. The results of the tests were collected and analyzed both quantitatively and qualitatively.
    The results showed that both instructions could lead to better awareness, comprehension, and retention. However, only the participants of the MM groups performed significantly better in the posttest regarding the Awareness Test, especially in finding metonymic-metaphoric and metaphoric expressions that contained no bodily descriptions, the two categories which were considered the most abstract among the expressions. Regarding the Comprehension Test, MM instruction was found to be especially beneficial for the participants in interpreting expressions involving cultural-specific conceptual metaphors. Moreover, MM instruction resulted in convergent effects in the participants’ performances and led toward relatively more consistent and steady progress. To conclude, MM instruction, with its structural, systematic, and logical mapping processes, was found to be especially helpful in facilitating learners’ awareness of expressions involving more abstract concepts, overcoming difficulties caused by cultural specificity, and leading to longer-term effects on retention.
    The present study sheds light on the application of metaphor and metonymy to EFL teaching and learning of figurative language in three aspects. First, that explicit instructions on second language acquisition carry beneficial effects is validated for the development of learners’ metaphoric competence in the target language. In addition, metonymy is suggested as equally important as metaphor, and should be included in EFL language learning programs. Moreover, that learners’ interlanguage system is a continuum encompassing expressions with universal and specific cultural characteristics is also validated. Therefore, designs of EFL teaching materials are suggested to take such a continuum into consideration. In brief, the results of the study contribute not only to applied linguistics but also to second language acquisition.
    Reference: Ahrens, K. (2002). When love is not digested: Underlying reasons for source to target domain pairing in the contemporary theory of metaphor. In YuChau E. Hsiao (Ed.), Proceeding of the first cognitive linguistics conference (pp. 273-302). Taipei: National Cheng-Chi University.

    Al-Haq, F. A., & El-Sharif, A. (2008). A comparative study for the metaphors use in happiness and anger in English and Arabic. US-China Foreign Language, 6(11), 1-19.

    Ammar, A., Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (2010). Awareness of L1/L2 differences: does it matter? Language Awareness, 19(2), 129-146.

    Ausubel, D. (1963). The psychology of meaningful verbal learning. New York: Grune & Stratton.

    Ausubel, D. (1968). Educational psychology: A cognitive view. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

    Bachman, L. F. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language Testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Barcelona, A. (Ed.). (2000). Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads: A cognitive perspective. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

    Barcelona, A. (2001). On the systematic contrastive analysis of conceptual metaphors: Case studies and proposed methodology. In M. Putz, S. Niemeier & R. Dirven (Eds.), Applied cognitive linguistics II: Language pedagogy (pp.117-146). Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

    Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1999). Exploring the interlanguage of interlanguage pragmatics: A research agenda for acquisitional pragmatics. Language Learning, 49, 677-713.

    Barnden, J. A. (2010). Metaphor and metonymy: Making their connections more slippery. Cognitive Linguistics, 21(1), 1-34.

    Berlin, B., & Kay, P. (1969). Basic color terms: Their universality and evolution. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Black, M. (1962). Models and metaphors: Studies in language and philosophy. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

    Black, M. (1993). More about metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (2nd ed., pp.19-41). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Bloomfield, L. (1942). Outline guide for the practical study of foreign languages. Baltimore: Linguistic Society of America.

    Boers, F. (2000a). Enhancing metaphoric awareness in specialised reading. English for Specific Purposes, 19, 137-147.

    Boers, F. (2000b). Metaphor awareness and vocabulary retention. Applied Linguistics, 21, 553-571.

    Boers, F. (2001). Remembering figurative idioms by hypothesising about their origins. Prospect, 16, 35-43.

    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: Mouton de Gruyter.

    Boers, F., & Littlemore, J. (2000). Cognitive style variables in participants’ explanations of conceptual metaphors. Metaphor and Symbol, 15(3), 177-187.

    Boers, F., & Demecheleer, M. (2001). Measuring the impact of cross-cultural differences on learners' comprehension of imageable idioms. ELT Journal, 55(3), 255-62. Retrieved Oct 26, 2009, from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/55/3/

    Boers, F., Demecheleer, M. & Eyckmans J. (2004). Etymological elaboration as a strategy for learning figurative idioms. In P. Bogaards & B. Laufer. (Eds.), Vocabulary in a second language: Selection, acquisition and testing (pp.53-78). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

    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 perspective (pp.305-355). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

    Boers, F., Eyckmans, J., & Stengers, H. (2007). Presenting figurative idioms with a touch of etymology: more than mere mnemonics? Language Teaching Research, 11(1), 43-62.

    Boers, F. & H. Stengers (2008) Adding sound to the picture: An exercise in motivating the lexical composition of metaphorical idioms in English, Spanish and Dutch. In L. Cameron, M. Zanotto & M. Cavalcanti (Eds.), Confronting metaphor in use: An applied linguistic approach, 63-78. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

    Brown, D. (2000). Principles of language learning and teaching (4th ed.). NY: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.

    Chen, Yi-chen (2010). Teaching idioms in an EFL context: The past, the present, and a promising teaching method. Proceeding of the 27th International Conference on English Teaching and Learning in R.O.C. (ROC-TEFL 2010), 182-193. Kaohsiung, Taiwan: Crane Publishing Co.

    Chen, Yi-chen & Lai, Huei-ling (In Press). EFL learners’ awareness of metonymy–metaphor continuum in figurative expression. Language Awareness.

    Chomsky, H. (1957). Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton.

    Chung, Siaw-Fong & Ahrens, K. (2004). Teaching Economy Metaphors: A Psycholinguistic Perspective through the CMM. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Symposium and Book Fair on English Teaching. Taipei, Taiwan: English Teachers Association.

    College Entrance Examination Center. (2002). 大考中心高中英文參考辭彙表. Retrieved October 7, 2010, from http://www.ceec.edu.tw/Research/ResearchList.htm

    College Entrance Examination Center. (2010a). 95-99學年度學科能力測驗各科成績標準一覽表. Retrieved October 7, 2010, from http://www.ceec.edu.tw/AbilityExam/AbilityExamStat/99SATStat/99SAT_stat_27.xls
    College Entrance Examination Center. (2010b). 九十九學年度指定科目考試各科成績標準一覽表. Retrieved October 7, 2010, from http://www.ceec.edu.tw/AppointExam/AppointExamStat/99DrseStat/99DRSE_stat_21.xls

    Corder, S. P. (1967). The significance of learners’ errors. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 5, 161-169.

    Corder, S. P. (1977). Simple codes and the source of the learner’s initial heuristic hypothesis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 1, 1-10.

    Danesi, M. (1993). Metaphorical competence in second language acquisition and second language teaching: The neglected dimension. In J. E. Alatis (Ed.), Language, communication, and social meaning (pp.489-500) [Electronic version]. Retrieved November 26, 2009, from http://books.google.com.tw/books?id=C5mZ-4N1xYwC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Language,+communication,+and+social+meaning&ei=zyIOS4WxBpX6lQTbrfzSCw#v=onepage&q=Danesi&f=false

    Davies, A. (2003). The native speaker: Myth and reality. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

    Davies, A. (2006). The native speaker in applied linguistics. In A. Davis, & C. Elder (Eds.), The handbook of applied linguistics (pp. 431-450). Oxford: Blackwell Pub.

    Deignan, A., Gabrys, D. & Solska, A. (1997). Teaching English metaphors using cross-linguistic awareness-raising activities. ELT Journal, 51(4), 352-60.

    Dobrovolʹskiĭ, D. O., & Piirainen, E. (2005). Figurative language: Cross-cultural and cross-linguistic perspectives. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier Science.

    Dong, Y. (2004). Don't keep them in the dark! Teaching metaphors to English language learners. English Journal, 93(4), 29-35. Retrieved February 4, 2009, from http://www.ncte.org/library/NCTEFiles/Resources/Journals/EJ/0934-mar04/EJ0934Dont.pdf

    Ellis, N. (2006a). Cognitive perspectives on SLA. AILA Review, 19, 100–121.

    Ellis, N. (2006b). Language acquisition as rational contingency learning. Applied Linguistics, 27(1), 1–24.

    Ellis, R. (2002). The study of second language acquisition (9th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Fainsilber, L., & Ortony, A. (1987). Metaphorical uses of language in the expressions of emotions. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 2(4), 239-250.

    Gardner, H., Kircher, M., Winner, E., & Perkins, D. (1974). Children’s metaphoric productions and preferences. Journal of Child Language, 2, 125-141.

    Gass, S., & Selinker, L. (2001). Second language acquisition: An introductory course (2nd ed.). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

    General English Proficiency Test. (2010). Retrieved October 1, 2010 from https://www.gept.org.tw/index.asp

    Gibbs, R. W. (1999). Speaking and thinking with metonymy. In K. Panther, & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (pp.61-76). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Gibbs, R. W. (2006). Embodiment and cognitive science. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Gibbs, R. W., Costa Lima, P. L., & Francuzo, E. (2004). Metaphor is grounded in embodied experience. Journal of Pragmatics, 36(7), 1189-1210.

    Goossens, L. (1990). Metaphonymy: The interaction of metaphor and metonymy in expressions for linguistic action. Cognitive Linguistics, 1, 323-340.

    Jakobson, R. (2003). The metaphoric and metonymic poles. In R. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.). Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp. 41-47). Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

    Johnson, M. (1987). The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

    Johnson, J., & Rosano, T. (1993). Relation of cognitive style to metaphor interpretation and second language proficiency. Applied Psycholinguistics, 14, 159-175.

    Kellerman, E. (1977). Towards a characterization of the strategy of transfer in second language learning. Interlanguage Studies Bulletin, 2, 58-145.

    Kellerman, E. (1979). Transfer and non-transfer: Where are we now? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 2, 37-57.

    Kellerman, E. (1995). Cross linguistic influence: transfer to nowhere? Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 41(3), 251–69.

    King, B. (1989) The conceptual structure of emotional experience in Chinese. Columbus: Ohio State University.

    Kogan, N. (1983). Stylistic variation in childhood and adolescence: Creativity, metaphor, and cognitive styles. In J H. Ravel1 & E. M. Markman (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology (Vol.3, 4th ed., pp. 695-706). New York: Wiley.

    Kövecses, Z. (1986). Metaphors of anger, pride, and love: A lexical approach to the structure of concepts. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: J. Benjamins.

    Kövecses, Z. (1990). Emotion concepts. New York: Springer Verlag.

    Kövecses, Z. (1991). Happiness: A definitional effort. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 6, 29-46.

    Kövecses, Z. (2000a). The concept of anger: Universal or culture specific? Psychopathology, 33(4), 159-170.

    Kövecses, Z. (2000b). Metaphor and emotion: Language, culture, and body in human feeling. Cambridge, U.K.; New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Kövecses, Z. (2001). A cognitive linguistic view of learning idioms in an FLT context. In M. Pütz, S. Niemeier & R. Dirven (Eds.), Applied cognitive linguistics II: Language pedagogy (pp. 87-115). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

    Kövecses, Z. (2005). Metaphor in culture: Universality and variation. Cambridge, U.K.; New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Lado, R. (1957). Linguistics across cultures. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

    Lai, Huei-ling, & Chen, Yi-chen (2010, April 15-17). The Effects of EFL Learners’ Application of Metaphor and Metonymy in Learning and Retaining Emotion Expressions. Paper presented at the 2010 International Conference on Applied Linguistics & Language Teaching (ALLT), National Taiwan University of Science and Technology, Taipei, Taiwan.

    Lakoff, G. (1987). Woman, fire, and dangerous thing: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago, London: University of Chicago Press.

    Lakoff, G. (1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp.202-251). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Lakoff, G. (2006). The contemporary theory of metaphor. In D. Geeraerts (Ed.), Cognitive linguistics: Basic readings (pp.185-238). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

    Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Lakoff, G., & Kövecses, Z. (1987). The cognitive model of anger inherent in American English. In D. Holland & Q. Naomi (Eds.), Cultural models in language and thought (pp. 195-221). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar, Volume one: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Langacker, R. W. (1991). Foundations of cognitive grammar, Volume two: Descriptive applications. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Langacker, R. W. (1993). Reference-point constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 4(1), 1-38.

    Lantolf, J. P. (1999). Second culture acquisition: cognitive considerations. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Culture in second language teaching and learning (pp. 28-46). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Laufer, B. (1997). What’s in a word that makes it hard or easy: Some intralexical factors that affect learning of words. In N. Schmitt & M. McMarthy (Eds.), Vocabulary, description, acquisition and pedagogy (pp. 140-155). Cambridge: CUP.

    Lazar, G. (2003). Meaning and metaphor: Activities to practice figurative language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Levenston, E. (1971). Over-indulgence and under-representation: Aspects of mother tongue interference. In G. Nickel (Eds.), Papers in contrastive analysis, 115-121.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Li, C., & Cheng, J. (2007). Metaphor Competence for Second Language Learners. Sino-US English Teaching, 4(2), 8-10. Retrieved October 26, 2009, from http://www.linguist.org.cn/doc/su200702/su20070202.pdf

    Littlemore, J. (1998). Individual Differences in Second Language Learning: Towards an Identification of the Strategy Preferences and Language Learning Strengths of L2 Students with Holistic and/or Imager Cognitive Styles (Doctoral dissertation, Thames Valley University).

    Littlemore, J. (2001). Metaphoric competence: a possible language learning strength of students with a holistic cognitive style? TESOL Quarterly, 35(3), 459-491.

    Littlemore, J. (2009). Applying cognitive linguistics to second language learning and teaching. UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Littlemore, J., & Low, G. (2006). Metaphoric competence, second language learning, and communicative language ability. Applied Linguistics, 2(27), 268-294.

    Long, M. H. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In De Bot, K., Ginsberg, R. B., & Kramsch, C. (Eds.), Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspective (pp. 39-52). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Low, G. (1988). On teaching metaphor. Applied Linguistics, 9(2), 125-147. Retrieved February 4, 2009, from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/9/2/125

    McCallum, G. P. (1970). Idiom drills: For students of English as a second language. New York: Crowell.

    McCallum, G. P. (1978). More idiom drills for students of English as a second language. New York: Crowell.

    MacWhinney, B. (2005). Extending the Competition Model. International Journal of Bilingualism, 9(7), 69-84. Retrieved April 8, 2011, from http://psyling.psy.cmu.edu/papers/years/2005/ijb.pdf

    MacWhinney, B., Bates, E., & Kliegl, R. (1984). Cue validity and sentence interpretation in English, German, and Italian. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 23, 127-150.

    Matsuki, K. (1995). Metaphors of anger in Japanese. In J. Taylor and R. Maclaury (Eds.), Language and the cognitive construal of the world (pp.137-151). Berlin: Gruyter.

    Miller, G. (1993). Images and models, similes, and metaphors. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (2nd ed., pp.357-400). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Minister of Education. (2004). 國內英語能力檢測比較參考表. Retrieved October 8, 2010, from http://www.cambridge.org.tw/English_Proficiency_Tests_Comparison_Table.pdf

    Nandy, M. (1994). English expressions with idioms, prepositions and metaphors. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: S. Abdul Majeed & Co.

    Odlin, T. (1989). Language transfer: Cross-linguistic influence in language learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Odlin, T. (2005). Crosslinguistic influence and conceptual transfer: What are the concepts? Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 25, 3–25.

    O’Malley, J. M, & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Leaning strategies in second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Ortony, A. (1975). Why metaphors necessary and not just nice. Educational Theory, 25, 45-53. Retrieved October 26, 2009, from http://www.cs.northwestern.edu/~ortony/Andrew%20Ortony_files/Why%20metaphors%20necessary.pdf

    Panther, K., & Radden, G. (Eds.) (1999). Metonymy in language and thought. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Pica, T., Young, R., & Doughty, C. (1987). The impact of interaction on comprehension. TESOL Quarterly, 21(4), 737-758.

    Pollio, H. R., Barlow, J. M., Fine, H. J., & Pollio, M. R. (1977). Psychology and the poetics of growth: Figurative language in psychology, psychotherapy, and education. Hillsdale: Erlbaum, 1977.

    Pollio, H. R., & Smith, M. K. (1979). Sense and nonsense in thinking about anomaly and metaphor. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 13, 323-326.

    Radden, G. (2003). How metonymic are metaphors? In R. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp. 407-434). Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

    Radden, G., & Kövecses, Z. (1999). Towards a theory of metonymy. In K. Panther & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (pp.17-60). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Richards, J. C., Platt, J., & Platt, H. (1998). Longman dictionary of language teaching and applied linguistics (English-Chinese edition). Hong Kong: Longman.

    Ringbom, H. (1987). The role of the first language in foreign language learning. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.

    Ringbom, H. (1992). On L1 Transfer in L2 Comprehension and L2 Production. Language Learning, 42(1), 85-112.

    Sági, O. (2002). Translating metaphors in literature from English to Hungarian: A case study of Nabokov’s Lolita. Term paper, Department of American Studies, Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest.

    Savignon, S. J. (1971). A study of the effect of training in communicative skills as part of a beginning college French course on student attitude and achievement in linguistic and communicative competence (Doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign).

    Savignon, S. J. (2005). Communicative language teaching: Strategies and goals. In E. Hinkle (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp.635-652). New York: McGraw Hill.

    Seitz, J. A. (1997). The development of metaphoric understanding: Implications for a theory of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 10(4), 347-353. Retrieved April 6, 2011, from http://pdfserve.informaworld.com/570249__790767489.pdf

    Schachter, J. (1974). An error in error analysis. Language Learning, 24, 205-214.

    Schmidt, R. W. (1990). The Role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129-158. doi: 10.1093/applin/11.2.129

    Shinohara, K., & Matsunaka, Y. (2009) Pictorial metaphors of emotion in Japanese comics. In C. J. Forceville & U. Eduardo (Eds.), Multimodal metaphor (pp.265-296). Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

    Skinner, B.F. (1957). Verbal learning. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

    Skoufaki, S. (2005). Use of conceptual metaphors: A strategy for the guessing of an idiom's meaning. In M. Mattheoudakis & A. Psaltou-Joycey (Eds.), Selected papers on theoretical and applied linguistics from the 16th international symposium (pp. 542-556). Thessaloniki: Aristotle University of Thessaloniki.

    Soriano, C. (2003). Some anger metaphors in Spanish and English: A contrastive review. International Study of English Study, 3(2), 107-122. Retrieved June 28, 2008, from http://www.um.es/ijes/vol3n2/06-Soriano.pdf

    Taylor, R. J. (1995). Linguistic categorization: Prototypes in linguistic theory (2nd ed.). Oxford: Claredon Press.

    Taylor, R. J. (2003). Category extension by metonymy and metaphor. In R. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.). Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp. 323-347). Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

    Test Center of Technological & Vocational Education. (2010a). 99學年度四技二專統一入學測驗各單科成績統計:平均值、前標、後標、標準差. Retrieved October 8, 2010, from http://www.tcte.edu.tw/four/99_4y/99-4y-GradeStand.pdf

    Test Center of Technological & Vocational Education. (2010b). 99學年度四技二專統一入學測驗-各單科原始成績組距. Retrieved October 8, 2010, from http://www.tcte.edu.tw/four/99_4y/99-4y-Grade-00.pdf

    Tomasello, M. (1995). Joint attention as social cognition. In C. Moore, & P. Dunham (Eds.), Joint attention: Its origins and role in development (pp.103-130). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Tomasello, M. (2006). Usage-based linguistics. In D. Geeraerts (Ed.), Cognitive linguistics: Basic readings (pp.439-458). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

    Ungerer, F., & Schmid, H. (2006). An introduction to cognitive linguistics (2nd ed.). Brittan: Person Longman.

    Verspoor, M., & Lowie, W. (2003). Making sense of polysemous words. Language learning, 53(3), 547-586.

    Weinreich, U. (1953). Languages in contact. The Hague: Mouton.

    Yu, N. (1995). Metaphorical expressions of anger and happiness in English and Chinese. Metaphor and Symbol, 10(2), 59-92. Retrieved June 28, 2008, from http://faculty-staff.ou.edu/Y/Ning.Yu-1/Yu-1995.pdf

    Yu, N. (1998). The contemporary theory of metaphor: A perspective from Chinese. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: J. Benjamin.
    Description: 博士
    國立政治大學
    英國語文學研究所
    95551506
    100
    Source URI: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0095551506
    Data Type: thesis
    Appears in Collections:[英國語文學系] 學位論文

    Files in This Item:

    File SizeFormat
    150601.pdf2690KbAdobe PDF738View/Open


    All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.


    社群 sharing

    著作權政策宣告
    1.本網站之數位內容為國立政治大學所收錄之機構典藏,無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用,惟仍請適度,合理使用本網站之內容,以尊重著作權人之權益。商業上之利用,則請先取得著作權人之授權。
    2.本網站之製作,已盡力防止侵害著作權人之權益,如仍發現本網站之數位內容有侵害著作權人權益情事者,請權利人通知本網站維護人員(nccur@nccu.edu.tw),維護人員將立即採取移除該數位著作等補救措施。
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - Feedback