慣用語為二語學習的一大難題，於傳統教學觀點下，教師多將其視為整體教學，學習者則是以「死記硬背」方式學習。近年研究指出慣用語可透過特定方式激活及連結，藉此提升隱喻意識以加強學習成效（Boers, 2000; Boers et al., 2007等），成果具前瞻性。奠基於此，本研究以12個「眼睛」、「頭／腦」、「臉／面」相關之三字華語慣用語為內容，並結合認知語言學觀點，以「轉、隱喻意涵延伸圖」及「圖像」為工具輔助學習。其中，轉、隱喻意涵延伸圖展示上述身體部位背後所含之比喻義，促進目標詞義之理解；圖像則是呈現慣用語字面構成成分，協助詞語形式之掌握。我們透過前測、即時後測及一週後的延時後測等紙筆測驗，試圖以實證方式檢視上述工具對華語慣用語學習及記憶存留有何影響。本研究可用樣本共40人，分為控制組、圖像組、隱喻組及綜合組各十人，初步發現（1）接受意涵延伸圖教導之隱喻組及綜合組，於目標詞語之意義學習及記憶較具優勢；（2）四組於詞語形式之學習表現相約，接受圖像以助形式學習之控制組及圖像組未見突出表現；（3）新詞學習方面，隱喻組及綜合組對於未教授之慣用語（「沒眼睛、換頭腦、拉下臉」），具較強意義拓展能力，故其意義學習及記憶表現顯著較佳；（4）若按主要教學方式將四組分為「詞語釋義組」及「意涵延伸圖組」，並比較其學習表現，則發現前者之詞義理解及記憶存留表現皆明顯優於後者。換言之，意涵延伸圖組以延伸圖為輔助工具，有利其提升認知意識並鞏固意義掌握及記憶程度。綜上所述，本研究認為以轉、隱喻意涵延伸圖為教學工具，實能從認知層面提升學習者意識，使之更能掌握慣用語背後之比喻義並強化意義理解，具有明顯即時學習效果且利於記憶存留，對華語慣用語意義學習存在正面效益。

Idioms are considered to be difficult for L2 learners. In traditional teaching method, id-ioms are arbitrary so that learners have to learn by rote. However, experimental evidence suggests that figurative L2 idioms learning can be promoted by raising learners’ metaphor awareness (Boers, 2000; Boers et al., 2007 etc.). Based on these studies, 12 three-words idi-oms related to the MIND AS BODY metaphor are chosen (eyes, head/ brain, face) as target words. In order to enhance meaning learning, a “metonymy and metaphor meanings exten-sion map” was used to show the connection between the “Source Domain” (BODY) and “Target Domain” (MIND) of the body parts mentioned above. We also try to facilitate learn-ing by pictures which present lexical structure of the idioms. This study aims to investigate the effect on idioms learning and retention by using these two mnemonic devices. 40 CSL learners participated in our study and were divided into four groups: control group, pictures group, metaphor group and all-in-one group. The results showed that: (1) The metaphor and all-in-one groups who learn idioms through “meanings extension map”, performed signifi-cantly better than other two groups in the overall meaning task (VKS and cloze test) of the delayed posttest. (2) There is no significant difference between four groups in the form task. (3) After learning the “meanings extension map”, the metaphor and all-in-one groups are able to transfer the cognitive awareness from the map to the meaning of three unexposed idioms (“méiyǎnjīng”, “huàntóunǎo”, “lāxiàliǎn”). (4) If the participants are divided into “meaning giving group” and “meaning extention map group”, we found that the latter pre-formed significantly better in the overall meaning task of the posttest and delayed posttest. Overall, the results above indicated that increasing metaphor awareness is effective facilita-tion for Chinese idioms meaning learning and retention.

一、中文文獻
王彥坤（2005）。現化漢語三音詞詞典。北京：語文出版社。
王寅、李弘（2004）。語言能力、交際能力、隱喻能力“三合一＂教學觀——當代隱喻認知理論在外語教學中的應用。四川外語學院學報，20（6），140-143。
文秋芳等著（2013）。認知語言學與二語教學。北京：外語教學與研究出版社。
安可思（2009）。概念隱喻。載於蘇以文、畢永峨（編著）。語言與認知（頁55-81）。
台北市：臺大學出版中心。
李行健（2002）。慣用語的研究和規範問題。語言文字應用，1，55-60。
束定芳（2000）。隱喻學研究。上海：上海外語教育出版社。
宋美盈、王惠玲（2010）。從認知角度看漢英動物人體詞隱喻的共性與文化特性。西北工業大學學報（社會科學版），30（3），81-83。
吳為善（2011）。認知語言學與漢語研究。上海：復旦大學出版社。
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。
呂冀平、戴昭銘、張家驊（1987）。慣用語的劃界和釋義問題。中國語文，6，468-477。
宗世海、劉曉露（2006）。漢語三字習語的隱喻分析——兼評《現代漢語三音詞詞典》。湖北社會科學，6，107-109。
周世箴（譯注）（2013）。我們賴以生存的隱喻。台北市：聯經。
周健、陳萍（2005）。「眼」的隱喻說略。修辭學習，2，66-67。
馬國凡、高歌東（1982）。慣用語。內蒙古：內蒙古人民出版社。
陳雅芳（2015）。中高級俗諺語教材設計及教學研究。台北市：國立臺灣師範大學博士論文（未出版）。
曹逢甫、蔡立中、劉秀瑩（2001）。身體與譬喻——語言與認知的首要介面。台北市：文鶴出版有限公司。
程東岳（2007）。「臉」的隱喻與轉喻——基於「臉」的漢英語料對比研究。華東交通大學學報，24（3），151-153。
黃舒榆（2011）。台灣俗諺語身體隱喻與轉喻研究——以陳主顯《台灣俗諺語典》為例。國立成功大學台灣文學系碩士在職專班論文。
溫端政（主編）（1989）。中國俗語大辭典。上海：上海辭書出版社。
溫端政（主編）（2007）。新華慣用語詞典。北京：商務印書館。
溫端政（主編）（2011）。中國慣用語大辭典（辭海版）。上海：上海辭書出版社。
蔡龍權（2005）。關於把隱喻性表達作為外語交際能力的思考。外語與外語教學，6，21-25。
錢理（2005）現代漢語慣用語研究。江蘇：蘇州大學博士論文，未出版。
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。
蘇以文（2005）。隱喻與認知。台北市：臺大出版中心。

二、英文文獻
Bachman, L. F. (1990). Fundamental Considerations in Language Testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Barcelona, A. (2000). On the plausibility of claiming a metonymic motivation for conceptual metaphor. In A.Barceloca (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads: A cognitive perspective (pp. 31-58). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
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. (2004). Expanding learners’ vocabulary through metaphor awareness: What expansion, 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. (2011). Cognitive Semantic ways of teaching figurative phrases: an assessment. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 9(1), 227-261.
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., Eyckmans, J. & Stengers, H. (2006). Means of motivating multiword units: rationale, 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.
Celce-Murcia, M. & Larsen-Freeman, D. (1999). The grammar book: An ESL/EFL teacher’s course (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.
Childers, T.L., Houston, M.J. & Heckler, S.E. (1985). Measurement of individual differences in visual versus verbal information processing. Journal of Consumer Research, 12, 125-134.
Danesi, M. (1992). Metaphorical competence in second language acquisition and second language teaching: The neglected dimension. In J.E. Alatis (Eds), Georgetown University round table on languages and linguistics (pp. 125-136). Washington D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
Evans, V., & Green, M. (2006). Cognitive linguistics: An introduction. Mahwah/ NJ/ US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Farley, A.P., Ramonda, K. & Liu, X. (2012). The concreteness effect and the bilingual lexi-con: The impact of visual stimuli attachment on meaning recall of abstract L2 word. Language Teaching Research, 16(4), 449-466.
Fass. (1997). Processing metonymy and metaphor. London: Alex Publishing Corporation.
Forceville, C. (2016). Pictorial and Multimodal metaphor. In: N.M. Klug & H. Stöckl (Eds), Handbuch Sprache im multimodalen Kontext [The Language in Multimodal Contexts Handbook](pp. 241-260). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter
Goossens, L. (1995). Metaphtonymy: the interation of metaphor and metonymy in figurative expressions for linguistic action. In L. Goossens, P. Pauwels, B. Rudzka-Ostyn, A.-M. Simon- Vanderbergen & J. Vanparys (Eds.), By Word of Mouth: Metaphor, Metonymy and Linguistic Action in a Cognitive Perspective (pp. 159-174). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Littlemore, J. & Low, G. (2006). Metaphoric competence, second language learning, and communicative language ability. Applied Linguistics, 27(2), 268-294.
Paivio, A. (1971). Imagery and verbal processes. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
Shen, H.H. (2010). Imagery and verbal coding approaches in Chinese vocabulary instruction. Language Teaching Research, 14(4), 485-499.
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.
Sweetser, E. (1990). From etymology to pragmatics: Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure. UK: Cambridge University Press.
Szczepaniak, R. & Lew, R. (2011). The role of imagery in dictionaries of idioms. Appiled Linguistics, 32(3), 323-347.
Ungerer, F. & Schmid, H.J. (1996). An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics. London: Addison Wesley Longman Limited.
Vasiljevic, Z. (2011). Using conceptual metaphors and L1 definitions in teaching idioms to non-native speakers. The Journal of Asia TEFL, 8(3), 135-160.
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.
Zyzik, E. (2011). Second language idiom learning: The effect of lexical knowledge and pedagogical sequencing. Language Teaching Research, 15(4), 413-433.

三、網路資料
國家華語測驗推動工作委員會。2019年6月1日，取自https://www.sc-
top.org.tw/chinese/LS/test5.php