Achard, M. &; Niemeier, S. (2004). Cognitive linguistics, second language acquisition, and foreign language teaching. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Allwood, J. (2003). Meaning potentials and context: Some consequences for the analysis of variation in meaning. In H. Cuyckens, R. Dirven &; J. R. Taylor (Eds.), Cognitive approaches to lexical semantics (pp. 29-66). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Barcelona, A. (2002). Clarifying and applying the notions of metaphor and metonymy within cognitive linguistics: An update. In R. Dirven &; R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp. 207-278). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Blank, A. (2003). Polysemy in the lexicon and in discourse. In B. Nerlich, A. Todd, V. Herman &; D. D. Clarke (Eds.), Polysemy: Flexible patterns of meaning in mind and language (pp. 267-296). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
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: Walter de Gruyter.
Boers, F., Demecheleer, M., &; Eyckmans, J. (2004). Eymological laboration as a strategy for learning idioms. In P. Bogaards and B. Laufer (Eds.), Vocabualry in a second language: Selection, acquisition, and testing (pp. 53-78). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Boers, F. &; Lindstromberg, S. (2006).Cognitive linguistic applications in second or foreign language instruction: rationale, proposals, and evaluation. In G. Kristiansen, M. Achard, R. Dirven, &; F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics: current applications and future perspectives (pp. 305-358). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Boers, F., De Rycker, A., &; De Knop, S. (2010). Fostering language teaching efficiency through cognitive linguistics: Introduction. In S. De Knop, F. Boers, &; A. De Rycker, (Eds), Fostering language teaching efficiency through cognitive linguistics (pp. 1-26). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Bogaards, P. &; Laufer B. (2004.), Vocabualry in a second language: Selection, acquisition, and testing. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Cadierno, T. (2004). Expressing motion events in a second language: a cognitive typological perspective. In M. Achard and S. Niemeier (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics, second language acquisition, and foreign language teaching (pp. 13-50). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Cadierno, T. &; Lund, K. (2004). Cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition: Motion events in a typological framework. In B. Van Patten, J. Williams, S. Rott, &; M. Overstreet (Eds.), Form-meaning connections in second language acquisition (pp. 139-154). NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Celce-Murcia, M. &; Larsen-Freeman, D. (1999). The grammar book: An ESL/EFL teacher’s course. Boston: Heinle &; Heinle.
Chacón-Beltrán, R., Abello-Contesse, C., &; Torreblanca-Lopez, M. del M. (2010). Insights into non-native vocabulary teaching and learning. UK: Multilingual Matters.
Chang, T.-h. (2003). An analysis of the use of modal verbs in senior high school students’ English compositions (Master’s thesis). Retrieved from http://nccuir.lib.nccu.edu.tw/bitstream/
Chaudron, C. (1985). A method for examining the input/intake distinction. In S. Gass &; Sl Selinker (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 285-300 ). Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.
Chen, L. &; Guo, J. (2009). Motion events in Chinese novels: Evidence for an
equipollently-framed language. Journal of Pragmatics, 41, pp. 1749–1766. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2008.10.015
Chen, M-h &; Chang, J-h (2010). The meaning extension of Xiang and its polysemy network. Taiwan Journal of Linguistics, 8(2), pp. 1-32.
Chepyshko, R. (2009). Semantic category effects in L2 vocabulary learning a
MOGUL perspective. An Unpublished Master’s Thesis. Ching Hwa Univesity, Taiwan.
Croft, W. (2002). The role of domains in the interpretation of metaphors and metonymies. In R. Dirven &; R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp. 161-206). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Chomsky, N. (1995). The minimalist program. MA: MIT Press.
Crossley, S., Salsbury, T. &; McNamara, D. (2010). The development of polysemy and frequeny use in English second language speakers. Language Learning, 60(3), p. 573-605).
Csábi, S. (2004). A cognitive linguistic view of polysemy in English and its implications for teaching. In M. Achard and S. Niemeier (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics, second language acquisition, and foreign language teaching (pp. 13-50). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Cuyckens H., Dirven R., &; Taylor, J. R. (2003). Cognitive approaches to lexical semantics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Cuyckens H., Sandra, D., &; Rice, S. (2007). Toward an empirical lexical semantics. In V. Evans, B. K. Bergen, &; J. Zinken (Eds.), The cognitive linguistics reader (pp. 57-74). London/Oakville: Equinoz.
De Knop, S., Boers, F., &; De Rycker, A. (2010). Fostering language teaching efficiency through cognitive linguistics. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
De Knop, S., &; Dirven, R. (2008). Motion and location events in German, French and English: A typological, contrastive and pedagogical approach. In S. De Knop &; T. De Rycker (Eds.), Cognitive approach to pedagogical grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Dirven R. (1985). Metaphor as a basic means for extending the lexicon. In D. Paprotte and R. Dirven (Eds.), The ubiquity of metaphor (pp. 85-119). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Dirven, R. (2002). Metonymy and metaphor: Different mental strategies of conceptualization. In R. Dirven &; R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp. 75-112). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Dirven, R. &; Pörings R. (2002). Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Doroodi, S. &; Hashemian, M (2011). The relationship between reading comprehension and figurative competence in L2 learners. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 1(6), 711-717.
Evans, V., Bergen, B. K., &; Zinken, J. (2007.). The cognitive linstuistics reader. London/Oakville: Equinoz.
Evans, V. &; Green, M. (2006). Cognitive linguistics: An introduction. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Fillmore, C. J. (1975). An alternative to checklist theories of meaning. In C. Cosen (Ed.), Proceeding of first annual meeting of the Berkley Linguistic Society (pp. 123-131). Berkley, CA.
Fillmore, C. J. (1976). Frame semantics and the nature of language. In Annual of the New York Academy of Sciences: Conference on the Origin and Development of Language and Speech (Vol. 280, pp. 20-32)
Fillmore, C. J. (1977a). Scenes-and-frames semantics. In A. Zampolli (Ed.), Linguistics Structures Processing: Fundamental Studies in Computer Science, No. 59 (pp. 55-81). Amsterdam: North Holland Publishing.
Fillmore, C. J. (1977b). Topics in lexical semantics. In R. Cole (Ed.), Current issues in linguistic theory (pp. 76-138). Blooming: Indiana University Press.
Fillmore, C. J. (1982). Frame semantics. In L. S. O. Korea (Ed.), Linguistics in the morning calm (pp. 111-137). Soul, Korea: Hanshin.
Fillmore, C.J. (1985). Frame and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Semantica, 6(2), 222-254.
Fillmore, C. J. &; Atkins, B. T. S. (2002). Describing polysemy: The case of ‘Crawl’. In Y. Ravin, Y. Ravin and C. Leacock (Eds.), Polysemy: Theoretical and computational approaches (pp. 91-110). NY: Oxford University Press.
Fordyce, K. (2010, September). The relationship between L2 proficiency and the use of epistemic stance in speaking and writing: A cross-sectional corpus-based study on Japanese EFL learners. Paper presented at the British Association for Applied Linguistics Annual Conference, Aberdeen, UK.
Gass, S. (1988). Integrating research areas: A framework for second language studies. Applied Linguistics, 9, 198-217.
Gawron, J.M. (2008). Frame semantics. Retrieved from www.hf.uib.no/forskerskole/new_frame_intro.pdf
Gibbs, R. W. (1999). Researching metaphor. In L. Cameron &; G. Low (Eds.), Researching and applying metaphor (pp. 29-47). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Goddard, C. (2002). Polysemy: A problem of definition. In Y. Ravin, &;. Ravin and C. Leacock (Eds.), Polysemy: Theoretical and computational approaches (pp. 129-151). NY: Oxford University Press.
Hsieh, C.-C. &; Hsu, H.-F. (2011). Discrete and complete inputs on phrasal verbs learning. Proceedings of the 43rd Annual Meeting of the British Association for Applied Linguistics, UK, 151-162.
Hu, Y.-H. &; Fong Y.-Y. (2010). Obstacles to CM-guided L2 idiom interpretation. In S. De Knop, F. Boers, &; A. De Rycker, (Eds), Fostering language teaching efficiency through cognitive linguistics (pp. 293-316). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Hu, Y.-H. &; Ho, Y.-C. (2009). Prepositions we live by: Implications of the polysemy network in teaching English prepositions in and on. In B. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk &; K. Dziwirek (Eds.), Studies in cognitive corpus linguistics (pp. 336-370). Peter Lang.
Hu, Y.-H. &; Kang, Y.-C. (2008 Oct). Bring and take: That’s the question in teaching deictic shifts in FL classroom. Paper presented at Second Language Research Forum, Honolulu, HI.
Johnson, M. (1987). The body in the mind. US: The University of Chicago Press.
Katz, J. J. (1972). Semantic theory. NY: Harper &; Row.
Kövecses, Z., Palmer, G. B., &; Dirven R. (2002). Language and emotion: The interplay of conceptualization with physiology and culture. In R. Dirven &; R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp. 133-160). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Kristiansen, G., Achard, M., Dirven, R., &; Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J. (2006), Cognitive linguistics: Current applications and future perspectives. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Lakoff, G. &; Johnson M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago.
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things. What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago, London: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G., &; Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and Its Challenge to Western Thought. New York: Basic Books.
Lakoff, G. (2007). The contemporary theory of metaphor. In V. Evans, B. K. Bergen, &; J. Zinken (Eds.), The cognitive linguistics reader (pp. 267-315). London/Oakville: Equinoz.
Lambert-Brétière, R. (2009). Serializing languages as satellite-framed: The case of Fon. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 7, 1–29. doi : 10.1075/arcl.7.01lam
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. I: Theoretical
prerequisites. Ca: Stanford University Press.
Laufer, B. (1997). What’s in a word that makes it hard or easy: some intralexical
factors that affect the learning of words. In N. Schmitt &; M. McCarthy (Eds.),
Vocabulary: Description, acquisition and pedagogy (pp. 140-155). UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Lee, D. (2001). Cognitive linguistics: An introduction. NY: Oxford University Press.
Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, B. &; Dziwirek, K. (2009). Studies in cognitive corpus
linguistics. Peter Lang.
Lien, C. (2000). A frame-based account of lexical polysemy in Taiwanese. Language
and linguistics, 1(1), 119-138.
Lindstronmberg, S. &; Boers, F. (2005). From movement to metaphor with
manner-or-movement verbs. Applied linguistics, 26(2), 241-261. doi:
10.1093/applin/ami002
Littlemore, J. &; Low, G. (2006a). Figurative thinking and foreign language learning.
NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Littlemore, J. &; Low, G. (2006b). Metaphoric competence, second language learning,
and communicative language ability. Applied Linguistics, 27(2), 268-294. doi:
10.1093/applin/am1004
Luchjenbroers, J. (2006). Cognitive linguistics investigation: Across languages, fields,
and philosophical boundaries. Amsterdam/Phildelphia: John Benjamins.
Matlock, T. (2004). The conceptual motivation of fictive motion. In G. Radden &;
K.-U. Panther (Eds.) Studies in linguistic motivations (pp. 221-248). Berlin/NY:
Mouton de Gruyter.
Matlock, T. (2006). Depicting fictive motion in drawings. In J. Luchjenbroers (Ed.).
Cognitive linguistics investigation: Across languages, fields, and philosophical
boundaries (pp. 67-86). Amsterdam/Phildelphia: John Benjamins.
231
Matsumoto, Y. (1996). Subjective motion in English and Japanese verbs. Cognitive
Linguistics, 7(2), p. 183-226.
Morimoto, S. &; Loewen, S. (2007). A comparison of the effects of
image-schema-based instruction and translation-based instruction on the
acquisition of L2 polysemous words. Language Teaching Research, 11(3),
347-372.
Nerlich, B. (2003). Polysemy: Past and present. In B. Nerlich, Z. Todd, V. Herman, &;
D. D. Clarke (Eds.), Polysemy: Flexible patterns of meaning in mind and
language (pp. 3-30). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Nerlich, B., Todd, A., Herman, V., &; Clarke D. D. (2003). Polysemy: Flexible
patterns of meaning in mind and language. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Niemeier, S. &; Dirven, R. (2000). Evidence for linguistic relativity. Amsterdam/PA:
John Benjamins.
Patten, B. V., Williams J., Rott S., &; Overstreet M. (2004). Form-meaning
connections in second language acquisition. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Radden, G. &; Dirven, R. (2007). Cognitive English grammar. Amsterdam/Phildelphia:
John Benjamin.
Raukko, J. (2003). Polysemy as flexible meaning: Experiments with English get and
Fininish pita. In B. Nerlich, Z. Todd, V. Herman &; D. D. Clarke (Eds.), Polysemy:
Flexible patterns of meaning in mind and language (pp. 161-193). Berlin: Mouton
de Gruyter.
Ravin, Y. &; Leacock, C. (2002). Polysemy: An Overview. In Y. Ravin, Y. Ravin and C.
Leacock (Eds.), Polysemy: Theoretical and computational approaches (pp. 1-29).
NY: Oxford University Press.
Rice, S. (2003). Growth of a lexical network: Nine English prepositions in acquisition.
In H. Cuyckens, R. Dirven &; J. R. Taylor (Eds.), Cognitive approaches to lexical
semantics (pp. 243-280). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Richards J. C. &; Schmidt R. (2002). Longman dictionary of language teaching &;
applied linguistics (3rd ed.). UK: Pearson Education Limited.
Rojo, A. &; Valenzuela, J. (2003). Fictive motion in English and Spanish. IJES, 3(2),
125-151.
Sandra, D. &; Rice, S. (1995). Network analyses of prepositional meaning: Mirroring
whose mind—the linguist’s or the language user’s? Cognitive Linguistics, 6(1),
89-130
Schmidt, N. (1998). Tracking the incremental acquisition of a second language
vocabulary: A longitudinal study. Language Learning, 48(2), 281-317.
Schmidt, N. (2000). Vocabulary in language teaching. UK: Cambridge University
Press.
232
Schmidt, N. (2010). Key issues in teaching and learning vocabulary. In R.
Chacón-Beltrán, C. Abello-Contesse, &; M. del M. Torreblanca-Lopez (Eds.),
Insights into non-native vocabulary teaching and learning (pp. 28-40). UK:
Multilingual Matters
Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.). Cognition and second language
instruction (pp. 3-32). UK: Cambridge University Press.
Shibatani, M. &; Thompson, S. A. (1996). Grammatical constructions. US: Oxford
University Press.
Shie, J.-S. (2003). Metaphorized motion in English. Taiwan Journal of Linguistics,
1(2), 95-120.
Slobin, D. I. (1996). Two ways to travel: Verbs of motion in English and Spanish. In
M. Shibatani &; S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Grammatical constructions (pp. 195-220).
US: Oxford University Press.
Slobin D. I. (1997a), The crosslinguistic study of language acquisition. NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Slobin, D. I. (1997b). The universal, the typological, and the particular in acquisition.
In D. I. Slobin (Ed.), The crosslinguistic study of language acquisition (pp. 1-40).
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Slobin, D. I. (2000). Verbalized events: A dynamic approach to linguistic relativity
and determinism. In S. Niemeier &; R. Dirven (Eds.), Evidence for linguistic
relativity (pp. 107-138). Amsterdam/PA: John Benjamins.
Slobin, D. I. (2006). What makes manner of motion salient? Explorations in linguistic
typology, discourse, and cognition. In M. Hickmann &; S. Robert (Eds.), Space in
languages: Linguistics system and cognitive categories (pp. 59-82).
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Sweetser E. (1990). From etymology to pragmatics: Metaphorical and cultural
aspects of semantics structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sweetser E. (1991). From etymology to pragmatics: Metaphorical and cultural
aspects of semantics structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a cognitive semantics (Vols. 1-2). US: Massachusetts
Institute of Technology.
Taylor, J. R. (2002). Category extension by metonymy and metaphor. In R. Dirven
and R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp.
328-348). Berlin; New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Taylor, J. R. (2003). Cognitive models of polysemy. In B. Nerlich, A. Todd, V.
Herman &; D. D. Clarke (Eds.), Polysemy: Flexible patterns of meaning in mind
and language (pp. 31-48). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Taylor, J. R. (20006). Polysemy and the lexicon. In G. Kristiansen, M. Achard, R.
233
Dirven, &; F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics: Current
applications and future perspectives. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Taylor, J. R. (2008). Prototypes in cognitive linguistics. In P. Robinson &; N. C. Ellis
(Eds.), Handbook of cognitive lingutistics and second language acquisition (pp.
39-65). NY: Routledge.
Taylor, J., Cuycken, H. &; Dirven, R. (2003). New directions in cognitive lexical
semantic research. In H. Cuyckens, R. Dirven, &; J. R. Talor (Eds.), Cognitive
approaches to lexical semantics (pp. 1-28). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Terence Langendoen, D. (1998). Bloomfield. In R. A. Wilson &; F. C. Keil (Eds.),
The MIT Encyclopedia of Cognitive
Science (pp. 90-91). MA: MIT Press. Retrieved from
http://dingo.sbs.arizona.edu/~langendoen/Bloomfield.pdf
Tuggy, D. (2003). The Nawatl verb kîsa: A case study in polysemy. In H. Cuyckens, R.
Dirven &; J. R. Taylor (Eds.), Cognitive approaches to lexical semantics (pp.
323-362). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Tyler, A. &; Evans, V. (2003). Reconsidering prepositional polysemy networks: the
case of over. In B. Nerlich, A. Todd, V. Herman &; D. D. Clarke (Eds.), Polysemy:
Flexible patterns of meaning in mind and language (pp.95-159). Berlin: Mouton
de Gruyter.
Tyler, A. &; Evans, V. (2004). Applying cognitive linguistics to pedagogical grammar:
The case of over. In M. Achard and S. Niemeier (Eds.), Cogntive linguistics,
second language acquisition, and foreign language teaching (pp. 257-280). Berlin:
Mouton de Gruyter.
Tyler, A. &; Evans, V. (2007). Reconsidering prepositional polysemy networks: the
case of over. In V. Evans, B. K. Bergen, and J. Zinken (Eds.), The cognitive
linguistics reader (pp. 186-237). London/Oakville: Equinoz.
Tyler, A. (2008). Cognitive linguistics and second language instruction. In P.
Robinson &; N. C. Ellis (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second
language acquisition (pp. 456-488). N.Y. &; London: Routledge.
Ungerer, F. &; Schmidt, H.-J. (2006). An introduction to cognitive linguistics, 2nd Ed.,
UK: Pearson.
Verspoor, M. &; Lowie, W. (2003). Making sense of polysemous words. Language
Learning, 53(3), 547-586.
Dictionairies
Cambridge Learner’s Dictionary (2001). UK: Cambridge University Press.
Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary (2005). UK: Cambridge University Press.
Collins Cobuild English-Chinese Language Dictionary (2000). Taipei: Tung Hwa.
Longman Advanced American Dictionary (2000). Essex: Pearson.
234
Macmillan English Dictionary for Advanced Learners of American English (2002).
London: Macmillan Publishers.
Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English AS Hornby (2005). 7th
Edition. UK: Oxford University Press.
Corpus
BNC (British National Corpus) http://www.natcorp.ox.ac.uk/
IWiLL (Intelligent Web-based Interactive Language Learning)
http://www.iwillnow.org/iwill/default.aspx