臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

對以英語為第二語言或外語的學習者而言，學習慣用語的策略已被侷限在將慣言語視為不可分割的單位以及透過上文下、其組成單字之字面意思、學習者的背景知識來瞭解其意思，甚至是以反覆背誦的方式來學習。然而，近年來，許多研究 (Boer & Demecheleer, 2001; Cacciari & Glucksberg, 1991; Gibbs, 1992; Gibbs and O’Brien, 1990; Gibbs, Bogdanovich, Sykes, and Barr, 1997; Glucksberg, 1993; Li, 2002; Nayak & Gibbs, 1990; Ruwet, 1983) 建議可藉由概念隱喻和換喻的功用和運用協助第二語言學習者瞭解並習得慣言語的意義。
本研究即是對概念隱喻和換喻於提升以英語為外語學習者英語慣用語理解效用之實驗探討。此研究之目的在於第一，受試者用以瞭解慣用語之策略為何，以及他們是否意識到用以瞭解慣用語之隱喻和換喻與其意思間的關聯；第二，提升此關聯是否能促進更好的學習。若是，其學習效果為何；第三，換喻和複合性隱喻，因其文化獨特性，是否能教給學生；以及第四，理解概念隱喻之能力與時間是否和學生的語言程度有關。若無關，其它如宇宙共通或文化知識等因素是否會影響該結果。總計有四十位學生參與本研究，其中二十位為英語程度中高者；其餘二十位為英語程度中下者。上述研究參與者均在實驗中以口說方式解釋所測試慣用語的意思，並經過放聲思考方式來搜集資料。
研究結果發現，在第一次測驗時，研究參與者皆未意識到用以瞭解慣用語的隱喻和換喻與其意思間的關聯。然而在教學後，隱喻中的直接、複合隱喻和換喻均可教給學生。而學生亦能加以運用並幫助、提升其對陌生慣用語的理解。此外，理解概念隱喻之能力不僅和宇宙共通性及文化知識有關，並與學生的語言程度相關。

The strategies of learning idioms for second language or foreign language learners have been restricted to treating them as inseparable units and to deciphering their figurative interpretations by using contextual cues, the literal meanings of the individual components, the learners’ background knowledge, or even by rote. However, in recent years, some research has suggested the functional role of conceptual metaphors and metonymies and their implication in assisting L2 learners to comprehend and acquire the meanings of idioms (Li, 2002, Boer & Demecheleer, 2001; Cacciari & Glucksberg, 1991Gibbs, 1992; Gibbs and O’Brien, 1990; Gibbs, Bogdanovich, Sykes, and Barr, 1997; Glucksberg, 1993; Nayak & Gibbs, 1990; Ruwet, 1983).
The present study is an investigation of the utility of conceptual metaphors and metonymies in enhancing the idiom comprehension of EFL learners. The goals of the study are (1) what are the strategies these test subjects used and were they aware of the underlying metaphors and metonymies and meanings of the selected idioms, (2) will raising the awareness of these inherent cognitive devices facilitate better learning. If so, to what extent does the teaching of the underlying metaphors and metonymies increase the EFL learners’ idiom comprehension, (3) can metonymies and complex metaphors, due to their cultural specificity, be taught to learners, and (4) whether the ability and time to comprehend conceptual metaphors correlate with language proficiency level measures by the Entrance College Joint Exam or not? If not, what other factors, such as universal or cultural knowledge could affect this outcome? Participants were 40 Chinese learners of English with half of them being high-intermediate and the other half low-intermediate learners of English who were required to give the meanings of tested idioms without the benefit of context. Data were collected by means of the think-aloud procedure: participants were required to verbalize their thoughts as they arrived at the meanings of the idioms.
Results show that, in the pre-test, participants were not aware of the connection of the
underlying metaphorical and/or metonymical knowledge and the figurative meanings of idioms.
However, the underlying knowledge, including two kinds of metaphors and metonymies, of idioms
could be to some extent taught to learners, which in turn facilitated and increased their comprehension
of unfamiliar idioms. Also, the ability to comprehend conceptual metaphors and metonymies is connected not only to universal and cultural knowledge but also correlated with the participants’ language proficiency.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHINESE ABSTRACT..…………………….…………………………………..…………..i
ENGLISH ABSTRACT..…………………….…………………………………..………….ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS..…………………….…………………………………..……..iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS..…………………….…………………………………..………...v
LIST OF TABLES..…………………….…………………………………..………………vii
LIST OF FIGURES..…………………….…………………………………..…………….viii

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of the study..…………………….…………………………………..……1
1.2 Statement of the problem……………………………………………….…………...…6
1.3 Purpose of the study…………………………………………………………………...9
1.4 Research Questions……………………………………………………………..…….10
1.5 Corpus and methodology of the study…………………………………………..…….11
1.6 Organization of the thesis…………………………………………………………..…12


CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
2.1 The definition and comprehension of idioms…………………………………...…....14
2.2 L1 idiom processing models …………....………………………………….……...…17
2.3 Idioms as noncompositional units and dead metaphors……………….…….….….…23
2.4 The role of literal meaning in idiom use and comprehension………………....…...…25
2.5 Figurative idiom comprehension………………………………….……………....….30
2.5.1 Metaphorical structure of idioms…………………………..………………….31
2.5.2 Metonymical structure of idioms……………………………………………...37
2.5.3 Metaphors and Metonymies…………………………………………………..39
2.6 Metaphors from cognitive perspective: Image Schema and embodied experience.….42
2.7 The role of conceptual metaphor in L1 idiom comprehension………….……………46
2.7.1 Why idioms are viewed as dead metaphors……………………….…………..47
2.7.2 Beyond dead metaphors…………………………………….…………………49
2.8 Cultural variation in metaphor comprehension…………………….…………………52
2.8.1 The primary and compound metaphors…………………....….…....………….53
2.9 L2 idiom processing research……………………………….…….……………..……58

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
3.1 Participants……………………………………………….…………....…….….…....66
3.2 Materials……………………………………………….………………….….………67
3.3. Procedure ……………………………………………….……………...…….……...70
3.3.1 Pilot study……………………………………….…….………………………70
3.3.2 Main study………………………………………………………….…………71
3.4 Think-Aloud Protocols………………………………………………………….……73
3.5 Data Analysis …………………………………………………………….………..…74

CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Results and Discussion of Research Question 1 and 2…….……………………….76
4.2 Results and Discussion of Research Question 3..…………………………………..84
4.3 Results and Discussion of Research Question 4……....………………………….. .96
4.4 Results and Discussion of Research Question 5…………………………………..100

CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS
5.1 Summary of the Study…………………………………………….………..…..…105
5.2 Pedagogical Implications………………………………………….………….…..108
5.3 Limitations of the Study and Suggestions for Further Research………..…….….110

REFERENCES…………………………………………………………....…..……..…...112
APPENDICES……………………………………………………………………………122
LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.1 Background of the participants……………………………...……………..66
Table 3.2 Examples of the underlying metaphorical and metonymical knowledge
of idioms…………………………………………………………………...71
Table 4.1 Means and Standard Deviations for Individual Idioms (Group A in pre-test)………………………………………………………………....…78
Table 4.2 Means and Standard Deviations for Individual Idioms (Group B in pre-test)………………………………………………..…………………..79
Table 4.3 The participants’ interpretation with or not with the underlying metaphors and metonymies of idioms……………………………………..………….81
Table 4.4 Means and Standard Deviations for Individual Idioms (Group A in
interim test)………………………………………………………………..85
Table 4.5 Means and Standard Deviations for Individual Idioms (Group B in
interim test)………………………………………………………………..85
Table 4.6 Means and Standard Deviations for Individual Idioms (Group B in
post-test)……………………………………………………………...……86
Table 4.7 Paired Samples Test of the mean scores of Group A and Group B idioms before and after the teaching of underlying metaphors and metonymies of the idioms…………...…..…………………………………………………88
Table 4.8 Independent t test of idioms in Group A which show significant
difference after the teaching of the underlying knowledge of idioms in Group A…………………………………………………………..……..…89
Table 4.9 Independent t test of idioms in Group B which show significant
difference after the teaching of the underlying knowledge of idioms in
Group A……………………………………………….………….……..…92
Table 4.10 Independent t test of idioms in Group B which show significant
difference after the teaching of the underlying knowledge of idioms in Group B…………………………………………………………….……94
Table 4.11 The 10 idioms interpreted most correctly after having taught the underlying knowledge of the 40 idioms……………………………….100
Table 4.12 Independent t test of the mean scores of high-intermediate group and
low-intermediate group in each test………………………….......……101
Table 4.13 Independent t test of the mean scores of Group B idioms in different groups……………………..……………………………..…………….102
LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Examples of combination of primitive metaphors……………….......……57

References
Aristotle. (1966). Topica. Translated by E. S. Forster. Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press.
Adkins, P. (1968). Teaching idioms and figures of speech to non-native speakers.
Modern Language Journal, 52, 148-152.
Bobrow, S., & Bell, S. (1973). On Catching on to Idiomatic Expressions. Memory and
Cognition, l, 343-346.
Boers, F. (1997). When a bodily source domain becomes prominent: The joy of counting metaphors in the socio-economic domain. In R. W. Jr., Gibbs & G. J. Steen (Eds.), Metaphor in cognitive linguistics: Selected papers from the fifth International Cognitive Linguistics conference (pp. 47-56). Amsterdan/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Boers, F., & Demecheleer, M. (1997). A few metaphorical models in (western) economic discourse. In W. A. Liebert, G. Redeker, & L. Waugh (Eds.), Discourse and perspective in cognitive linguistics (pp. 115-129). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Boers, F., & Demecheleer, M. (2001). Measuring the impact of cross-cultural differences on learners’ comprehension of imageable idioms. EJT Journal, 55(3), 255-262.
Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language
pedagogy. White Plains, NY: Longman.
Cacciari, C. (1993). The place of idioms in a literal and metaphorical world. In C. Cacciari & P. Tabossi. (Eds.), Idioms: Processing, structure, and interpretation (pp. 27-55). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cacciari, C., & Levorato, M. C. (1989). How children understand idioms in discourse.
Journal of Child Language, 16, 387-405.
Chomsky, N. (1980). Rules and representation. New York: Columbia University Press.
Clark, H. H. (1979). Responding to indirect speech acts. Cognitive Linguistics, 11, 430-477.
Clark, H. H., & Carlson, T. B. (1981). Context for comprehension. In J. Long & A. Baddeley (Eds.), Attention and Performance IX (pp. 313-330). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Cooper, T. (1998). Teaching idioms. Foreign Language Annals, 31, 255-266.
Cooper, T. (1999). Processing of idioms by L2 learners of English. TESOL Quarterly,
33(2), 233-262.
Coulmas, F. (1981). Idiomaticity as a problem of pragmatics. In H. Parret, M. Sbísa, and J. Verschueren (Eds.) Possibilities and Limitations of Pragmatics: Proceedings of the Conference on Pragmatics (pp. 139-151). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins
Cruse, D. A. (1986). Lexical semantics. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Fatz, J. J., & Fodor, J. (1963). The structure of a semantic theory. Language, 39, 170-210.
Fillmore, C. J. (1978). On the organization of the semantic information in the lexicon. In D. Farkas, W. M. Jacobsen, & K. W. Todrys (Eds.), Papers from the parasession on the lexicon (pp. 148-173). Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
Flores d’Arcais, G. B. (1993). The comprehension and semantic interpretation of idioms. In C. Cacciari & P. Tabossi (Eds.), Idioms: Processing, structure, and interpretation (pp. 79-98). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Fraser, B. (1970). Idioms with a transformational grammar. Foundations of Language, 6, 22-42.
Gibbs, R. W. (1995). Idiomaticity and human cognition. In M. Everaert, E. van der Linden, A. Schenk, & r. Schreuder (Eds.), Idioms: Processing, structure and interpretation (pp. 97-116). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Gibbs, R. W., Jr. (1980). Spilling the beans on understanding and memory for idioms
in context. Memory and Cognition, 8, 149-156.
Gibbs, R. W. Jr. (1984). Literal meaning and psychological theory. Cognitive psychology, 8, 191-219.
Gibbs, R. W., Jr. (1987). Linguistic factors in children’s understanding of idioms.
Journal of Child Language, 14, 569-586.
Gibbs, R. W., Jr. (1990). Psycholinguistic studies on the conceptual basis of idiomaticity. Cognitive Linguistics, 1, 417-451.
Gibbs, R. W., Jr. (1992). What do idioms really mean? Journal of Memory and Language, 31, 485-506.
Gibbs, R. W., Jr. (1993). Why idioms are not dead metaphors. In C. Cacciari &
P. Tabossi (Eds.), Idioms: Processing, structure, and interpretation (pp. 57-77). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Gibbs, R. W. (1995). Idiomaticity and human cognition. In M. Everaert, E. van der Linden, A. Schenk, & r. Schreuder (Eds.), Idioms: Processing, structure and interpretation (pp. 97-116). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Gibbs, R. W. Jr. (1997). Taking metaphor out of our heads and putting it into the cultural world. In R. W. Jr. Gibbs & G. J. Steen (Eds.), Metaphor in cognitive linguistics: Selected papers from the Fifth International Cognitive Linguistics Conference. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Gibbs, R. W. Jr. & Nayak, N. P. (1989). Psycholinguistic studies on the syntactic behaviour of idiom. 21, 100-138.
Gibbs, R. W., Jr., & Nayak, N. P. (1991). Why idioms mean what they do. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 120, 93-95.
Gibbs, R. W., Jr., Nayak, N. P., Bolton, J., & Keppel, M. (1989). Speakers’
assumptions about the lexical flexibility of idioms. Memory and Cognition, 17,
58-68.
Gibbs, R. W., Jr., Nayak, N. P., & Cutting, C. (1989). How to kick the bucket and not
decompose: Analyzability and idioms processing. Journal of Memory and
Language, 28, 576-593.
Gibbs, R. W. Jr. & O’brien, J. (1990). Idioms and mental imagery: The metaphorical
motivation for idiomatic meaning. 36, 35-68.
Glucksberg, S. (1993). Idiom meanings and allusional content. In C. Cacciari & P. Tabossi. (Eds.), Idioms: Processing, structure, and interpretation (pp. 3-26). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Glucksberg, S. (2001). Understanding figurative language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Glucksberg, S. (1993). Idioms meanings and allusional content. In Cacciari, C. &
Tabossi, P. (Eds.), Idioms: Processing, structure, and interpretation (pp. 3-26). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Goossens, L. (1990). Metaphonymy: The interaction of metaphor and metonymy in expressions for linguistic action. Cognitive Linguistics, 1, 323-340.
Goossens, L. (1995). Metaphonymy: The interaction of metaphor and metonymy in figurative expressions for linguistic action. In Goossens, L., Pauwels, P., Rudzka-Ostyn, B., Simon-Vandenbergen, A., & Vanparys, J. (Eds.), By word of mouth: metaphor, metonymy and linguistic action in a cognitive perspective (pp. 175-205). Amsterdan/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Grady, J. E., Taub, S. & Morgan, P. (1996). Primitive and compound metaphors. In A. E. Goldberg (Ed.), Conceptual structure, discourse, and language (pp.177-187). Standford, CA: CSLI.
Grady, J. E. (1997). Theories are buildings revisited. Cognitive Linguistics, 8(4), 267-290.
Hamblin, J. L., & Gibbs, R. W., Jr. (1999). Why you can’t kick the bucket as you
slowly die: Verbs in idiom comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research,
28(1), 25-39.
Hillers & Swinney, (2001). The processing of fixed expressions during sentence
comprehension. In Cienki, A., Luka, B. J., & Smith, M. B. (Eds.). Conceptual and discourse factors in linguistic structure (pp. 108-121). University of Chicago Press.
Hoffman, R. R. (1984). Recent psycholinguistic research on figurative language. Annals of the New York Academy of Science, 433, 137-166.
Hoffman, R. R., & Honeck, R. P. (1980). A peacock looks at its legs: Cognitive science and figurative language. In R. P. Honeck & R. R. (Eds.), Cognition and figurative language (pp.3-24). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Honeck, R. P., & Hoffman, R. R. (1980). (Eds.) Cognition and figurative language. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hu, Y. H. (2002). A Cross-cultural Investigation of Mandrin Chinese Conceptual Metaphors of Anger, Happiness and Romantic Love. Doctoral Thesis, University of Edinburgh.
Irujo, S. (1986). Don’t put your leg in your mouth: Transfer in the acquisition of
idioms in a second language. TESOL Quarterly, 20(2), 287-304.
Johnson, M. (1987). The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Katz, J. J. (1973). Compositionality, idiomaticity and lexical substitution. In S. R. Anderson & P. Kiparsky. (Eds.), A festschrift for Morris Halle (pp. 357-376). New York: Holt, Reinhart & Winston.
Katz, J. J. & Fodor, J. (1963). The structure of a semantic theory. Language, 39, 170-210.
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G. (1990). “The invariance hypothesis: Is abstracting reasoning based on image schemas?” Cognitive Linguistics, 1, 5-38.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Lazaraton, A. (2001). Teaching oral skills. In Celce-Murcia, M. (ed.). Teaching English as a second or foreign language (pp. 103-115). Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.
Lehrer, A. (1974). Semantic field and lexical structure. Amsterdam, Netherlands: North Holland.
Levorato, M. C., & Cacciari, C. (1995). The effects of different tasks on the
comprehension and production of idioms in children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 60, 261-283.
Li, F. Y. (2002). The acquisition of metaphorical expressions, idioms and proverbs by Chinese learners of English: A conceptual metaphor and image schema approach. A Ph.D. Dissertation, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong.
Lin, Y. P. (2004). EFL learners’ processing of unknown idioms. Unpublished master’s
thesis, Nation Kaohsuing Normal University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.
Linda & Flavell, R. (1992). Dictionary of idioms and their origins. London : Kyle
Cathie.
Longman Dictionary of English Idioms. (1979). Harlow, England: Pitman Press.
Makkai, A. (1972). Idiom structure in English. The Hague, Netherlands & Paris: Mouton.
McGlone, M. S., Glucksberg, S., & Cacciari, C. (1994). Semantic productivity and idiom comprehension. Discourse Processes, 17,167-190.
Meuller, R. A. G., & Gibbs, W. R. Jr. (1987). Processing idioms with multiple meanings. Journal of Psychological Research, 16(1), 63-81.
Nayak, N. P., & Gibbs, W. R. Jr. (1990). Conceptual knowledge in the interpretation of idioms. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 119(3), 315-330.
Nunberg, G. (1979). The non-uniqueness of semantic solutions: Polysemy. Linguistics and Philosophy, 3(2), 143-184.
Ortony, A., Schallert, D. L., Reynolds, R. B., & Antos, S. J. (1978). Interpreting metaphors and idioms: Some effects of context on comprehension. Journal of Verbal Language and Verbal Behavior, 17, 465-477.
Pollio, H. R., & Burns, B. C. (1977). The anomaly of anomaly. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 6, 247-260.
Ruwet, N. (1983). Du bon usage des expressions idiomatiques. Recherches Linguistiques, 11, 5-84.
Schweight, W. A. (1986). The comprehension of familiar and less familiar idioms.
Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 15, 33-45.
Schweigert, W. A., & Moate, D. R. (1988). Familiar idiom comprehension. Journal of
Psycholinguistic Research, 17(4), 281-296.
Stroop. J. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reaction. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18, 643-662.
Swinney, D. A., & Cutler, A. (1979). The access and processing of idiomatic
expressions. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 523-534.
Tabossi, P. (1988). Accessing lexical ambiguity in different types of sentential contexts. Journal of Memory and Language, 27, 324-340.
Titone, D. A., & Connine, C. M. (1994). Descriptive norms for 171 idiomatic expressions: Familiarity, compositionality, predictability, and literality. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 9(4), 247-270.
Ullmann, S. (1962). Semantics: An introduction to the science of meaning. Oxford, England: Basil Blackwell & Mott.
Weinreich, U. (1969). Problems in the analysis of idioms. In J. Puhvel. (Ed.),
Substance and structure of language (pp. 23-81). Los Angeles: University of California Press.