Application of Conceptual Metaphor Theory in College English Vocabulary Teaching

ERCT Criteria Breakdown

• Level 1 Criteria

  • C

    Class-level RCT

    • Randomisation was done at the individual student level within a single cohort of English majors, not at class or school level, and the intervention was classroom teaching, not one-to-one tutoring, so no exception applies.
    • "实验参与者为西南大学的 46 名大学生，随机分为对照组(22 人)和 实验组(24 人)。" (p. 518)
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "为证实这一假设，笔者做过一个实验。实验参与者为西南大学的 46 名大学生，随机分为对照组(22 人)和实验组(24 人)。" [To verify this hypothesis, the author conducted an experiment. Participants were 46 university students at Southwest University, randomly divided into a control group (22) and an experimental group (24).] (p. 518) 2) "两组学生均为英语专业大二学生，英语水平相当。" [Both groups were second-year English majors with comparable English proficiency.] (p. 518) 3) "对照组通过传统的词汇教学方法学习，而实验组则采用认知语言 学方法，强调多义词的隐喻动机。" [The control group learned through traditional vocabulary teaching methods, while the experimental group used a cognitive linguistics approach emphasising the metaphorical motivation of polysemous words.] (p. 518) Detailed Analysis: The paper reports a small embedded experiment in which 46 individual students were "randomly divided" into two groups. The unit of randomisation is clearly the individual student, not intact classes or schools. The ERCT C criterion requires randomisation of entire classes (or schools) to prevent contamination between treatment and control students who share the same environment; here all participants were sophomore English majors at the same university, so contamination between the individually randomised groups is plausible. The intervention is group classroom instruction in vocabulary, not personal one-to-one tutoring, so the tutoring exception that would permit student-level randomisation does not apply. No quote anywhere in the paper indicates class- or school-level assignment. Quotes checked against the PDF and confirmed verbatim. Criterion C is not met because randomisation was at the individual student level within one cohort without a valid tutoring exception.
  • E

    Exam-based Assessment

    • Outcomes were measured with a researcher-made 22-item test on the words "join" and "connect", not with any recognised standardised exam.
    • "实验材料为包含 22 个与"join"和"connect"相关的测试项目， 涵盖多义词、短语动词和习语。" (p. 518)
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "实验材料为包含 22 个与"join"和"connect"相关的测试 项目，涵盖多义词、短语动词和习语。" [The experimental materials comprised 22 test items related to "join" and "connect", covering polysemous words, phrasal verbs and idioms.] (p. 518) 2) "最后，进行 3 天和 14 天的跟踪测试，以评估学习效果。" [Finally, follow-up tests at 3 days and 14 days were conducted to evaluate learning effects.] (p. 518) 3) "实验结果采用 SPSS 软件对测试结果进行统计分析如表 1 所示。" [Test results were statistically analysed with SPSS, as shown in Table 1.] (p. 518) Detailed Analysis: The ERCT E criterion requires that outcomes be measured with a widely recognised standardised exam rather than an instrument created specifically for the study. The only outcome measure here is a bespoke set of 22 test items about two target words ("join" and "connect") assembled by the author for this experiment. No national or institutional standardised English examination (e.g., CET-4/CET-6, TEM) is mentioned as an outcome measure anywhere in the paper. A custom instrument narrowly aligned with the taught content is exactly the biased design the criterion is intended to exclude. Quotes checked against the PDF and confirmed verbatim. Criterion E is not met because the assessment was a custom researcher-designed test, not a standardised exam.
  • T

    Term Duration

    • Outcomes were measured only 3 and 14 days after the brief instruction, far short of the one-term (roughly 3-4 month) follow-up the criterion requires.
    • "最后，进行 3 天和 14 天的跟踪测试，以评估学习效果。" (p. 518)
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "实验分为三个阶段：首先，向实验组介绍"join"和"connect" 的原型意义及其隐喻扩展；其次，通过例句和示意图讲解目标短语动 词；最后，进行 3 天和 14 天的跟踪测试，以评估学习效果。" [The experiment had three stages: first, introducing the prototype meanings of "join" and "connect" and their metaphorical extensions to the experimental group; second, explaining the target phrasal verbs through example sentences and diagrams; finally, conducting 3-day and 14-day follow-up tests to assess learning effects.] (p. 518) 2) "14 天后的测试结果进一步证实了实验组的长期记忆效果优于对照 组。" [The 14-day delayed test results further confirmed that the experimental group's long-term retention was better than the control group's.] (p. 518) Detailed Analysis: The ERCT T criterion requires at least one full academic term (approximately 3-4 months) between the start of the intervention and the outcome measurement. Here the entire study, from instruction to the final delayed post-test, spanned only about two weeks: the delayed tests were administered 3 and 14 days after teaching. The paper itself labels 14 days as "long-term", but this falls drastically short of a term. No longer follow-up is reported. Quotes checked against the PDF and confirmed verbatim. Criterion T is not met because the longest follow-up interval was 14 days, far less than one academic term.
  • D

    Documented Control Group

    • The control group is described only by size, major and an unsupported claim of comparable proficiency, with no demographic detail or baseline performance data reported.
    • "两组学生均为英语专业大二学生，英语水平相当。" (p. 518)
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "实验参与者为西南大学的 46 名大学生，随机分为对照组(22 人) 和实验组(24 人)。两组学生均为英语专业大二学生，英语水平相当。" [Participants were 46 university students at Southwest University, randomly divided into a control group (22) and an experimental group (24). Both groups were second-year English majors with comparable English proficiency.] (p. 518) 2) "对照组通过传统的词汇教学方法学习，而实验组则采用认知语言 学方法，强调多义词的隐喻动机。" [The control group learned through traditional vocabulary teaching methods, while the experimental group used a cognitive linguistics approach.] (p. 518) 3) "Table 1 ... Ctrl 22 7.091 2.448 0.522" (p. 518) Detailed Analysis: The ERCT D criterion requires detailed documentation of the control group: demographics, baseline performance, and the conditions it experienced. The paper states only the control group's size (22), that its members were sophomore English majors, that their English level was "comparable", and that they were taught by traditional methods. No demographic information (age, gender, background) is given, and crucially no pre-test or other baseline performance data are reported; the claim of comparable proficiency ("英语水平相当") is a bare assertion with no supporting measurement. The only quantitative data for the control group are post-test scores (Table 1), which cannot establish baseline comparability. This falls short of the documented control group the criterion demands. Quotes checked against the PDF and confirmed verbatim. Criterion D is not met because the control group is only minimally described, with no demographic or baseline performance data.

• Level 2 Criteria

  • S

    School-level RCT

    • The experiment randomised 46 individual students within a single university; no schools or institutional units were randomised.
    • "实验参与者为西南大学的 46 名大学生，随机分为对照组(22 人)和 实验组(24 人)。" (p. 518)
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "实验参与者为西南大学的 46 名大学生，随机分为对照组(22 人) 和实验组(24 人)。" [Participants were 46 university students at Southwest University, randomly divided into control (22) and experimental (24) groups.] (p. 518) Detailed Analysis: The ERCT S criterion requires randomisation among schools or equivalent institutional units. This study involved a single institution (Southwest University) and randomised individual students within one cohort. There is no mention of multiple schools, sites or institutional units, let alone their random assignment. Quote checked against the PDF and confirmed verbatim. Criterion S is not met because randomisation occurred at the student level within one university, not among schools.
  • I

    Independent Conduct

    • The sole author designed the metaphor-based teaching approach, conducted the experiment herself, and analysed the results, with no independent evaluator or third-party oversight mentioned.
    • "为证实这一假设，笔者做过一个实验。" (p. 518)
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "笔者认为对多义词背后隐喻动机的明确指导将比传统词汇教学方 法更能提升学习者理解和记忆词义的能力" [The author believes that explicit instruction on the metaphorical motivation behind polysemous words will improve learners' comprehension and retention more than traditional vocabulary teaching.] (p. 518) 2) "为证实这一假设，笔者做过一个实验。" [To verify this hypothesis, the author conducted an experiment.] (p. 518) 3) "基金项目 中央高校基本科研业务费专项资金资助：概念隐喻理论 在大学英语词汇教学策略中的应用(SWU1909417)。" [Funding: Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities: Application of conceptual metaphor theory in college English vocabulary teaching strategies (SWU1909417).] (p. 519) Detailed Analysis: The ERCT I criterion requires that the study be conducted independently of the intervention's designers, or at least with documented third-party oversight of data collection and analysis. Here the paper is single-authored, and the author explicitly states that she formulated the hypothesis and "conducted an experiment" herself to confirm it. There is no mention of external evaluators, independent test administrators, blinding, or any separation between intervention design and outcome measurement. The funding note confirms the project belongs to the author's own institution. Quotes checked against the PDF and confirmed verbatim. Criterion I is not met because the same single author designed, delivered and evaluated the intervention with no independent oversight.
  • Y

    Year Duration

    • The study spanned only about two weeks from instruction to the final 14-day delayed test, nowhere near 75% of an academic year; T is not met, so Y cannot be met.
    • "最后，进行 3 天和 14 天的跟踪测试，以评估学习效果。" (p. 518)
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "最后，进行 3 天和 14 天的跟踪测试，以评估学习效果。" [Finally, follow-up tests at 3 days and 14 days were conducted to evaluate learning effects.] (p. 518) 2) "14 天后的测试结果进一步证实了实验组的长期记忆效果优于对照 组。" [The 14-day test results further confirmed the experimental group's superior long-term retention.] (p. 518) Detailed Analysis: The ERCT Y criterion requires outcome tracking covering at least 75% of a full academic year (roughly 9-10 months) from intervention start. The entire experiment, including its longest follow-up, lasted approximately two weeks. Since even the weaker one-term criterion (T) is not met, the year-duration criterion necessarily fails as well, per the dependency rule (Y requires T). Quotes checked against the PDF and confirmed verbatim. Criterion Y is not met because tracking lasted only about 14 days rather than most of an academic year.
  • B

    Balanced Control Group

    • Both groups received instruction on the same 22 target items, with the contrast being teaching method (cognitive-linguistic vs traditional) rather than any extra time, materials or budget given only to the intervention group.
    • "对照组通过传统的词汇教学方法学习，而实验组则采用认知语言学方 法，强调多义词的隐喻动机。" (p. 518)
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "实验材料为包含 22 个与"join"和"connect"相关的测试 项目，涵盖多义词、短语动词和习语。对照组通过传统的词汇教学方 法学习，而实验组则采用认知语言学方法，强调多义词的隐喻动机。" [The materials comprised 22 items related to "join" and "connect". The control group learned via traditional vocabulary teaching methods, while the experimental group used a cognitive linguistics approach emphasising metaphorical motivation.] (p. 518) 2) "实验分为三个阶段：首先，向实验组介绍"join"和 "connect"的原型意义及其隐喻扩展；其次，通过例句和示意图讲 解目标短语动词；最后，进行 3 天和 14 天的跟踪测试。" [Three stages: introducing prototype meanings and metaphorical extensions to the experimental group; explaining target phrasal verbs via examples and diagrams; then 3- and 14-day follow-up tests.] (p. 518) Detailed Analysis: Criterion B asks whether the intervention group received extra time, budget or materials that the control group did not, and if so whether those extras were the treatment variable or were matched. Applying the decision procedure: first, check whether any extra time/budget is present in the intervention arm. Here the design is a head-to-head comparison of two instructional methods applied to the same 22 target vocabulary items: the control group received active traditional vocabulary instruction while the experimental group received cognitive-linguistic, metaphor-motivated instruction. Nothing in the paper indicates that the experimental group received additional instructional time, extra materials beyond the alternative explanations/diagrams integral to the method, or any budgetary advantage; the difference described is the nature of the instruction itself, which is precisely the treatment variable being tested, not a separable extra resource. Since no extra resources are documented at all (decision-tree branch 1: EXTRA_RESOURCES_PRESENT is false), the criterion is met without needing to reach the integral-resource or control-matching branches. The reporting is admittedly thin (exact session lengths are not stated for each group), but there is no evidence of an unbalanced add-on. Quotes checked against the PDF and confirmed verbatim. Criterion B is met because both groups received active instruction on the same content and the only documented difference is the teaching method itself, which is the treatment variable, with no separable extra time or resources identified for either group.

• Level 3 Criteria

  • R

    Reproduced

    • No independent replication of this specific 46-student experiment was found in a fresh internet search; related conceptual-metaphor vocabulary studies by other teams are separate experiments, not replications of this study.
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "为证实这一假设，笔者做过一个实验。" [To verify this hypothesis, the author conducted an experiment.] (p. 518) 2) The reference list (p. 519) cites only theoretical works (Lakoff 1987; Croft & Cruse 2004) and unrelated Chinese pedagogy articles; no replication of this study is cited. Detailed Analysis: Criterion R requires that this specific study be independently replicated by a different team in a different context, with the replication published in a peer-reviewed journal. The paper itself mentions no replication. A fresh internet search (conducted 2026-07-27) for "李莎莎 概念隐喻 西南大学" and for "Shasha Li Southwest University conceptual metaphor vocabulary teaching" returned general literature on conceptual-metaphor vocabulary instruction (e.g., papers on SCIRP, ResearchGate, IJHED and other outlets discussing conceptual metaphor and EFL vocabulary teaching more broadly), but none of these references or reproduces this particular January 2025 experiment on "join"/"connect" with Southwest University sophomores, and none is authored by a different team explicitly replicating this study's design. The existence of a broader literature on conceptual metaphor teaching does not constitute replication of this study's specific design and findings. Criterion R is not met because no independent published replication of this specific experiment was found.
  • A

    All-subject Exams

    • Only knowledge of two English vocabulary items was tested with a custom instrument; no other subjects were assessed and criterion E already fails, so A fails automatically.
    • "实验材料为包含 22 个与"join"和"connect"相关的测试项目， 涵盖多义词、短语动词和习语。" (p. 518)
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "实验材料为包含 22 个与"join"和"connect"相关的测试 项目，涵盖多义词、短语动词和习语。" [The materials comprised 22 test items related to "join" and "connect", covering polysemous words, phrasal verbs and idioms.] (p. 518) Detailed Analysis: Criterion A requires standardised exam-based assessment across all main subjects taught at the educational level, with criterion E as a prerequisite. This study measured a single, extremely narrow outcome: knowledge of two English words and their extensions, using a custom test. No other subject was assessed, and since criterion E (standardised exam) is not met, criterion A cannot be met either. No specialised-intervention exception is argued in the paper. Quote checked against the PDF and confirmed verbatim. Criterion A is not met because only a custom test of one narrow English vocabulary domain was used and criterion E fails.
  • G

    Graduation Tracking

    • Tracking ended 14 days after instruction with no follow-up to graduation, no subsequent papers by this author were found, and criterion Y is not met, so G fails.
    • "最后，进行 3 天和 14 天的跟踪测试，以评估学习效果。" (p. 518)
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "最后，进行 3 天和 14 天的跟踪测试，以评估学习效果。" [Finally, 3-day and 14-day follow-up tests were conducted to evaluate learning effects.] (p. 518) Detailed Analysis: Criterion G requires tracking participants until graduation from their educational stage. The sophomores in this experiment were followed for only 14 days after instruction, and the paper reports no plan for longer follow-up. A fresh internet search (conducted 2026-07-27) for follow-up publications by Shasha Li of Southwest University tracking this cohort found no such papers; the only located material for this author is this single short paper. Additionally, per the dependency rule, G cannot be met when Y (Year Duration) is not met, and Y fails here. Criterion G is not met because measurement stopped 14 days after the intervention with no graduation tracking, and no follow-up publications tracking this cohort were found.
  • P

    Pre-Registered

    • The paper contains no mention of any registry, registration ID or pre-registered protocol, and a fresh internet search found no registration for this study.
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "为证实这一假设，笔者做过一个实验。" [To verify this hypothesis, the author conducted an experiment.] (p. 518) 2) "基金项目 中央高校基本科研业务费专项资金资助：概念隐喻理论 在大学英语词汇教学策略中的应用(SWU1909417)。" [Funding project number SWU1909417 -- a funding grant, not a trial registration.] (p. 519) Detailed Analysis: Criterion P requires that the full study protocol, including hypotheses and analysis plans, be registered on a public registry before data collection began. The paper mentions no registry (e.g., ClinicalTrials.gov, ChiCTR, OSF), no registration ID, and no protocol publication; the only identifier present (SWU1909417) is a university funding grant number, not a pre-registration. A fresh external search (conducted 2026-07-27) for pre-registration of this study by this author found no registration in OSF, ChiCTR or similar registries. Criterion P is not met because no pre-registration of the study protocol exists or is referenced.