本論文旨在探究現代漢語教育文本中教育隱喻是以何種語言形式存在，分析其映射來源域的種類以及隱喻背後的認知過程，進而從中討論教育隱喻所反映的社會情況，並提出適合概念隱喻特性的教學應用。
本文之理論架構為概念隱喻理論（Conceptual Metaphor Theory），以天下雜誌教育主題文章以及大學校長演說內容等教育文本為分析對象，透過LIVAC語料庫工具進行研究。結果發現：（1）在語言層次上，現代漢語中教育隱喻最常取用的來源域為「植物」、「產業」、「旅行」、「建築」、以及「戰爭」概念域。形成如「教學是培養」、「學生是產品」、「學習是旅行」、「知識是建築」、「學習方法是戰略」等的映射，表現在「培養、品質、前進、架構、策略」等隱喻詞。
（2）在概念層次上，來源域的某些顯著特徵在概念化的過程中映射到目標域，反映在相應隱喻使用的高詞頻（token frequency）及多詞種（type frquency）上，如：「植物」生長的自發性、外力輔助生長的有效性；「建築」的創造性、建造過程順序性；「產業」的工作過程效率、成果品質重要性等等。（3）在社會文化層次上，比較天下雜誌1991年至2015年各來源域的教育隱喻數量後發現，「植物」域隱喻詞使用頻率保持最高，這是由於因為植物生長過程兼具了內在自身力量及外力重要性，符合人們自然經驗且維持教育的積極意義，較易為大眾接受。其高頻隱喻詞「培養、培育」亦具規約化傾向，教育域義項較基本義強勢。而以「產業」作教育詞彙的來源域則日漸普遍，是受到科技發展、資本主義以及教育政策如教育經費編列的影響，重視量化的教育成效。另一方面，校長演說文章則傾向利用「建築」域隱喻來描述學校發展，一是為強調前人的貢獻，二則是增加話語的說服力，藉由「奠基、建造」等詞激發人們對於整個建造事件以及完工的想像，為將要執行的計畫添增穩定感。
最後，（4）在教學應用上，根據本文研究教育隱喻映射原則顯著性成果，並考慮個別詞彙的教育隱喻潛能，提出一善用隱喻認知性、系統性以及文化性的翻轉課程教案，希冀能有效應用於語言教育中。

This paper examines the kinds of language patterns that compose educational metaphors in modern Mandarin Chinese, analyses the type of the source domain mapped by these metaphors, and discusses the cognitive processes underlying them. How educational metaphors reflect aspects of society is then discussed, followed by a proposal for educational applications suitable for the characteristics of conceptual metaphors. The theoretical framework of this paper is based on Conceptual Metaphor Theory and educational texts, the main objects of analysis being educational articles from Common Wealth Magazine and speeches by presidents of Taiwanese universities. The synchronous LIVAC (Linguistic Variation in Chinese Speech Communities) corpus tool was applied to process and analyze the texts.

Research findings: (1) The most frequent source domains of educational metaphors in modern Mandarin Chinese are PLANT, BUILDING, TRAVEL, INDUSTRY and WAR. Forming mapping principles as, for instance, EDUCATION IS NURTURE, STUDENTS ARE PRODUCTS, LEARNING IS A JOURNEY, KNOWLEDGE IS A BUILDING, THE WAY OF STUDY IS WAR, which are expressed in metaphorical vocabulary like nurture, quality, going forward, structure, and strategy.

(2) At the conceptual level, certain significant characteristics of the source domain are mapped to the target domain during the conceptualization process, for example, the spontaneity of growth, and the effectiveness of external assistance on the growth of a PLANT; the creativity and construction sequence of a BUILDING; the efficiency of the labor process and the importance of product quality of in INDUSTRY. These are also reflected in the high token frequency and high type frequency of the use of corresponding metaphors.

(3) At a societal and cultural level, a quantitative comparison of educational metaphors in every source domain of Common Health Magazine from 1991 until today showed that the frequency of use of the PLANT metaphor remained the highest. The reason being that the growth of plants has an inner motivation, while simultaneously relying on outer forces to provide a favorable surrounding environment, thus incorporating the importance of both inner and outer forces. Moreover, the high-frequency metaphors NURTURE and CULTIVATION indicate conventionalization, their senses when used in an educational domain are already greater than their fundamental meaning. However, source domains of educational vocabulary that use INDUSTRY have become gradually more common, this is due to the influence of technological development, capitalism, and educational policies such as the preparation of educational budgets, increasingly attaching more importance to the quantification of educational results. On the other hand, the speeches of university presidents tended to employ BUILDING metaphors to describe the university’s development in order to emphasize the contributions of predecessors and to strengthen the persuasiveness of their words, aiming to increase the feeling of security concerning the implementation of new plans.

In conclusion, (4) adopting cognitive teaching models and employing aforementioned analysis results, this study will propose a metaphorical vocabulary teaching plan that takes into consideration the significance of mapping principles and the potential of educational metaphors. It will exploit the cognitiveness, systematicity, and culturality of conceptual metaphors, which hopefully can be effectively applied in language education.

周世箴（譯注）（2006）。我們賴以生存的譬喻。臺北：聯經出版。
林逢祺、洪仁進（編）（2013）。教育哲學-隱喻篇。臺北：學富文化。
孫亞（2011）。教育公平話語的積極隱喻分析－以同在藍天下－怎麼看教育公平為例。華文教學與研究，3，86 – 95。
張敏（1998）。認知語言學與漢語名詞短語。北京：中國社會科學出版社。
張輝誠（2015）。學•思•達：張輝誠的翻轉實踐作者。臺北：天下雜誌。
郭文平（2015）。字彙實踐及媒介再現：語料庫分析方法在總體經濟新聞文本分析運用研究，新聞學研究，125，95-140。
陳原（2001）。語言與社會生活-社會語言學。臺北：臺灣商務出版社。
黃光雄（編）（2004）。教育概論。臺北：師大書苑。
黃瑋琳（譯）（2016）。翻轉教室：激發學生有效學習的行動方案（原作者：J. Bergmann & A. Sams）。臺北：聯經出版公司。
鄒嘉彥、游汝杰（2007）。社會語言學教程。臺北：五南出版社。
鄒嘉彥、鄺藹兒、路斌、蔡永富（2011）。漢語共時語料庫與追蹤語料庫: 語料庫語言學的新方向，中文信息學報：慶祝中國中文信息學會成立三十周年紀念論文集，25（6），38-45。
蓋浙生（2002）。教育經營與管理。臺北：師大書苑。
歐陽教（2002）。教育哲學導論。臺北，文景書局。
戴金惠（2014）。生活、認知與中文教學。臺北：新學林出版社。

Ahrens, K. (1998). Lexical ambiguity resolution: Language, tasks and timing. In D. Hillert (Ed.), Syntax and semantics, volume 31. Sentence processing: A cross-linguistic perspective. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Ahrens, K. (1999). Conceptual Metaphors: From Mapping Principles to Knowledge Representation. Unpublished Manuscript.
Ahrens, K. (2002). When Love is Not Digested: Underlying Reasons for Source to Target Domain Pairings in the Contemporary Theory of Metaphor. In: Hsiao, Y.-C. (Ed), The Proceedings of the First Cognitive Linguistics Conference, 273-302. Taipei: Cheng-Chi University.
Ahrens, K., Chung, S. F., & Huang, C. R. (2004). From lexical semantics to conceptual metaphors: Mapping principle verification with wordnet and sumo. In Recent Advancement in Chinese Lexical Semantics: Proceedings of 5th Chinese Lexical Semantics Workshop (CLSW-5), Singapore: COLIPS (pp. 99-106).
Anderson, L., & Krathwohl, D. A. (2001). Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. New York: Longman.
Baker, P. (2005). Public discourses of gay men. London, UK: Routledge.
Bergmann, J., & Sams, A. (2012). Flip your classroom: Reach every student in every class every day. International Society for Technology in Education.
Bloom, B., Englehart, M. Furst, E., Hill, W., & Krathwohl, D. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York, Toronto: Longmans, Green.
Boers, F. (2000). Metaphor Awareness and Vocabulary Retention. Applied Linguistics, 21(4), 553-571.
Boers, F. (2004). Expanding learners’ vocabulary through metaphor awareness: What expansion, what learners, what vocabulary. Congitive Linguistics, Second Language Acquisition and Foreign Language Teaching, eds. by M. Achard and S. Niemeier, 211-232. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Cameron, L. (2003). Metaphor in educational discourse. London: Continuum.
Cameron, L. (2008). Metaphor and talk. In: R. Gibbs (Ed), The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought, 197-211. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Center for Excellence in Learning and Teaching (CELT). (2012). A model of learning objectives. Iowa State University. Retrieved from http://www.celt.iastate.edu/teaching/RevisedBlooms1.html
Chang, Y., Lin, C.J.C., & Ahrens, K. (2015). Conventionalization of Lexical Meanings and the Role of Metaphoricity: Processing of Metaphorical Polysemy Using a Cross-modal Lexical Priming Task. Language and Linguistics, 16(4), 587-614.
Charteris-Black, J. (2004). Corpus Approaches to Critical Metaphor Analysis. New York: Macmillan.
Charteris-Black, J. (2005). Politicians and Rhetoric: The Persuasive Power of Metaphor. Basingstoke : Palgrave Macmillan.
Chiang, W.Y., & Chiu. S.H. (2007). The conceptualization of STATE: a comparative study of metaphors in the R.O.C. (Taiwan) and U.S. Constitutions. Concentric: Studies in Linguistics, 33.1:19-46.
Condon, N. (2008). How cognitive linguistic motivations influence the learning of phrasal verbs. In F., Boers, & S., Lindstromberg (Eds.), Cognitive linguistic approaches to teaching vocabulary and phraseology.Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. pp.133-158.
Cortazzi, M. & Jin, L. (1999). Q Bridges to Teaching, Learning and Language. In: Cameron, L. & Low, G. (Eds), Researching and Applying Metaphor, 149-174. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dewey, J. (1965). Education and Our Present Social Problems. School and Society, 93(2254), 39-43.
Fabiszak, M. (2007). A conceptual metaphor approach to war discourse and its implications. Poznań:Wydawnictwo Naukowe UAM.
Fauconnier, G. & Turner, M. (1994). Conceptual Projection and Middle Spaces. San Diego: University of California Press.
Fillmore, C. (1982). Frame semantics. Linguistics in the morning calm, 111-137.
Freire, P. (1970). The banking concept of education. Educational foundations: An anthology of critical readings, 99-111.
Gong, S. P., Ahrens, K. & Huang, C. R. (2008). Chinese Word Sketch and Mapping Principles: A Corpus-Based Study of Conceptual Metaphors Using the BUILDING Source Domain. International Journal of Computer Processing of Oriental Languages, 21(2), 3-17.
Hidasi, J. (2008). Cultural Messages of Metaphors. In: Berendt, E. (Ed), Metaphors for Learning: Cross-Cultural Perspectives, 103-122. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Hiraga, M. K. (2008). Tao of Learning: Metaphors Japanese Students Live By. In: Berendt, E. (Ed), Metaphors for Learning: Cross-Cultural Perspectives, 55-72. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Ho-Abdullah, I. (2008). The Many Facets of Teaching and Learning in Malay. In: Berendt, E. (Ed), Metaphors for Learning: Cross-Cultural Perspectives, 123-137. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Hsieh W. W. (2012). Education Metaphors in Mandarin Chinese and in English: An Examination on Idioms and Proverbs(master’s thesis). Retrieved from National Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations in Taiwan.
Johnson, M. (1987). The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kövecses, Z. (1998). Are there any emotion-specific metaphors? In Athanasiadou, A., & Tabakowska, E. (Eds), Speaking of Emotions: Conceptualisation and Expression, 127-152. Berlin ; New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Kövecses, Z. (2000). The scope of metaphor. In: Barcelona A. (Ed), Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads: A Cognitive Perspective, 79-92. Berlin ; New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Kövecses, Z. (2002). Metaphors and Blends. In: Kövecses, Z. (Ed), Metaphor: A Practical Introduction, 227-238. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lai, V. T. & Ahrens, K. (2001). Mappings from The Source Domain of Plant in Mandarin Chinese. In: Tsou, B. K., Kwong, O.O.Y. & Lai, T.B.Y. (Eds), Proceedings of the 15th Pacific Asia Conference on Language Information and Computation, 203-209. Hong Kong: City University of Hong Kong.
Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live By. University of Chicago press.
Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (2003). Afterword Metaphors We Live By. In: Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (Eds), Metaphors we live by, 243-276. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G. & Turner, M. (1989). More than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G. (1993). The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor. Metaphor and Thought. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Lakoff, G. (2002). Moral politics: How liberals and conservatives think (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Littlemore, J., Chen, P., Koester, A. & Barden, J. (2011) Difficulties in Metaphor Comprehension Faced by International Students whose First Language is not English. Applied Linguistics, 32(4): 408-429.
Low, G., Littlemore, J., & Koester, A. (2008). Metaphor use in three UK university lectures. Applied Linguistics, 29(3), 428-455.
Lu, Wei-lun and Ahrens, K. (2008). Ideological Influence on BUILDING Metaphors in Taiwanese Presidential Speeches. Discourse and Society, 19, 383-408.
Maalej, Z. (2008). Metaphors of Learning and Knowledge in the Tunisian context. In: Berendt, E. (Ed), Metaphors for Learning: Cross-Cultural Perspectives, 205-223. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Machlup, F. (1962). The production and distribution of knowledge in the United States (278). Princeton university press.
Pragglejaz Group (2007). MIP: A Method for Identifying Metaphorically Used Words in Discourse. Metaphor and Symbol, 22(1), 1-39.
Reddy, M. J. (1979). The Conduit Metaphor: A Case of Frame Conflict in Our Language about Language. In: Ortony, A. (Ed), Metaphor and Thought, 284-324. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ross, C. (1997). The Framework for Post-Basic Chinese. Journal of the Chinese Language Teachers Association, 32(3), 51-56.
Saeed, John I. (2000). Semantics (3rd edition). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.
Scheffeler, I. (1960). The Language of Education. MI: University of Michigan.
Skoufaki, F.(2008). Conceptual metaphoric meaning clues in two idiom presentation methods. Congnitive Linguistic Approaches to Teaching Vocabulary and Phraseology, eds. by Boers, F. and Lindstromberg, S., 101-132. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Steen, G. J.(2007). Finding Metaphor in Grammar and Usage: A methodological Analysis of Theory and Research, Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Stefanowitsch, A. (2006). Words and their metaphors: A corpus-based approach. Trends in Linguistics Studies and Monographs, 171, 63.
Su, I-W. (2002). What Can Metaphors Tell Us About Culture. Language and Linguistics, 3(3), 589-613.
Tsou, B. K., Kwong, O.Y.（2015）LIVAC as a monitoring corpus for tracking trends beyond linguistics. Linguistic Corpus and Corpus Linguistics in the Chinese Context, Journal of Chinese Linguistics, Monograph no. 25(2015) ,447-471.