1887
Volume 2, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2215-1478
  • E-ISSN: 2215-1486
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

This study investigates 2,909 phrasal verbs [PVs] in (in)transitive constructions across native English and French- and German-English interlanguages (ILs). Recent work by Gilquin (2014) shows that, as verb-particle combinations, PVs associate more or less strongly with particular syntactic constructions. Further, those association patterns vary across native and learner Englishes. Building on Gilquin (2014), the present study digs deeper into PV constructions by assessing degrees of mutual attraction between verbs and particles as well as between PVs and their semantic uses. Degrees of association are measured using a co-varying collexeme analysis approach (Stefanowitsch & Gries 2005). Generally, it emerges that within given syntactic constructions (e.g. verb-particle-object constructions), different verbs and particles (i.e. and in the case of or and for ) combine in different degrees, suggesting that, as cognitive routines, those combinations are not equally entrenched. In addition, French and German English learners seem to operate at different levels of semantic complexity when using PVs in their L2. Ultimately, the study bears important pedagogical implications, namely the need (i) to focus on phrasal verbs’ aspectual uses to help learners develop a more confident use of PVs in completive, inceptive and continuative semantic contexts and (ii) to develop resources that help learners improve their uses of PVs in verb-object-particle constructions.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ijlcr.2.1.01des
2016-07-08
2019-10-18
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Akbari, O
    2009A Corpus-Based Study of Malaysian ESL Learners’ Use of Phrasal Verbs in Narrative Compositions. Serdang: Universiti Putra Malaysia.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Alejo Gonzáles, R
    2010 “Making sense of phrasal verbs: A cognitive linguistic account of L2 learning”, AILA Review23, 51–71.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Armstrong, K
    2004 “Sexing up the dossier: A semantic analysis of phrasal verbs for language teachers”, Language Awareness13, 213–224. doi: 10.1080/09658410408668808
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09658410408668808 [Google Scholar]
  4. Biber, D. , Johansson, S. , Leech, G. , Conrad, S. & Finegan, E
    1999Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow, Essex: Pearson Education Ltd.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Bybee, J
    1998 “The emergent lexicon”, CLS 34: The Panels. University of Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society, 421–435.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Cappelle, B
    2006 “Particle placement and the case for allostructions”. In D. Schönefeld (Ed.), Constructions all Over: Case Studies and Theoretical Implications. [Special issue]. Constructions SV1-7/2006. 1–28. Available at: www.academia.edu/1432971/Particle_placement_and_the_case_for_allostructions (accessed24 June 2015).
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Cappelle, B. , Yury, S. & Pulvermüller, F
    2010 “Heating up or cooling up the brain? MEG evidence that phrasal verbs are lexical units”, Brain and Langage115(3), 189–201. doi: 10.1016/j.bandl.2010.09.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2010.09.004 [Google Scholar]
  8. Celce-Murcia, M. & Larsen-Freeman, D
    1999The Grammar Book: An ESL/EFL Teacher’s Course (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Heinle and Heinle.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Chen, P
    1986 “Discourse and particle movement in English”, Studies in Language10, 79–95. doi: 10.1075/sl.10.1.05che
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.10.1.05che [Google Scholar]
  10. Courtney, R
    1983Longman Dictionary of Phrasal Verbs. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Ellis, N.C. & Ferreira-Junior, F
    2009 “Constructions and their acquisitions”, Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics7, 187–220.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Fischer, S.D
    1971The Acquisition of Verb-particle and Dative Constructions. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Massachussetts Institute of Technology.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Gilquin, G
    2012 “Lexical infelicity in English causative constructions. Comparing native and learner collostructions”. In J. Leino & R. von Waldenfels (Eds.), Analytical Causatives. From ‘give’ and ‘come’ to ‘let’ and ‘make’. München: Lincom Europa.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. 2014 “The use of phrasal verbs by French-speaking EFL learners. A constructional and collostructional corpus-based approach”, Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory10(2). ISSN (Online) 1613-7035, ISSN (Print) 1613-7027. doi: 10.1515/cllt‑2014‑0005.
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2014-0005 [Google Scholar]
  15. Goldberg, A
    2006Constructions at Work. The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Götz, S. & Schilk, M
    2011 “Formulaic sequences in spoken ENL, ESL and EFL: Focus on British English, Indian English and learner English”. In J. Mukherjee & M. Hundt (Eds.), Exploring Second-Language Varieties of English and Learner Englishes: Bridging the Paradigm Gap. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 79–100.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Granger, S. , Dagneaux, E. , Meunier, F. & Pacquot, M
    2002The International Corpus of Learner English. Handbook and CD-ROM. Louvain-la-Neuve: Presses universitaires de Louvain. doi: 10.1075/scl.44.05sch
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.44.05sch [Google Scholar]
  18. Gries, S.T
    1999 “Particle movement: A cognitive and functional approach”, Cognitive Linguistics10, 105–146. doi: 10.1515/cogl.1999.005
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1999.005 [Google Scholar]
  19. 2003Multifactorial Analysis in Corpus Linguistics. A Study of Particle Placement. London and New York: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. 2007Coll.analysis 3.2a. A program for R for Windows 2.x.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Gries, S.T. & Stefanowitsch, A
    2004a “Extending collostructional analysis. A corpus-based perspective on ‘alternations’”, International Journal of Corpus Linguistics9(1), 97–129. doi: 10.1075/ijcl.9.1.06gri
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.9.1.06gri [Google Scholar]
  22. 2004b “Covarying collexemes in the into-causative”. In M. Achard & S. Kemmer (Eds.), Language, Culture, and Mind. Stanford, CA: CSLI, 225–236.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Jackendoff, R
    1997 “Twistin’ the night away”, Language73(3), 534–559. doi: 10.2307/415883
    https://doi.org/10.2307/415883 [Google Scholar]
  24. 2002 “English particle constructions, the lexicon, and the autonomy of syntax”. In N. Dehé , R. Jackendoff , A. McIntyre , & S. Urban (Eds.), Verb-Particle Explorations. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 67–94. doi: 10.1515/9783110902341
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110902341 [Google Scholar]
  25. Martinez-Garcia, T. & Wulff, S
    2012 “Not wrong, yet not quite right: Spanish ESL students’ use of gerundial and infinitival complementation”, International Journal of Applied Linguistics22(2), 225–244. doi: 10.1111/j.1473‑4192.2012.00310.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-4192.2012.00310.x [Google Scholar]
  26. Mukherjee, J. & Hundt, M
    2011Exploring Second Language Varieties of English and Learner Englishes: Bridging the Paradigm Gap. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/scl.44
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.44 [Google Scholar]
  27. Peters, J
    2001 “Given vs. new information influencing constituent ordering in the verb-particle construction”. In R.M. Brend , A.K. Melby , & A.R. Lommel (Eds.), LACUS Forum XXVII: Speaking and Comprehending. Fullerton, CA: LACUS, 133–140.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Quirk, R. , Greenbaum, S. , Leech, G. & Svartvik, J
    1985A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. R Development Core Team
    2013R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. Available at: www.R-project.org
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Stefanowitsch, A
    2006 “Distinctive collexeme analysis and diachrony: A comment”, Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory2(2), 257–262.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Stefanowitsch, A. & Gries, S.T
    2005 “Covarying collexemes”, Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory1(1), 1–43. doi: 10.1515/cllt.2005.1.1.1
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt.2005.1.1.1 [Google Scholar]
  32. Waibel, B
    2007Phrasal Verbs in Learner English: A Corpus-Based Study of German and Italian Students. Freiburg: Albert-Ludwigs-Universität.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Wierszycka, J
    2013 “Phrasal verbs in learner English: A semantic approach. A study based on POS tagged spoken corpus of learner English”, Research in Corpus Linguistics1, 81–93.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Zarifi, A
    2013A Corpus-Based Study of Phrasal Verbs in Malaysian ESL Textbooks. Slangor: UPM.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/ijlcr.2.1.01des
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): co-varying collexeme analysis , EFL and phrasal verbs; usage-based
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error