|Abstract: ||許多研究發現，教導特定英語片語下的概念隱喻和借喻能幫助學生正確的理解並解釋這些片語(例如:Boers, 2000; Berendi, Csabi & Kovecses, 2008; Hu & Fong, 2010)。這種教授第二外語字彙的方式就是廣為人知的認知方法。這種方法也被運用到一些研究裡；這些研究顯示，清楚地指出第二外語組塊(L2 chunks)下的語意跟音韻動因，例如；類象次序(iconic ordering)跟音韻重複(phonological repetition)，學習者對這些詞彙的記憶會有相當程度的加深(例如: Boers & Lindstromberg, 2008; Lindstromberg & Boers, 2008a, 2008b)。|
Numerous empirical studies have shown that raising the awareness of conceptual metaphors and metonymies (CMs) underlying particular idioms in English is indeed helpful for learners to understand and interpret them correctly (e.g., Boers, 2000; Berendi, Csabi & Kovecses, 2008; Hu & Fong, 2010). Such an approach in instructing L2/FL vocabulary has come to be known as a “cognitive approach.” It was also applied to some empirical studies that show when explicitly raising the awareness of the semantic or phonological motivations such as iconic ordering and phonological repetition underlying L2 chunks, learner’s retention to them could be considerably enhanced (e.g., Boers & Lindstromberg, 2008; Lindstromberg & Boers, 2008a, 2008b).
This study is to investigate the efficacy of two cognitive approaches, one with CMs, while the other with CMs and clues of semantic and phonological motivations on adult Mandarin speakers learning English binomials in a foreign language environment. For this investigation, this study was divided into two stages: the pilot and the main study. Both studies recruited subjects for a Control Group (CG), Experimental Group A (EGA), and Experimental Group B (EGB). CG adopted a non-cognitive approach, receiving the translation and Chinese equivalents of the target English binomial chunks, and EGA adopted a cognitive approach, incorporating the conceptual metaphors and metonymies of the target chunks, while EGB also employed a cognitive approach involving a treatment of the CMs and semantic and phonological clues underlying the binomials.
Results from both studies suggest that, from mean scores alone, CM approach seemed to be better in both pilot and main study for immediate recall, while results of long-term retention in the pilot study show that approach with semantic and phonological clues had an edge over the other two. However, this edge could not be replicated in the main study. To conclude, it seems that both cognitive and non-cognitive approaches benefited the recruited subjects in learning English binomials. Statistical results yielded from the experiments show that it is far from conclusive to suggest which approach is superior. It is suspected that there could be other confounding factors interacting with these approaches. After examining the best learned and worst learned English chunks, the factors could be familiarity, transparency of the chunks and the frequency of the words that constitute the chunks. It appears that retention of highly familiar and transparent chunks do not necessarily benefit from the approach employed in the EGB in this study. Further research is required to investigate these factors in establishing the efficacy of any cognitive approach.