“…On the other hand, it has had some followers in terms of research since the eighties (Irujo, 1986), who focused on the influence of L1-L2 similarity, up to the most recent studies (Laufer, 2000;Liao & Fukuya, 2004;Littlemore Chen, Koester et al, 2011), when compared with the intervention of other variables such as nationality or country of origin as an explanation of the meaning of metaphors and immigrant students' difficulty in understanding them (Boers & Demecheleer, 2001;Boers, Demecheleer, & Eyckmans, 2004). Similar results on the effect of nationality in language and/or academic tests (but rarely including understanding of nonliteral language) can be found in studies with American samples, such as the works by De Feyter and Winsler (2009), Dronkers and Levels (2007) and Suarez-Orozco, Pimentel and Martin (2009), and in studies with samples of European immigrants students, such the works of Gang and Zimmerman (2000), Levels, Dronkers and Kraaykamp (2008), and Mchitarjan and Reisenzein, (2014), including in studies with Portuguese emigrant samples (Campos & Ribeiro, 2016;Garcia, Akiba, Palacios et al, 2002;Hortas, 2008). Similar results on the effect of nationality in language and/or academic tests (but rarely including understanding of nonliteral language) can be found in studies with American samples, such as the works by De Feyter and Winsler (2009), Dronkers and Levels (2007) and Suarez-Orozco, Pimentel and Martin (2009), and in studies with samples of European immigrants students, such the works of Gang and Zimmerman (2000), Levels, Dronkers and Kraaykamp (2008), and Mchitarjan and Reisenzein, (2014), including in studies with Portuguese emigrant samples (Campos & Ribeiro, 2016;Garcia, Akiba, Palacios et al, 2002;Hortas, 2008).…”