隱喻常見於各式語言媒介中，然而，當詞義已非本義時，對華語學習者而言，難度相對較高（邢志群，2011）。若論及產出這樣的語言表現方式，其難度則更高。為了幫助中高級華語學習者更精確理解相關延伸詞彙，本文旨在探討華語經濟新聞中，溫度相關多義詞的使用現象，以及這些溫度相關詞如何透過隱喻，表達多義；並以此研究結果參照華語學習者的需求與意見，編寫相關的教學內容應用。
本文採語料庫（Deignan，2005；Semino，2008）、MIP（Pragglejaz Group，2007）和MPA（Stefanowitsch，2006）的分析方法，以2012至2014年間的華語經濟新聞為例，探討其中的高頻溫度詞－冰、冷、寒、涼、溫、暖、熱、燙，所組成之溫度相關詞本義與延伸義的關係。研究結果得出華語經濟新聞中，在「氣氛」、「數量」、「普及度」、「關係」、「態度」與「力量」等概念中，都較常以溫度相關詞來隱喻表示，進而形成溫度相關詞彙的多義延伸。
另一方面，根據本文的調查結果，華語學習者以及華語教師普遍都使用過概念隱喻的學習策略與詞彙釋義方式；而大部分的學習者也認為使用本義與延伸義的比較方式對於其在記憶、精確使用詞彙等方面有具體幫助，此與前人（Csábi，2004；孫毅，2013）的看法相合。因此，本文認為教師在進行詞彙教學的階段時，最好能以已知建構未知－用本義和延伸義的比較（即概念隱喻）來解釋詞彙的新詞義，方能對學生的詞彙學習更有幫助。

Metaphor exists in many language forms. However, when the meaning of a word is not in literal sense, its difficulty will be higher for Mandarin learner(邢志群, 2011). As for expressing with extending meaning, the difficulty will be much higher. To help students of high-intermediate level of Mandarin to understand related words in extending meaning, this study aimed to research temperature-related polysemy in Mandarin economic news and how do they express one more meanings by metaphor. We combined the result of the research and Mandarin learner survey to generate related material pedagogical applications.
We took economic news from 2012 to 2014 as an example, and used corpus-based approach, corpus-driven approach(Deignan, 2005; Semino, 2008), MIP(Pragglejaz, 2007) and MPA(Stefanowitsch, 2006) to analyze the relation between literal and extending senses of temperature-related words which consist of bing冰, leng冷, han寒, liang涼, wen溫, nuan暖, re熱 or tang燙. According to the results of analysis, there are six domains that can be described by temperature-related words through metaphor; they are “atmosphere”, “amount”, “popularity”, “relationship”, “attitude” and “strength”.
On the other hand, based on the investigation, most of the Mandarin learners had ever used metaphor as a learning strategy and most of the Mandarin teachers had ever used metaphor to explain extending meaning of a words as well. Furthermore, most of the Mandarin learners of the current study think it is helpful for them to memorize word and use word more accurately. This result is corresponding to previous researches(Csábi, 2004;孫毅, 2013).
Based on the above results, we suggest that Mandarin teachers use metaphors to explain new meaning of a word, which is like the idea of using known knowledge to learn new knowledge. In this way, it would be more helpful for student to learn vocabulary.

參考文獻
Allan, K. (1986). Linguistic Meaning (Vol. I). New York: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Ausubel, D. P. (1968). Educational Psychology: A Cognitive View. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Ausubel, D. P. & D. Fitzgerald (1962). Organizer, General Background, and Antecedent Learning Variables in Sequential Verbal Learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 53(6), 243-249.
Boers, F. (2000). Metaphor Awareness and Vocabulary Retention. Applied Linguistics, 21(4), 553-571.
Cameron, Lynne (1999). Operationalizing “metaphor” for Applied Linguistic Research. In L. Cameron & G. Low (Eds.), Researching and Applying Metaphor(pp.3-28). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Csábi, S. (2004). A Cognitive Linguistic View of Polysemy in English and Its Implications for Teaching. In M. Achard & S. Niemeier(Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics, Second Language Acquisition, and Foreign Language Teaching (pp. 233–256). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
Croft, William (1993). The Role of Domain in the Interpretation of Metaphor and Metonymies. Cognitive Linguistics 4(4), 335-370.
Deignan, Alice (2005). Metaphor and Corpus Linguistics. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Driven, R. (2005). Major strands in Cognitive Linguistics. In Francisco J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez & M. Sandra Peña Cervel (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics- Internal Dynamics and Interdisciplinary Interaction(pp.17-68 ). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
Eppler, Martin J. (2006). A Comparison Between Concept Maps, Mind Maps, Conceptual Diagrams, and Visual Metaphors as Complementary Tools for Knowledge Construction and Sharing. Information Visualization, 5, 202 -210.
Fauconnier, G & M. Turner (1998). Conceptual Integration Networks. Cognitive Science, 22(2), 133-187.
Fauconnier, G & M. Turner (2002). The Way We Think. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Fillmore, C. J. (1976). Frame Semantics and the Nature of Language. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 280, 20-32.
Goatly, Andrew (1997). The language of metaphors. London, England: Routledge.
Goossens, Louis (1995). Metaphtonymy: The interaction of metaphor and metonymy in expressions of linguistics action. In L. Goossens, P.Pauwels, B.Rudzka-Ostyn, A. Simon-Vanderbergen, & J. Vanparys (Eds.), By Word of Mouth: Metaphor, Metonymy and Linguistic Action in a Cognitive Perspective (pp.159-174). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Kövecses, Z. (2006). Language, Mind, and Culture-A Practical Introduction. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Kuo, Jane C.M. (2002). Open for Business: Lesson in Chinese Commerce for the new Millennium(Vols. 1-2). Boston, MA: Cheng & Tsui Company.
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, Fir, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the World. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G. & Mark Johnson (1980/2003). Metaphors We Live by. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G. & Mark Turner (1989). More Than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Langacker, Ronald W. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Vol. I: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Littlemore, Jeannette (2001). Metaphoric Intelligence and Foreign Language Learning. Humanising Language Teaching, 3(2).
Lyons, John. (1977). Semantics (Vol. 2). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Meyer, Charles F. (2002). English Corpus Linguistics: An Introduction. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Milton, J. (2009). Measuring Second Language Vocabulary Acquisition. Bristol, England: Multiligual Matters.
Nation, I. S. P.(1990). Teaching and Learning Vocabulary. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.
Nation, I. S. P.(2008). Teaching Vocabulary: Strategies and Techniques. Boston, MA: Heinle Cengage Learning.
Novak, J. D. (1995). Concept Mapping : A strategy for organizing knowledge. In Shawn M. Glynn & Reinders Duit (Eds.), Learning science in schools : Research reforming practice(pp.229-246). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associate.
Novak, J. D. & D. Symington (1982). Concept Mapping for Curriculum Development. Victoria Institute of Education Research Bulletin, 48, 3-11.
Oxford, R. (1990). Language Learning Strategies: What Every Teacher Should Know. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.
Petrie, H.G. & R.S. Oshlag (1979/1993). Metaphor and Learning. In A. Ortony(Eds.), Metaphor and Thought(pp. 579-609). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Pragglejaz Group (2007). MIP: A Method for Identifying Metaphorically Used Words in Discourse. Metaphor and Symbol, 22(1), 1-39.
Radden, G. & Z. Kövecses (1999). Towards a Theory of Metonymy. In K. Panther & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in Language and Thought (pp. 17-59). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Saeed, John I. (2000). Semantics(3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.
Semino, Elena (2008). Metaphor in Discourse. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Stefanowitsch, Anatol (2006). Corpus-based Approaches to Metaphor and Metonymy. In Anatol Stefanowitsch & Stefan Thomas Gries (Eds.), Trends in Linguistics, Studies and Monographs : Corpus-Based Approaches to Metaphor and Metonymy(pp.1-pp.17). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
Stefanowitsch, Anatol (2006). Word and Their Metaphor: A Corpus-based Approach. In Anatol Stefanowitsch & Stefan Thomas Gries (Eds.), Trends in Linguistics, Studies and Monographs : Corpus-Based Approaches to Metaphor and Metonymy(pp.63-pp.105). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
Taylor, John R. (2003). Linguistic Categorization (3rd ed.). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Tognini-Bonelli, Elena (2001). Studies in Corpus Linguistics, Volume 6 : Corpus Linguistics at Work. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Wilkins, D. A. (1972). Linguistics in Language Teaching. London, England: Hodder & Stoughton Educational.

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(哲學社會科學版)，5，124-127。
方怡文、周慶祥（1999）。新聞採訪理論與實務。台北：正中書局。
方緒軍（2008）。對外漢語詞彙教與學。北京：北京師範大學出版社。
甘明惠（1995）。漢語溫度詞的語意結構和發展（碩士論文）。國立清華大學，新竹市。取自台灣博碩士論文知識加值系統。（系統編號：083NTHU0462006）
朴恩珍（2011）。韓、中溫度感覺形容詞的對應研究（碩士論文）。延邊大學，延吉。
任曉艷（2006）。現代漢語溫度詞感覺研究（碩士論文）。山東大學，濟南。
李福印（2007）。語義學概論。北京：北京大學出版社。
李福印（2008）。認知語言學概論。北京：北京大學出版社。
丁建民（譯）（2001）。Collins Cobuild 英語語法系列：7.隱喻（原著作：Alice Deignan）。北京：外文出版社。
邢志群（2011）。對外漢語詞彙教學法初探。Journal of the Chinese Language Teachers Association，42(2)，71-97。
邱曉蕾（2006）。面向「工作驅動型」留學生的商務漢語教學改革設想。海外華文教育，40，59-63。
袁芳遠（2005）。成功之道－中級商務漢語案例教程。北京：北京大學出版社。
徐喜萱（2003）。台灣報章標題隱喻詞彙宏觀分析與外籍生認知度研究（碩士論文）。國立台灣師範大學，台北市。
高航、嚴辰松（2008）。漢語溫度圖式所衍生的概念隱喻。四川外語學院學報，24(2)，7-12。
孫毅（2013）。認知隱喻學多維跨域研究。北京：北京大學出版社。
張小峰（2009）。概念圖輔助下對外漢語詞彙教學可視化設計探析。電化教育研究，11，94-97。
張莉萍、陳立芬（2009/2010）。讀報學華語（一）（二）（三）。台北市：師大國語中心。
國立臺灣師範大學主編（2008）。新版實用視聽華語。台北：正中書局。
陳建生、夏曉燕、姚堯等（2011）。認知詞彙學。北京：光明日報。
陳建祥（2012）。漢語溫度域詞語“冷”和“熱”的概念隱喻研究。長沙大學學報，26(1)，95-97。
曹賢文、陳源（2006）。漢語新聞在線閱讀教程。北京：北京大學出版社。
馮禹、戴曉雪、陳念湘（2006）。在商言商。波士頓：Cheng & Tsui Company。
董玉琴（1997）。漫談經濟報導。北京：新華出版社。
葉德明（2002）。華語文教學規範與理論基礎。台北市：師大書苑。
葉德明等（2001）。遠東生活華語。台北市：遠東。
楊穎嫚（2009）。中日溫度詞彙比較研究（碩士論文）。廣東外語外貿大學，廣州。
趙艷芳（2000）。認知語言學概論。上海：上海外語教育出版社。
劉月華、潘文娛、故韡（2001）。實用現代漢語語法。北京：商務印書館。
劉珣（2002）。新實用漢語課本。北京：北京語言文化大學出版社。
蘇以文 （2005）。隱喻與認知。台北市：台大出版中心。
蕭惠貞、周俞姍、李佳霖（2013）。英韓學生於漢語溫度詞之學習探討-以「熱」為例。第十一屆國際漢語教學學術研討會論文集，435-451。