多義詞包含多個意義相關聯的義項。在語言學習上，詞彙的一詞多義往往造成學習者的難點 (邢志群，2011) 。認知語言學家認為語義延伸的本質為隱喻而非任意產生 (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980)。 近年來許多研究指出提升學習者的隱喻意識有助於多義詞學習 (Koveceses & Szabo, 1996; Boers, 2000a; 黃弈寧，2015；蕭惠貞，2017）。有鑑於此，本文欲以「吃」、「上」、「白」三高頻多義詞探究融入隱喻概念與詞彙教學上之效用，並就研究結果提出教學建議，以期幫助中高級華語學習者解決學習難點。
本研究由前測篩選出38位中高級程度學生。實驗流程包含詞彙學習階段、即時後測與延時後測。實驗組與對照組透過生詞表學習「吃」、「上」、「白」所構成的18個詞彙。兩組主要差異在於生詞單是否以隱喻原則分組。研究結果顯示：1.提升學習者隱喻意識有助於華語學習者相關詞彙之學習，主要幫助在於詞彙於記憶中之留存。實驗組與對照組在延時後測中的總分與自由回憶題型皆達顯著差異（延時總分：M = 71.97 vs. 60.76, p = .045；延時自由回憶：M =32.40 vs. 21.66, p = .034）。2. 兩組在詞義理解題型上無顯著差異，但實驗組得分較對照組高。實驗組與對照組皆無因詞彙隱喻類型不同而產生顯著差異。然而，兩組於即時測驗時在方位隱喻「上」所構成的詞彙上成績較好，對照組與實驗組得分相同，本文認為其成因為雖對照組使用傳統英文釋義學習詞彙，但仍就以自身經驗理解此類詞彙所致。3.在相關詞彙類推上，雖無顯著差異，但實驗組表現亦優於對照組。綜上所述，本研究認為詞彙學習時若能提高學習者隱喻意識能使學習者在多義詞各詞項間創造有意義的連結，減輕其記憶負擔，提高學習效益。

Polysemy is a word with two or more different but related meanings. In language learning, polysemous words are considered to be difficult for L2 learners. Semantic extension is based on metaphor rather than arbitrariness from the cognitive perspective (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980). Recent experimental studies show that polysemous words learning can be enhanced by raising the learners’ metaphor awareness. In this study, the Chinese polysemous words “Chi” and “Shang” and “Bai” are chosen as target words in order to examine whether metaphor awareness can facilitate Chinese polysemous words learning.
38 CSL learners with intermediate or higher level of Chinese participating in this study are selected by a pre-test. Participants are in either an experimental group or control group and follows an experimental procedure with a learning stage, a post-test and a delayed post-test. The two groups learn 18 target words with different word lists. The experimental group’s list is organized by metaphor theme and the control group’s list is not. The results show that: (1) Raising the learners’ metaphor awareness can help learners acquire polysemous words and greatly facilitate the retention of the words in their memory. The two groups demonstrate a significant difference (p=.045), especially on the task of free recall (p=.034). (2) The two groups demonstrate no significant difference on the task of understanding meaning although the experimental group has higher scores than the control group. There is also no significant difference between the two groups on the performance of the various types of metaphorical words. However, both groups perform better on the orientational metaphor “Shang” in the post-test and the control group achieves the same score as the experimental group. From our perspective, this result shows that orientational metaphors are rooted in human experience with the environment, thus the participants can, through their experience, understand easily with or without the help of metaphor awareness. (3) The experimental group performs well on the extended novel words but there is no significant difference with the control group.

文秋芳（1996）。傳統和非傳統學習方法與英語成績的關係。現代外語，1，37-43。
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。
王寅（2001）。語義理論與語言教學。上海：上海外語教育出版社。
王新清（2014）。從文化和認知視角看漢語「吃」的隱喻。湖南廣播電視大學學報，58，25。
呂緯青（2012）。論對外漢語跨文化隱喻教學。華語文教學研究，9（2），59-76。
李明懿（2000）。現代漢語方位詞「上」的語義分析。台北：國立台灣師範大學華語文研究所碩士論文。
李晉霞、李宇明 （2008）。論詞義的透明度。語文研究，3，60-65。
邢志群（2011）。對外漢語詞彙教學法初探。中文教學學會期刊，42(2)，71-97。
邢志群（2013）。對外漢語教學法。臺北：文鶴出版社。
周世箴（譯注）（2013）。我們賴以生存的隱喻。台北市：聯經。
周紅霞（2010）。從認知隱喻及轉喻分析「吃」構成的英漢習語。語文研究，12，50-51。
柳莉（2001）。語義透明度和詞的理據性在對外漢語教學中的作用，西南科技大學學報，28(6)， 64－67。
孫毅（2013）。認知隱喻學多維跨域研究。北京：北京大學出版社。
盛子芸（2019）。「吃」類動詞及組配的隱喻在對外漢語教學中的應用。山東：山東師範大學研究所碩士論文。
陳建生、夏曉燕、姚堯（2011）。認知詞彙學。北京:光明日報出版社。
陳婉華（2012）。漢語顏色詞「白」的隱喻性語義探討。台北：輔仁大學碩士論文。
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。
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。
傅國忠（2011）。獵人= 狩人？──日籍初級學習者華語詞彙學習策略之個案研究。第一屆東亞華語教學研究生論壇。臺北：國立台灣師範大學。
湯天穎（2014）。基于隱喻理論的對外漢語成語教學研究。上海: 華東師范大學研究所碩士論文 。
黃奕寧（2015）。結合認知語義與概念圖於華語多義詞教學上實證研究-以「吃」和「發」為例。台北：國立臺灣師範大學華語文教學研究所碩士論文。
廖思涵（2014）。漢語飲食範疇隱喻詞彙之探析與教學應用。台北：國立臺灣師範大學華語文教學研究所碩士論文。
劉憶萍（2002）。國語六個基本顏色詞之認知研究。台北：國立臺灣師範大學英語研究所碩士論文。
鄧守信（2009）。對外漢語教學語法。臺北：文鶴出版社。
鄧守信等(主編)（2015）。當代中文課程(第一冊)。台北：聯經出版公司。
鄧守信等(主編)（2015）。當代中文課程(第二冊)。台北：聯經出版公司。
鄧守信等(主編)（2016）。當代中文課程(第三冊)。台北：聯經出版公司。
鄧守信等(主編)（2016）。當代中文課程(第四冊)。台北：聯經出版公司。
蕭惠貞、梁安琪（2018）。提升隱喻意識對二語詞彙學習和記憶存留之探究。漢語作為第二語言研究，7（1），141-170。
謝石竹（2010）。記憶策略在華語詞彙教學中的運用。台北：國立臺灣師範大學華語文教學研究所碩士論文。
謝佳玲等(主編)（2017）。新版實用視聽華語(第一冊)(第三版)。新北：中正書局。
謝佳玲等(主編)（2017）。新版實用視聽華語(第二冊)(第三版)。新北：中正書局。
謝佳玲等(主編)（2017）。新版實用視聽華語(第三冊)(第三版)。新北：中正書局。
謝佳玲等(主編)（2017）。新版實用視聽華語(第四冊)(第三版)。新北：中正書局。
聶亞寧（2008）。從體驗論看漢語「吃」的轉喻和隱喻認知模式及其特點。湖南大學學報，22（2），113-117。
藍純（1999）。從認知角度看漢語的空間隱喻。外語教學研究，4，7-15。
蘇以文（2005）。隱喻與認知。台北市：臺大出版中心。
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。
Berlin, Brent and Paul Kay. (1969). Basic Color Terms. Berkeley: University of California
Boers, F. (2000a). Metaphor awareness and vocabulary retention. Applied Linguistics, 21(4), 553-571.
Boers, F. (2000b). Enhancing metaphoric awareness in specialized reading. English for Specific Purpose, 19, 137-147.
Boers, F. (2001). Remembering figurative idioms by hypothesizing about their origin. Prospect, 16(3), 35-43.
Boers, F. & Demecheleer, M. (2001). Measuring the impact of cross-cultural differences on learners’ comprehension of imageable idioms. ELT Journal, 55(3), 255-262.
Boers, F. (2004). Expanding learners’ vocabulary through metaphor awareness: What expan sion, what learners, what vocabulary. In M. Achard & S. Niemeier (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics, Second Language Acquisition and Foreign Language Teaching (pp. 211–232). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Boers, F., Eyckmans, J. & Stengers, H. (2006). Means of motivating multiword units: ra
tionale, mnemonic benefits and cognitive-style variables. In Foster-Cohen, S., Medved
Krajnovic, M. & Mihaljevic Djigunovic, J. (Eds.), EUROSLA Yearbook 6 (pp. 169–190).
Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins
Boers, F., Eyckmans, J. & Stengers, H. (2007). Presenting figurative idioms with a touch of etymology: more than mere mnemonics? Language Teaching Research, 11, 43–62.
Boers, F. & Lindstromberg, S. (2008). From empirical findings to pedagogical practice. In F. Boers & S. Lindstromberg (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistic Approaches to Teaching Vocabulary and Phraseology (pp. 189–216). Berlin/ New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Boers, F., Lindstromberg, S., Littlemore, J., Stengers, H. & Eyckmans, J. (2008). Variables in the mnemonic effectiveness of pictorial elucidation. In F. Boers & S. Lindstromberg (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistic Approaches to Teaching Vocabulary and Phraseology (pp. 189–216). Berlin/ New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Boers, F., Píriz, A.M.P., Stengers, H. & Eyckmans, J. (2009). Does pictorial elucidation foster recollection of idioms? Language Teaching Research, 13(4), 367-382.
Boers, F. (2011). Cognitive Semantic ways of teaching figurative phrases: an assessment. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 9(1), 227-261.
Chamot, A. U. (1987). Inferencing: Testing the 'hypothesis-testing' hypothesis.In A.Wenden & J. Rubin (Eds.), Learner strategy in language learning (pp.71-83).Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
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.
Derrig, Sandra. (1978). Metaphor in the Color Lexicon. Farkas, D., Jacobsen, W. M. and Todrys, K. W. (Eds), Papers from the Parasession on the Lexicon. (pp,85-96) Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
Fillmore, C. J., Atkins, B. T. S. (2000). Describing polysemy: The case of crawl. In Y. Ravin and C. Leacock. (Eds), Polysemy: Theoretical and Computational Approaches. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 91-110.
Johnson, M. (1987). The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination,
and Reason. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Kövecses, Z., &; P., Szabó. (1996). Idioms: a view from cognitive semantics. Applied Linguistics, 17 (3), 326-355.
Lai, H.-L. & Chung, S.-F. (2018). Color Polysemy: Black and White in Taiwanese Languages. Taiwan Journal of Linguistics, 16 (1), 95-130.
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.
Lakoff, G., & Turner, M. (1989). More than Cool Reason: A field guide to poetic
metaphor. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
Marcus, N., Cooper, M., & Sweller, J. (1996). Understanding instructions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(1), 49–63.
Nation, I. S. P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Nation, I.S.P. (2006). Second language vocabulary. In K. Brown (ed.) Encyclopaedia of Language and Linguistics, 2nd Ed. Oxford: Elsevier. Vol 13: 448-454.
O'Malley, J. M., & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning strategies in second language acquisition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Rebecca L Oxford. (1990). Language Learning Strategies: What Every Teacher Should Know. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
Saeed, John I. (2000). Semantics(3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.
Saaty, Rawan. (2016). Teaching L2 metaphor through awareness-raising activities: experimental studies with Saudi EFL learners. University of Birmingham. Ph.D.
Skoufaki, S. (2008). Conceptual metaphoric meaning clues in two idiom presentation methods. In F. Boers & S. Lindstromberg (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistic Approaches to Teaching Vocabulary and Phraseology (pp,101-132). Berlin/ New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Schmitt, N. (2008). Instructed second language vocabulary learning. Language Teaching Research, 12, 329–363.
Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12, 257-285.
Sweller, J., & Chandler, P. (1994). Why some material is difficult to learn. Cognition and Instrction,8(4), 185-233.
Verspoor, M., &; Lowie, W. (2003). Making sense of polysemous words. Language Learning, 53(3), 547-586.
Wesche, M. & Paribakht, T. S. (1996). Assessing Second Language Vocabulary Knowledge: Depth versus Breadth. Canadian Modern Language Review, 53(1), 13-40.
Yasuda, S. (2010). Learning phrasal verbs through conceptual metaphors: a case of Japanese EFL learners. TESOL Quarterly, 44(2), 250-273.