本研究旨在探討台灣英語為外國語言的學習者如何理解英語垂直介系詞（如above、over、below和under）的核心與延伸語意。研究方向鎖定兩個因素：類型效應和語言程度效應對學習者習得這四個介系詞的影響。總計54名大一新生參與本語言實驗，依據學科能力測驗（GSAT）排名將他們劃分為基礎、中級和進階級，並以18名英語母語者作為對照組。透過句子填充任務（SCT）的形式，進行兩項研究。研究一：圖片句子填充任務（SCT-P），參與者需選擇適當的垂直介系詞來完成附有圖片的句子。研究二：對話句子填充任務（SCT-C），參與者需閱讀指定的對話情境後選擇適當的垂直介系詞以完成句子。
研究發現如下：首先，類型效應中，結果顯示類型效應未發生在核心含義方面，說明EFL學習者對這四個介系詞的難度相似。在整體延伸語意方面，初級組和中級組對四個介系詞的感知相似，顯示初級與中級程度的英語學習者對under的延伸語意特別感到挑戰。然而，對進階學習者來說，under最容易習得，這研究結果顯示當英語學習者的語言程度達到進階級，對介系詞的理解將使用二分法，這與母語者對這四個垂直介系詞理解的三分法呼應。此外，與數量有關的延伸語意最易習得，其次是接觸和地位的含義。其二，語言程度效應方面中，初學者難以完全掌握above和below的核心語意及大多數垂直介系詞的整體延伸含語意。他們只在above的「無接觸」語意和over的「地位」語意中上展現母語等級。除above外，中級學習者在掌握核心語意方面皆達到母語水平。他們熟悉above與over的整體延伸語意。進階學習者能像英語母語者一樣理解這四個垂直介系詞的核心與整體延伸語意。值得注意的是，中級和進階組皆在四個介系詞的個別延伸語意上皆達母語水平，但仍在below的「無接觸」語意中受到挑戰。

The present study aims to explore how English as a Foreign Language (EFL) learners in Taiwan grasp core meanings and extended meanings of English vertical axis prepositions: above, over, below and under. Two factors were targeted: type and proficiency effects on learners’ acquisition of the four prepositions. A total of 54 college freshmen participated in this research, categorized into Elementary, Intermediate, and Advanced proficiency levels based on their General Scholastic Ability Test (GSAT) ranking, along with a control group of 18 English natives. By utilizing a Sentence-Completion Task (SCT) format, two studies were investigated. In Study 1: SCT with Pictures (SCT-P) , the participants were required to select an appropriate vertical preposition to complete sentences with pictures. In Study 2: SCT within Conversations (SCT-C), the participants were asked to choose an appropriate vertical preposition to complete sentences after reading a given context of paired conversations.
The findings of the present study are as follows: Firstly, regarding type effects, it was revealed that no type effects were observed in core meanings, indicating a similar difficulty level across the four prepositions by EFL learners. As for overall extended meanings, elementary and intermediate groups demonstrated similar perceptions across the four prepositions, showing considerable challenges in understanding the extended meaning of under for EFL participants at the elementary and intermediate levels. However, under emerged as the most easily acquired compared to the other three prepositions for advanced learners. This suggests that once an advanced proficiency level was reached, a dichotomy in perceptions emerged, mirroring the native speakers’ trichotomous understanding of these four vertical prepositions. Additionally, the extended meaning pertaining to “number” was found to be acquired first, followed by the meanings of “contact” and “status.” Second, with regard to proficiency effects, elementary learners struggled to fully grasp the core meanings of above and below and most of the overall extended meanings of vertical prepositions. They only demonstrated native-like competence in the “non-contact” meaning of above and the “status” meaning of over. Intermediate learners achieved native-like comprehension of core meanings, except for above. Their proficient understanding of the overall extended meanings encompassed above and over. Advanced learners comprehended both the core and overall extended meanings of all four vertical prepositions like English natives. Notably, both intermediate and advanced groups demonstrated native-like performance in individual extended meanings of the four prepositions, yet found the “non-contact” meaning of below particularly challenging.

Aajami, R. F. (2022). Cognitive linguistic study of the English prepositions above, on, and over. Journal of Language & Linguistics Studies, 18(1), 738-751. https://www.jlls.org/index.php/jlls/article/view/3826
Allan, D. (1992). Oxford placement test 2 (New edition). Oxford University Press.
Amos, H. W. (2016). Chinatown by numbers: Defining an ethnic space by empirical linguistic landscape. Linguistic Landscape, 2(2), 127-156. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1075/ll.2.2.02amo
Aryawibawa, I. N. (2008). Semantic typology: Semantics of locative relations in Rongga (ISO 639-3: ROR) (Publication No. 1454576) [Master’s thesis, University of Kansas]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.
Binder, J. R., Westbury, C. F., McKiernan, K. A., Possing, E. T., & Medler, D. A. (2005). Distinct brain systems for processing concrete and abstract concepts. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 17(6), 905-917. https://doi.org/10.1162/0898929054021102
Blaikie, N. (2007). Approaches to social enquiry: Advancing knowledge. Polity.
Blommaert, J. (2013). Ethnography, Superdiversity and Linguistic Landscapes: Chronicles of Complexity. Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781783090419
Boers, F. (1994). Motivating meaning extensions beyond physical space: A cognitive linguistic journey along the up-down and the front-back dimension. (Publication No. 9500616) [Doctoral dissertation, University of Antwerp]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.
Boers, F. (1996). Spatial prepositions and metaphor: A cognitive semantic journey along the up-down and the front-back dimensions. Gunter Narr Verlag.
Boieblan, M. (2023). Enhancing English spatial prepositions acquisition among Spanish learners of English as L2 through an embodied approach. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 61(4), 1391-1420. https://doi.org/doi:10.1515/iral-2021-0151
Brenda, M. (2014). The cognitive perspective on the polysemy of the English spatial preposition over. Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Brown, H. D. (1994). Principles of language learning and teaching (3rd ed.). Prentice Hall.
Brugman, C. M. (1988). The story of over: Polysemy semantics and the structure of the lexicon. Garland Press.
Castelfranchi, C., & Parisi, D. (1980) Linguaggio, conoscenze e scopi [Language, knowledge and goals]. Il Mulino.
Celce-Murcia, M., & Larsen-Freeman, D. (1999). The grammar book: An ESL/EFL teacher's course (2nd ed.). Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
Chan, S. H., Eng, W. B., & Pauline T. H. L. (2004). The acquisition of the English inflectional -s Morphemes by Young L1 Chinese Speakers. GEMA Online Journal of Language Studies, 4(2).
Chen, A. C. H. (2014). A quantitative corpus-based approach to English spatial particles: Conceptual symmetry and its pedagogical implications. Taiwan Journal of TESOL, 11(1), 75-104.
Cho, K. (2010). Fostering the acquisition of English prepositions by Japanese learners with networks and prototypes. In De Knop, S., Boers, F. & De Rycker, A. (Eds.), Fostering language teaching efficiency through cognitive linguistics (pp. 257-276). De Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110245837.257
Chomsky, N. (1997). Language and problems of knowledge. Teorema, 16(2), 5-33.
Clark, E. V. (1973). What's in a word? On the child's acquisition of semantics in his first language. In T. E. Moore (Ed.), Cognitive development and acquisition of language (pp. 65-110). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-505850-6.50009-8
Conrad, F. G., Brown, N. R., & Cashman, E. R. (1998). Strategies for estimating behavioural frequency in survey interviews. Memory, 6(4), 339-366. https://doi.org/10.1080/741942603
Cornips, L., & Corrigan, K. P. (2005). Syntax and Variation: Reconciling the Biological and the Social. John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.265
Coventry, K. R., Prat-Sala, M., & Richards, L. (2001). The interplay between geometry and function in the comprehension of over, under, above, and below. Journal of Memory and Language, 44(3), 376-398. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.2000.2742
Dewell, R. (1994). Over again: Image-schema transformations in semantic analysis. Cognitive Linguistics, 5(4), 351-380. https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1994.5.4.351
Ellis, N. C. (2003). Constructions, chunking, and connectionism: The emergence of second language structure. In Doughty, C. & Long, M. H. (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 33–68). Blackwell.
Evans, V., & Tyler, A. (2005). Applying cognitive linguistics to pedagogical grammar: The English prepositions of verticality. Revista Brasileira de Linguística Aplicada, 5, 11-42.
Han, Z. (2006). Fossilization: Can grammaticality judgment be a reliable source of evidence? In Han, Z-H. & Odlin, T. (Eds.), Studies of fossilization in second language acquisition (pp. 56-82). Multilingual Matters.
Hawkins, B. W. (1984). The semantics of English spatial prepositions. (Publication No. 8408722) [Doctoral dissertation, University of California]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.
Heine, B., Claudi, U., & Hünnemeyer, F. (1991). From cognition to grammar: Evidence from African languages. In Elizabeth Closs Traugott & Bernd Heine (Eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization. vol. 1: focus on theoretical and methodological issues (pp. 149-187). John Benjamins.
Heine, B., Claudi, U., & Hünnemeyer, F. (1991). From cognition to grammar: Evidence from African languages. In E. C. Traugott & B. Heine (Eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization. vol. 1: focus on theoretical and methodological issues (pp. 149-187). John Benjamins.
Hopper, P. J., & Bybee, J. L. (2001). Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure. John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.45
Ide, S. (1989). Formal forms and discernment: Two neglected aspects of universals of linguistic politeness. Multilingua, 8(2-3), 223-248. https://doi.org/10.1515/mult.1989.8.2-3.223
James, C. T. (1975). The role of semantic information in lexical decisions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1(2), 130-136. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.1.2.130
Johnston, J. R. (1984). Acquisition of locative meanings: Behind and in front of. Journal of Child Language, 11(2), 407-422. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000900005845
Jumanto, J. (2006). Komunikasi fatis di kalangan penutur jati bahasa inggris [Phatic communication among English native speakers]. [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Indonesia.
Kaneko, T. (2006). Semantic network makes things more problematic: Use of vertical axis prepositions by Japanese learners of English. Gakuen, 786, 1-16.
Koffi, E. (2010). Applied English syntax: Foundations for word, phrase, and sentence analysis. Kendall Hunt Publishing Company.
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff R. (1973). The logic of politeness: Or, minding your p’s and q’s. In Corum C., Cedric Smith-Stark T., Weiser A. (Eds.), Papers from the 9th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (pp. 292–305). Chicago Linguistic Society.
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford University Press.
Leech, G., Rayson, P., & Wilson, A. (2001). Word frequencies in written and spoken English: Based on the British national corpus. Longman.
Li, C.N., & Thompson, S.A. (1978). An exploration of Mandarin Chinese. In W. P. Lehmann (Ed.), Syntactic typology: Studies in the phenomenology of language (pp. 223-266). University of Texas Press.
Li, J. & Cai, J. (2016). L1 transfer in Chinese learners’ use of spatial prepositions in EFL. In L. Yu & T. Odlin (Eds.), New perspectives on transfer in second language learning (pp. 63-75). Multilingual Matters.
Liu, Y. T. (2009). Attainability of a native-like lexical processing system in adult second language acquisition: A study of advanced L2 Chinese learners. Language and Linguistics, 10(3), 489-520.
Lorincz, K., & Gordon, R. (2012). Difficulties in Learning Prepositions and Possible Solutions. Linguistic Portfolios, 1, 1-5.
K. Lorincz and R. Gordon, “Difficulties in learning prepositions and possible solutions,” Linguistic Portfolios, vol. 1, no. 14, pp. 1-5, 2012.

Lowie, W. M., & Verspoor, M. H. (2001). Making sense of prepositions: the role of frequency and similarity in the acquisition of L2 prepositions. In G. van der Meer, & A. G. B. ter Meulen (Eds.), Making Sense: From lexeme to discourse (pp. 75-86). Centre for Language and Cognition.
Mashrabovna, N. M. (2023). Significance of politeness in communication. American Journal of Language, Literacy and Learning in STEM Education (2993-2769), 1(7), 29-33.
Mueller, C. M. (2011). English learners’ knowledge of prepositions: Collocational knowledge or knowledge based on meaning? System, 39(4), 480-490. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2011.10.012
Muroi, T. (2019) Identifying determining factors of Japanese EFL learners’ stage of the acquisition on English prepositions. In Y. Ono & M. Shimada (Eds.) Data Science in Collaboration, Volume 3 (pp. 36–41). Tsukuba: General Affairs Supporting Center.
Myles, F., Hooper, J., & Mitchell, R. (1998). Rote or rule? Exploring the role of formulaic language in classroom foreign language learning. Language learning, 48(3), 323-364. https://doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.00045
Nation, P. (2022). Teaching and learning vocabulary. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of practical second language teaching and learning (1st ed., pp. 397-408). Routledge.
O'Keefe, J. (1996). The spatial prepositions in English, vector grammar, and the cognitive map theory. In P. Bloom, M. A. Peterson, L. Nadel, & M. F. Garrett (Eds.), Language and space (pp. 277–316). The MIT Press.
O'Keefe, J. (2003). Vector grammar, places, and the functional role of the spatial prepositions in English. In E. Zee & J. M. Slack (Eds.), Representing direction in language and space (pp. 69–85). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199260195.003.0004
Overmann, K. A. (2018). Constructing a concept of number. Journal of Numerical Cognition, 4(2), 464-493. https://doi.org/10.5964/jnc.v4i2.161
Rahman, M. S. (2020). The advantages and disadvantages of using qualitative and quantitative approaches and methods in language “testing and assessment” research: A literature review. Journal of Education and Learning, 6(1),102-112. http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/jel.v6n1p102
Rhee, S. (2004). Semantic structure of English prepositions: An analysis from a grammaticalization perspective. Language Research, 40(2), 397-427.
Rips, L.J., Bloomfield, A., & Asmuth, J. (2008). From numerical concepts to concepts of number. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 31(6), 623–642. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X08005566
Rudzka-Ostyn, B. (2003). Word Power: Phrasal Verbs and Compounds: A Cognitive Approach. De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/doi:10.1515/9783110197235
Saravanan, J. (2015). The use of English prepositions: An empirical study. Journal of Nelta, 19(1-2), 158-168. https://doi.org/10.3126/nelta.v19i1-2.12089
Savela, T. (2018). The advantages and disadvantages of quantitative methods in schoolscape research. Linguistics and Education, 44, 31-44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2017.09.004
Schumann, J. H. (1986). Locative and directional expressions in basilang speech. Language Learning, 36(3), 277-294. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1986.tb00556.x
Schwanenflugel, P. J. (2013). Why are abstract concepts hard to understand? In P. J., Schwanenflugel (Ed.), The psychology of word meanings (pp. 235–262). Psychology Press.
Sorace, A. (2005) Selective optionality in language development. In L. Cornips & K. P. Corrigan (Eds.), Syntax and variation. Reconciling the biological and the social (pp.55–80). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.265.04sor
Swan, M. (2005). Practical English usage (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press.
Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a cognitive semantics. MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/6847.001.0001
Taylor, J. (1988). Contrasting prepositional categories: English and Italian. In B. Rudzka-Osty (Ed.), Topics in cognitive linguistics (pp. 299–326). John Benjamins.
Trubetzkoy, N. S. (1969). Principles of phonology. University of California Press. (Originally published in 1939).
Tyler, A., & Evans, V. (2001). Reconsidering prepositional polysemy networks: The case of over. Language 77(4), 724-765. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2001.0250
Tyler, A., & Evans, V. (2003). The semantics of English prepositions: Spatial Scenes, embodied meaning, and cognition. Cambridge University Press.
White, L. (2003). Second language acquisition and universal grammar. Cambridge University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511815065
Winter, B. (2023). Abstract concepts and emotion: Cross-linguistic evidence and arguments against affective embodiment. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, 378(1870), Article 20210368. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2021.0368
Wong, M. H. I., Zhao, H., & MacWhinney, B. (2018). A cognitive linguistics application for second language pedagogy: The English preposition tutor. Language learning, 68(2), 438-468. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12278
Wray, A. (2002). Formulaic language and the lexicon. Cambridge University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511519772
Wu, C., & Gao, W. (2021). A study on acquisition of English preposition in by Chinese non-English major students under the principled-polysemy model. Sino-US English Teaching, 18(5), 99-106.
Xu, J. (2008). Error theories and second language acquisition. US-China Foreign Language, 6(1), 35-42.
Zhao, H., Huang, S., Zhou, Y., & Wang, R. (2020). Schematic diagrams in second language learning of English prepositions: A behavioral and event-related potential study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 42(4), 721-748. https://doi.org/10.1017/S027226311900069X
Zwarts, J., & Winter, Y. (2000). Vector space semantics: A model-theoretic analysis of locative prepositions. Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 9(2), 169-211. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008384416604