本文結合圖式（認知語義概念圖），透過隱喻（Lakoff, 1987）、轉喻（Littlemore, 2009）及意象圖示（Lakoff＆Johnson, 1980; Langacker, 1987），展現出多義詞之間的關聯，提出輔助學習多義詞的方法，並應用於華語教學課堂中。目前已有相關英文文獻，將此概念應用於二語教學中（Boers, 2000; Beréndi, Csábi & Kövecses, 2008）。然而，Boers（2011）提出先前研究存有缺陷，這些研究也大多以英語為主。因此，本文以Boers（2011）為基礎，運用實驗研究法，欲知結合認知概念與概念圖於華語教學課堂中，是否有助於二語學習者詞彙習得，以延時記憶中之保存。其次，本文希望了解在使用認知語義概念圖教授多義詞時的教學步驟，以及，受試者在習得由不同認知概念延伸出之詞彙上是否有差異。最後，探究此方法能否提高相關延伸詞彙之詞義理解和類推能力。
本文透過前測篩選出在國內大學語言中心的42位學生，分為實驗組及對照組，實驗之目標詞彙為以「吃」及「發」兩個動詞結合而成之詞彙（吃飯館、吃老本、吃苦、吃紅、發傳單、發短信、發財、發瘋）。
本文發現：1. 結合認知概念與概念圖於華語教學課堂中，有助於二語學習者相關詞彙的習得，並對詞彙在延時記憶中之保存有幫助，延時測驗中，實驗組和對照組達顯著差異，t (40) =2.23, p=0.031, p<0.05。2. 運用認知語義概念圖教學能幫助提高相關延伸詞彙之詞義理解和類推能力，實驗組和對照組達顯著差異，t (40) =2.10, p=0.042, p<0.05。3. 雖無達到顯著差異，但認知語義概念圖用在為學習者複習、鞏固詞彙時效果較用在學習詞彙前，有意識地分析其學習效果好。4. 雖無達到顯著差異，但在即時和延時後測中，透過轉喻延伸出之詞彙分數最高，意象圖示第二，隱喻最低。

This study brings up the cognitive concept map as an effective method to help learners comprehend and remember Chinese polysemous words and applies it to the real Chinese class. The cognitive concept map combines graphical representation and Cognitive Linguistics such as metaphor (Lakoff, 1987), metonymy (Littlemore, 2009) and image schema (Lakoff＆Johnson, 1980; Langacker, 1987) to show the connections of senses of polysemous words. There is some existing research about empirical study of using cognitive linguistic approaches to teach a second language. However, Boers (2011) indicated that there are still some deficiencies in the previous researches. Moreover, these researches are mostly in English.
Therefore, in order to fill the gap, the study is based on Boers’s (2011) indication and uses quasi experiment to identify several questions. First, it recognizes whether applying cognitive concept map to teaching polysemous words can help learners acquire them and whether helps the learners to gain long-term learning effects or not. Second, it discovers the better procedure of using cognitive concept map to teach polysemous words, and third, if there are any different effects between target vocabularies that are extended through different cognitive models. Last, it studies whether the method improves the learners’ abilities of comprehension and deduction of the vocabularies related to the target polysemous words “Chi” and “Fa”.
With a pre-test, the study chooses the 42 subjects who are all studying Practical Audio-Visual Chinese Vol 2 or 3 in university language centers in Taiwan. The experiment’s target vocabularies are: “Chi Fanguan”, “Chi Laoben”, “Chiku”, “Chihong”, “Fa Chuandan”, “Fa Duanxin”, “Facai” and “Fafeng”. Subjects are divided into experimental group and control group to do the experiment. Afterwards, the study analyzes the scores of immediate post test and delayed post test.
The results of the experiment are analyzed with a view to. 1) Applying cognitive concept map to teaching polysemous words can help learners acquire the words and also helps the learners gain long-term learning effects. The mean differences between two groups are significant (t=2.23, p=0.031, p<0.05). 2) Using this method can gain the learners’ abilities of comprehension and deduction of the vocabularies related to the target polysemous words “Chi” and “Fa”. The mean differences between two groups are significant (t=2.10, p=0.042, p<0.05).

參考資料
Ausubel, D. P., & Fitzgerald, D. (1962). Organizer, general background, and
antecedent learning variables in sequential verbal learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 53(6), 243-249.
Ausubel, D.P. (2000). The Acquisition and Retention of Knowledge: A
Cognitive View. Boston: Kluwer.
Bensoussan, M., & Laufer, B. (1984). Lexical guessing in context in EFL
reading. Comprehension Journal of Research in Reading, 7(1), 15-32.
Beréndi, M., Csábi, S., & Kövecses, Z. (2008). Using conceptual metaphors
and metonymies in vocabulary teaching. In Ungerer, F., & H.J. Schmid. (1996), An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics. Harlow: Longman.
Boers, F. (2000). Metaphor awareness and vocabulary retention. Applied Linguistics, 21(4), 553-571.
Boers, F. (2011). Cognitive semantic ways of teaching figurative phrases. Review of cognitive linguistics, 9(1), 227-261.
Boers, F., Lindstromberg, S., (Eds.). (2008). Cognitive Linguistic Approach to Teaching Vocabulary and Phraseology. New York: Mounton de Gruyter.
Brugman, C., & Lakoff, G. (1988). Cognitive topology and lexical networks. In Lexical Ambiguity Resolution: Perspectives from Psycholinguistics, Neuropsychology, and Artificial Intel- ligence, Steven L. Small, Garrison W. Cottrell, and Michael K. Tanenhaus (eds.), 477–508. San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
Csábi, S. (2004). A cognitive linguistic view of polysemy in English and its implications for teaching. Cognitive Linguistics, Second Language Acquisition, and Foreign Language Teaching, ed. by Michel Achard and Susanne Niemeier, 233-256. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Craik, F. I. M., & Lockhart, R. S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal behavior, 11, 671-684.
Croft, W. (2009). Connecting Frames and Constructions. John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Fillmore, C. J., Atkins, B. T. S. (2000). Describing polysemy: The case of crawl. In Leacock, C., Polysemy: Theoretical and Computational Approaches. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 91–110.
Geeraerts, D., Dirven, R., & Taylor, J. R. (Eds.). (2006). Cognitive Linguistics: Radial Network. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG.
Hopper, P. (1987). Emergent grammar. Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 139-157.
Krasnic, T. (2011). How to Study with Mind Maps: The concise learning method. Concise books publishing.
Kövecses, Z., & P., Szabó. (1996). Idioms: a view from cognitive semantics. Applied Linguistics, 17 (3), 326-355.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live by. Chicago: University of Chicago.
Lakoff, G. (1987). Woman, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the World. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Langacker, R. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Theoretical Prerequisites. Vol, 1. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Lazar, G. (1996). Using figurative language to expand students’ vocabulary. ELT Journal, 50 (1), 43-51.
Laufer, B., Elder, C., Hill, K., & Congdon, P. (2004). Size and strength: Do we need both to measure vocabulary knowledge? Language Testing, 21(2), 202–226.
Laufer, B., & Goldstein, Z. (2004). Testing vocabulary knowledge: Size, strength, and computer adaptiveness. Language Learning, 54(3), 469–523.
Li, D., Liu, C., & Gan, W. (2009). A new cognitive model: Cloud model. Int. J. Intell. Syst. 24, 357-375.
Lindstromberg, S., & Boers, F. (2005). From movement to metaphor with manner-of-movement verbs. Applied Linguistics, 26, 241-261.
Littlemore, J. (2001). Metaphoric intelligence and foreign language learning. Humanising Language Teaching,
3(2).
Littlemore, J. (2009). Applying Cognitive Linguistics to Second Language Learning and Teaching. Basingstoke/New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Low, G. D. (1988). On teaching metaphor. Applied Linguistics, 9(2), 125-147.
Lockhart, R. S., & Craik, F. I. M. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 01(11), 671-684.
MacLennan, Carol H. G. (1994). Metaphor and prototypes in the teaching and learning of grammar and vocabulary. International Review of Applied Linguistic, 32(2), 97-110.
Nation, P. (2000). Learning Vocabulary in Another Language. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Novak, J. D., & Gowin, D. B. (1984). Learning How to Learn. NY: Cambridge University Press.
Novak, J. D., & Cañas, A. J. (2006). The theory underlying concept maps and how to construct them (Technical Report No. IHMC CmapTools 2006-01). Pensacola, FL: Institute for Human and Machine Cognition.
Packard, J. (2000). The Morphology of Chinese: A Linguistic and Cognitive Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Paivio, A. (1896). Mental representaions: A dual coding approach. Oxford, Engliand: Oxford University Press.
Paivio, A. (1991). Dual coding theory: Retrospect and current status. Journal of Psychology, 45(3), 255-287.
Taylor, J. (1995). Linguistic Categorization: Prototypes in Linguistic Theory. Beijing: Beijing Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Taylor, J. (2003). Linguistic Categorization (3rd Ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ungerer, F., & Schmid, H. (1996). An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics. London: Longman.
Verspoor, M., & Lowie, W. (2003). Making sense of polysemous words. Language Learning, 53(3), 547-586.

王春茂、彭聃齡（1999）。合成詞加工中的詞頻、詞素頻率及語義透明度，
心理學報，3，266-273。
王英雪（2009）。認知語言學視角下隱喻的體驗性—以「吃」為例。雲南
師範大學學報，3，65-68。
方蕾（2004）。對「吃+N」類短語的生成及發展合理性的分析。上海大學
外國語學院，304-305
方緒軍（2008）。對外漢語詞彙教與學。北京：北京師範大學出版社。
王君（2010）。基於概念圖的大學英語詞彙教學策略研究。齊齊哈爾大學
學報，4-7。
牛亞麗、謝剛（2011）。《現代漢語辭典》「吃」的語義認知研究。綏化學
院學報，2，126-128。
弗里德里希‧溫格瑞爾、漢斯尤格‧施密特（2009）。認知語言學概論（第
二版）。上海：復旦大學出版社。
邢志群（2011）。對外漢語詞彙教學法初探。中文教師學會期刊，46，71-97。
邢福義（1991）。現代漢語。北京：高等教育出版社。
李曉春、張章（2006）。「發」字小議。淮北煤炭師範學院學報，27，
98-102。
李曉春（2007）。「發」字詞典義淺析。淮北煤炭師範學院學報，28，
98-101。
李福印（2008）。認知語言學概論。北京大學出版社。
束定芳（主編）（2004）。語言的認知研究─認知語言學論文精選。上海
外語教育出版社。
束定芳（2008）。認知語義學。上海外語教育出版社。
邵敬敏（主編）（2007）。現代漢語通論。上海教育出版社
吳為善（2011）。認知語言學與漢語研究。上海：復旦大學出版社。
竺家寧（2011）。現代漢語同義近義詞的義素分析──理論和方法的研
究(國科會專題研究計畫成果報告編號: NSC 100-2410-H-004-159-)。台北:中華民國行 政院國家科學委員會。
胡裕樹、范曉（主編）（1996）。動詞研究綜述。山西高校聯合出版社。
孫德金 主編（2006）。對外漢語詞彙及詞彙教學研究。北京：商務印書
館。
徐子亮（2000）。漢語作為外語教學的認知理論研究。北京：華語教學
出版社。
陶紅印（2000）。從「吃」看動詞論元結構的動態特徵。語言研究，5，21-38。
張彩麗（2010）。隱喻理論在對外漢語詞彙教學中的利用。新疆大學碩
士語言學及應用語言學碩士論文。
張金橋、曾毅平（2010）。影響中級水平留學生漢語新造詞語理解的三個因
素。語言文字應用，2，118-126。
張莉莉（2011）。「吃」的構詞理據微探。湖北師範學院學報，4，64-67。
張紹全（2010）。英語專業學生多義詞習得的認知語言學研究。外國語文，
4，101-107。
張紹全（2012）。大學生英語通感式多義詞習得的認知語言學研究。當代
外語研究，2，72-90。
崔偉麗、古彩平、崔偉慧（2011）。基於原型範疇理論的多義詞習得研究。
大家，23，131。
符淮青（1996）。詞義的分析和描寫。語文出版社。
陳建生（2008）。認知詞彙學概論。上海：復旦大學出版社。
許尤芬（2012）。中文多義詞「發」之語義探討：以語料庫為本。台北
市立教育大學華語文教學碩士學位學程碩士論文。
陳菘霖（2012）。漢語動詞「吃」從行動到遭受的語意延伸－兼論詞彙化分
類。華語教學研究，1，51-72。
蔡清田（主編）（2013）。社會科學研究方法新論。台北：五南。
劉雲飛、雷卿（2009）。隱喻意識與英語多義詞的實證性研究。安陽工學
院學報，5，75。
劉桂芳（1995）。義素分析略說。山西師大學報，6，96-98。
董秀芳（2002）。詞彙化:漢語雙音詞的衍生和發展。成都:四川民族出版
社。
趙群、羅煒東（2005）。關注詞彙的核心義項－多義詞習得的有效途徑。
外語教學，6，51-56。
歐德芬（2012）。現代漢語多義詞「看」之認知研究。國立台灣師範大
學華語文教學研究所博士論文
蘭佳睿（2007）。「發+X」式心理動詞的認知語義考察。語言科學，6，56-61。