SHEIKHBAHAEE UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES
A PEDAGOGICAL APPLICATION OF COGNITIVE
LINGUISTICS IN TEACHING IDIOMATIC
PHRASAL VERBS
A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE
REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS IN
TEACHING ENGLISH AS A FOREIGN LANGUAGE
By
ELHAM SADRI
Supervisor
DR. M. R. TALEBINEZHAD
SEPTEMBER 2012
Sheikhbahaee University
School of Foreign Languages
Department of English
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE CONTENT, FORMAT AND QUALITY OF PRESENTATION OF THE THESIS
SUBMITTED BY
ELHAM SADRI
ENTITLED:
A PEDAGOGICAL APPLICATION OF COGNITIVE LINGUISTICS IN
TEACHING IDIOMATIC PHRASAL VERBS
IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF M.A. IN FOREIGN
LANGUAGE TEACHING IS ACCEPTED AND APPROVED BY THE THESIS COMMITTEE.
SUPERVISOR: DR. M. R. TALEBINEJAD
INTERNAL EXAMINER: DR. A. ALIBABAEE
EXTERNAL EXAMINER: DR. GH.R. ZAREII
DEAN OF GRADUATE SCHOOL: DR. S. M. H. FEIZ
To Dariush, Mahan and Hooman
Thank you for being and bearing with me. When I was writing this thesis
I was a busy and distant wife and mom. The long hours I spent in front
of my laptop could have been spent with you playing, reading, talking,
and walking outdoors. It is now time for me to give back some of that
love, warmth, care, and affection you gave me. Let me start by taking
you to the Wonderland. Get prepared to meet some two-headed
creatures Anglophone people call Phrasal Verbs!
Table of Contents
Title
Page
Table of Contents…………………………………………………………………
I
Acknowledgement………………………………………………………………...
IV
List of Figures …………………………………………………………………….
V
List of Tables ……………………………………………………………………..
VI
Abbreviations……………………………………………………………………...
VII
Abstract……………………………………………………………………………
VIII
CHAPTER ONE: Introduction
1. Overview……………………………………………………………………….
1
1.1. Background………………………………………………………………….
2
1.2. Statement of the Problem…………………………………………………...
4
1.3. Significance of the study……………………………………………………
6
1.4. Research questions………………………………………………………….
7
1.5. Definitions of key terms…………………………………………………….
7
CHAPTER TWO: Literature Review
2. Overview…………………………………………………………………......
10
2.1. Phrasal verbs: Preliminaries………………………………………………...
11
2.1.1. The syntactic frame of PVs……………………………….................
12
2.1.2. The semantic frame of PVs……………………………….................
12
2.2. Research focusing on learners’ performance on PVs………………………
14
2.3. Research focusing on methodological aspects and teaching of PVs……….
18
2.3.1. Criteria for selecting the target PVs…………………………………
18
2.3.2. Methods for teaching PVs…………………………………………...
19
2.3.2.1. Presenting PVs in lists……………………………………….
19
2.3.2.2. Presenting PVs in context……………………………………
21
2.3.2.3. Teaching the systemacity underlying PVs…………………...
24
2.4. The Cognitive Linguistic view of PVs……………………………………..
27
2.4.1. Lakoffian approach………………………………………………….
29
2.4.2. a-metaphorical approach…………………………………………….
39
Pedagogical CL-based research……………………………………………
44
2.5.1. Lakoffian approach………………………………………………….
44
2.5.2. Tyler and Evans’ pedagogical approach…………………………….
48
2.5.
2.6. The scope of the present study………………………………………………
50
CHAPTER TREE: Methodology
3. Overview………………………………………………………………….........
56
3.1. Participants…………………………………………………………………
57
3.2. Sampling procedure………………………………………………………...
57
3.3. Materials……………………………………………………………………
58
3.3.1. Pre/posttest……………………………………………………………
58
3.3.2. Selected PVs…………………………………………………………
58
3.4. Procedures…………………………………………………………………....
60
3.5. Data Analysis ………………………………………………………...............
66
CHAPTER FOUR: Results
4. Overview…………………………………………………………………........
67
4.1. Results for the first research question………………………………………...
68
4.2. Results for the second research question…………………………………….
70
CHAPTER FIVE: Discussion and Conclusion
5. Overview………………………………………………………………….........
74
5.1. Discussions………………………………………………………………….
75
5.1.1. Reaffirmation of research questions…………………………………
75
5.1.2. Explanatory answer to the first research question…………………...
75
5.1.3. Explanatory answer to the second research question………………..
79
5.2. Conclusion…………………………………………………………………....
80
5.3. Implications………………………………………………………………….
82
5.4. Limitations…………………………………………………………………...
83
5.5. Suggestions for further research……………………………………………..
84
References………………………………………………………………………...
85
Appendices
Appendix A. Oxford Placement Test (OPT)…………………………………
100
Appendix B. List of taught phrasal verbs in the study……………………….
111
Appendix C. Pre/Posttest……………………………………………………..
112
Appendix D. Detailed teaching procedure for experimental group…………..
116
Abstract (Persian)………………………………………………………………...
136
Acknowledgements
A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.
Lao-tzu
Onc
e
upo
n a
tim
e I was living in the world of chemicals, the tiny playful molecules and atoms that were so
fascinating to work with. But they turned out to be toxic and hazardous as well and ultimately
struck me down. So I said good-bye to them and decided to find a safer but equally
interesting way of living. That is how I am here now, writing a MA thesis in TEFL. Two
years ago, I embarked on a journey of a thousand miles out of a passion to learn about
human’s mind and language but that shimmering spark of passion would have vanished just
as quickly as it appeared if I had not met two special individuals along the way. And here I
have an opportunity to depict and express my sincere gratitude to them.
Title of Figure
Page
The first individual I would like to acknowledge is my supervisor Professor
M.R.Talebinezhad whose name adorns and elevates my thesis. Cognitive Linguistics is a
budding field of science and at the time it is in its infancy in Iran. Professor Talebinezhad is
indeed one of the pioneers and leading teachers of CL in our country. His intellectuality
enriched and inspired my growth as a student and gave me the incentive and courage to enter
the fantastic wonderland of Cognitive Linguistics where I happily live now. His classes
where he combined encyclopedic knowledge, limitless expertise, and uncanny understanding
of politics, culture, society and humans opened doors for me and most of all gave me a sense
of what kind of engagement effective critical thinking involved. I thank him for his
invaluable supervision and guidance, for his reassuring encouragement and persistent
confidence in me, for being so friendly and approachable, and above all for enlightening me
to see the world from a critical and inquisitive point of view.
Another individual to whom I want to record my acknowledgement is someone who modeled
what it is to have a scientific vision and to think beyond convention. I am deeply honored to
name Professor M.H.Tahririan as this outstanding scholar, insightful teacher, and great
person in the highest sense. In point of fact, all I have learned about teaching as a profession
and an art comes from him not from the theories and books I studied: his gift for tailoring the
course to simple facts and routines of everyday life, his unique professional, modest and
respectful manners, his famous sense of humor, the witty small talks he has at the beginning
of the class, the surprising and impressive fact that he knows and calls all the students by
name (and sometimes by creative funny nicknames), the inordinate amount of class time he
devotes to discussions and exchange of ideas, his constant contact with students by email, his
commitment to punctuality and attendance, and of course, his challenging expectations, tough
assignments and high standards that demonstrates education is nothing but disciplining of the
mind. I admirably pay tribute to all these, thank him for instilling in me the tendency to look
at the world and describe it objectively and scientifically, and hope every student in this
country -especially my own sons - are fortunate enough to have one such teacher throughout
their studies.
2.1. A TR outside a LM………………………………………………………. 28
Lis
2.2. A TR moved or moving into a LM………………………………………. 29
t of
2.3. Image schematic senses of out…………………………………………… 34
fig
2.4. The central image schema for over………………………………………. 35
2.5. The bird flew over the yard………………………………………………
35
2.6. The plane flew over the hill……………………………………………… 36
2.7. The bird flew over the wall………………………………………………. 36
2.8. John walked over the bridge……………………………………………..
36
2.9. John walked over the hill………………………………………………… 37
2.10. Sam climbed over the wall……………………………………………….
37
2.11. Sub-schemas of the central schema of over……………………………… 37
2.12. Possible trajectories for the cat jumped over the wall……………………
43
2.13. Schematic drawings of some phrasal verbs…………………………….... 47
2.14. Different meanings of up in Rudzka-Ostyn’s approach………………….
51
2.15. Proto-scene for up………………………………………………………... 51
2.16. Different meanings of up………………………………………………… 52
4.1. Graphical representation of groups’ performances on pre/posttest (part
one) ……………………………………………………………………...
70
4.2. Graphical representation of groups’ performances on pre/posttest (part
two)………………………………………………………………………. 72
5.1. Acquisition and storage of items as arbitrary entities in rote learning…...
78
5.2. Organized structures under subsumption in meaningful learning………..
78
List of Tables
Title of Table
Page
1.1. BBC voters’ response to the question: What is the trickiest aspect of PVs?
5
2.1. A partial list of image schemas…………………………………………….
32
3.1. Mean scores determining homogeneity of proficiency between groups on
ure
s
the OPT……………………………………………………………………
57
3.2. Time sequence of experimental procedure for both groups………………. 61
3.3. Motivations for Up and Down based on Tyler and Evans’ (2003) model...
63
3.4. Motivations for In and Out based on Tyler and Evans’ (2003) model……
63
4.1. Descriptive results of control and experimental groups on pretest
(part1).......................................................................................................... 68
4.2. Detailed T-Test descriptive results for pretest (part 1)……………………
68
4.3. Mean scores of the groups on posttest (part 1)……………………………
69
4.4. Detailed T-Test descriptive results for posttest (part2)…………………… 69
4.5. Mean scores of the groups on pretest (part2)……………………………...
71
4.6. Detailed T-Test descriptive results for pretest (part2)…………………….
71
4.7. Mean scores of the groups on posttest (part2)…………………………….
71
4.8. Detailed T-Test descriptive for posttest (part2)…………………………...
72
Abbreviations
CL
Cognitive Linguistics
EFL
English as a foreign language
F
Figure
G
Ground
L1
A learner’s first language
L2
A learner’s second language
LM
Landmark
PV
Phrasal verb
SLA
Second language acquisition
TR
Trajector
TEFL
Teaching English as a foreign language
Abstract
This study attempted to examine whether a Cognitive Linguistics based approach could have
any advantageous contribution to teaching and learning idiomatic PVs in comparison with a
traditional approach. To this end, 60 English learners at the intermediate level of language
proficiency were assigned to two equal control and experimental groups. Both groups
received 32 idiomatic phrasal verbs with the same particles (up, down, in, and out). The
experimental participants were presented with the underlying systemacity of the particles
based on Tyler and Evans’ (2003) Principled Polysemy Theory within the Cognitive
Linguistics framework. The control group received their instruction following a traditional
approach, that is, by dictionary definitions and single verb equivalents. The data collected
through a pre-posttest assessment and analyzed by T-Test procedure using SPSS
demonstrated that the experimental group learned the taught idiomatic phrasal verbs better
than the control group. Moreover, the experimental students transferred their knowledge of
learned idiomatic phrasal verbs to unfamiliar idiomatic phrasal verbs more successfully than
their control peers. Overall, this study confirms the benefits of a CL-based approach to
teaching and learning a certain number of idiomatic phrasal verbs and hopes to trigger further
research and make a small contribution to improving native-like proficiency of Iranian
English learners.
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1. Overview
This introductory chapter provides the basic necessary information about the topic of the
thesis in general terms. After introducing the theoretical assumptions relevant to this study,
the major issues relating to phrasal verbs are brought up and the reasons why those issues are
so important that deserve to be the subject of a master’s thesis are discussed. Then, the
features that make the present study significant and distinct from other studies of its kind are
pointed out briefly. Based on this background, two research questions are raised that will be
addressed in the next chapters of the thesis. At last, a short review of the key terms of the
study accompanied with their definitions is covered.
1.1. Background
English is a pretty weird language! I’ve been learning English
for over ten years and still can’t make much sense of it! I’m
wondering why when you feel down, English speakers ask you
what’s up?! Why slow down and slow up mean the same
thing?! How come it does not matter if you say ‘they closed up
the theater’ or ‘they closed down the theater’?! Isn’t it odd
that you fill in a form by filling it out?! How is it possible for
an alarm clock to go off by going on?!Or a house to burn up as
it burns down?! How is it imaginable at all that we wind up a
watch to get it started, but when we wind up an essay, we end
it?! Why English speakers burst into tears but burst out
laughing? Can anyone please translate this sentence: ‘Roll out
the carpet and then roll it up!’ The most puzzling of all,
however, is that when the stars are out they are visible while
when the lights are out they are invisible!!!
Any answers?
What is evident from the above text is that there are some kinds of words in English language
that appear to be contradictory; the same word can surprisingly get different, unpredictable,
unrelated meanings (such as wind up a watch and wind up an essay), seemingly opposite
words can get similar meanings (e.g., slow down and slow up), and two separate words
appear to show the same meaning (e.g., fill up and fill in). Needless to say, a few cases of
such topsy-turvies are enough to freak out EFL students and give them the impression that
English language is full of haphazard irregularities and chaotic exceptions. Not strangely, any
determined English learner wants to seek some solutions and ask for some answers as to how
she should make sense of these words.
In practice, there are two ways for clearing this hurdle: the first one is accepting that there is
no specific solution, no rule-governed way of making sense of such words, and –as a measure
of last resort– deciding to overcome this problem by will power and self-discipline and
spending countless amounts of time and energy to memorize them. This solution which is
referred to as traditional approach (Evans & Tyler, 2005; Tyler & Evans, 2003, 2004)
believes in arbitrariness of language and assumes that “words constitute ‘lexical items’ that
are conventionally paired with meanings and that these form-meaning pairings are stored in
mental dictionary or lexicon of the language” (Tyler & Evans, 2003, p.1). Advocates of this
position such as Bloomfield (1933) and Frank (1972) would thus posit that speakers of the
English language have memorized each of the form-meaning lexical entries in the mental
dictionary. This, in turn, implies that the different meanings of the same linguistic form (e.g.,
wind up in the above text) is presumably just a bizarre accident. Put another way, in
traditional view, words encapsulate meanings; each word has a specific received meaning and
if there are some words that deviate from the rule of the correspondence between form and
meaning, then these words are some lawbreakers and deserve to be imprisoned under the
term idiosyncrasies (McIntyre, 2002).
The second approach, namely Cognitive Linguistics (hereafter CL), does not believe in
viewing “words as ‘containing’ meanings” (Tyler & Evans, 2003, p.17). CL, in the spirit of
such scholars as Fauconnier (1997), Langacker (1987) and Turner (1991), rejects the
traditional view of word meaning and holds that words are not prefabricated capsules
containing conventional arbitrary meanings; rather, meaning of words are constantly created
and constructed under certain cognitive processes. In other words, meaning is a process
rather than a discrete thing that can be packaged by language (Evans & Green, 2006). This
postulation is crystallized into the embodiment thesis of CL. According to Lakoff and
Johnson’s (1980) insights “[human conceptualizations] arise from the fact that we have
bodies of the sort we have and that they function as they do in our physical environment”
(p.14). Thus, the human mind is determined by the form, shape, and limitations of his body
and also his surrounding environment. Atkinson (2010) adds further depth to this tenet by
making a distinction between extended and embodied views of cognition. He suggests:
Extended cognition conceptualizes mind/brain as inextricably tied to the external
environment, while embodied cognition views cognitive activity as grounded in
bodily states and action. These two approaches are related because bodies link minds
to the world- we experience, understand, and act on the world through our bodies. As
a result, extended and embodied cognition are grouped together (Atkinson, 2010,
p.599).
According to the embodiment thesis of CL, meaning construction, as a construal of reality is
mediated by the nature of human’s body including his neuro-anatomical architecture,
perceptual system and the sensorimotor processing (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980, 1999;
Langacker, 1987, 1991). Thus, conceptualization of linguistic units is not random and
unsystematic and derives from systematic and principled ways that root in bodily experiences
in spatio-physical environment.
The centrality of meaning and the systemacity of meaning construction in CL provide a view
of language that is relevant to the concerns of EFL pedagogy. “Focusing on meaning and
instructing the underlying systemacity of linguistic units provide teachers and material
designers with opportunities to guide attention to and enhance constructions in L2, while at
the same time demonstrating their conceptual and communicative value” (Robinson & Ellis,
2008, p.489). Drawing the attention of EFL learners to the above-mentioned assumptions not
only takes the burden of memorization and parrot learning off their shoulders but also
supplies them with an ability to build on the available clues and prompts to construct the
meaning of L2 units (Croft, 2000; Evans, 2006). This becomes particularly important when
the learners encounter new and unfamiliar words in different contexts. Equipped with the CLbased insights and awareness, learners will be able to infer and construct the meaning of
novel L2 units based on their background acquired knowledge.
Adopting a CL perspective on EFL pedagogy in recent years has shown promises of
considerable success and favorable achievement (Boers & Lindstromberg, 2008). The present
study takes this assumption as its point of departure and hypothesizes that applying CL
insights might facilitate teaching and learning idiomatic phrasal verbs which are one of the
troublesome parts of English language for both students and teachers.
1.2. Statement of the Problem
The strange and troublesome two-unit words in the text at the beginning of this chapter (e.g.,
burn up, burn down, wind up, wind down, fill in, etc.) are a category of English language
lexicon called phrasal verbs. A phrasal verb (hereafter PV) is a verb with one or two
additional components called particles (Alexander, 1988; McArthur, 1989).The particle is
often a spatial preposition such as up, down, on, in, and so forth. PVs are important because
English speakers frequently and customarily use them in their everyday communications. In
fact, “no one can speak or understand English, at least the informal register, without a
knowledge of phrasal verbs” (Celce-Marcia & Larsen-Freeman, 1999, p.425). Hence,
learning to recognize, comprehend, and actively use PVs is an inevitable part of EFL
pedagogy. The publication of numerous textbooks and reference dictionaries focusing
exclusively on PVs bears testimony to the prominence of this claim; examples of PV-specific
textbooks among numerous publications are: Allsop (1990), Gairns and Redman(2011),
Hart(2009), McCarthy and O'Dell (2007) , and examples of exclusive dictionaries are:
Cambridge Phrasal Verbs Dictionary(2006), Longman Phrasal Verbs Dictionary (2000),
Macmillan Dictionary of Phrasal verbs Plus (2005), and Oxford Phrasal Verbs Dictionary for
Learners of English (2006).
Despite their significant importance, PVs have always been a nuisance for EFL learners.
Ironically, they are like “a nettle that has to be grasped if students are to achieve native-like
proficiency in speech and writing” (Cowie, 1993, p.38).
In an attempt to identify and find a solution for issues relating to PVs, BBC Learning English
Website (http:// www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/learningenglish/ teaching
english/yourideas/teaching_phrasals.shtml) asked the opinion of English teachers posting the
following question: What is the trickiest aspect of phrasal verbs? The voters’ responses to
this question are summarized in Table 1.1.
Table1.1. BBC voters’ response to the question: what is the trickiest aspect of PVs?
Perceived problem
Percentage (%)
The meaning of a PV changes depending on the particle
47
PVs can have multiple meanings
36.4
Their grammar (e.g., are they separable or not)
8.2
Register: should you use a PV or a more formal verb
8.4
As is evident from Table 1.1, the most problematic area has to do with the meaning or
semantics of PVs. Apparently, the meanings of PVs change without following a particular
and predictable rule. In fact, this represents a major problem in making sense of PVs which is
called idiomacity.
Idiomacity is the most troublesome characteristic of PVs that makes EFL students confused
and gives them the false assumption that PVs are random and without rationale principles. A
PV is idiomatic when its meaning is not predictable because it is not equal to the sum of the
meaning of its components (e.g., Moon, 1997; Sinclair, 1991).
In sum, difficulties such as the wide range and abundant number of PVs, their syntax, the
formal/informal stylistic choice, learners’ negative attitude toward PVs and avoidance in
using them are critical aspects of pedagogy of PVs. Yet, the semantic concern about PVs, or
the problem of idiomacity, seems to be an all-inclusive issue. Since the learners cannot
predict and deduce the meaning of idiomatic PVs by combining the meaning of verb and
particle in a reasonable and rational manner, they reach the conclusion that they are random
and unsystematic and, not surprisingly, feel intimidated because of such bewildering problem
and try to ignore and avoid idiomatic PVs. Based on the above-described grounds, the current
study takes focus on the semantics of idiomatic PVs and attempts to propose a solution for
this issue.
1.3. Significance of the Study
This study holds great significance on both theoretical and practical grounds. Regarding the
theoretical underpinnings, the solid foundation of CL that is laid below this study supports
and strengthens it to be a full-fledge scientific work. Additionally, this study gains
significance in that it takes advantage of one of the most recent insights gleaned from CL
(i.e., Tyler & Evans’ (2003) principled polysemy theory); hence, it is one of the very few
studies that concerns teaching and learning PVs within a CL framework in the slim body of
relevant research literature in Iran.
From a more applied point of view, the significance of the study is twofold; in the first place
it concentrates on the issue of idiomatic PVs which are proven to be a notoriously difficult
and problematic part of English lexicon for Iranian learners (Koosha & Jafarpour, 2006;
Talebinezhad & Vahid-Dastjerdi, 2002). The second significance of the study relates to the
practicality and convenience of the proposed approach. While this feature in most of the
previous studies in this field is seldom observed, it shapes the most important aspect of this
study: the proposed procedure for teaching idiomatic PVs is truly applicable in EFL classes in
any educational setting. The simple drawings which include rectangulars, circles, arrows, and
stick- person figures could easily be drawn on the board by the teacher, and the proposed
explanations are both catchy and interesting for the students. This model is especially of
significant assistance for intermediate and advanced students who have a basic knowledge of
the English language. At present, many Iranian university students need to take part in
TOEFL and IELTS exams or other international proficiency tests in order to be able to pursue
their education in English speaking countries or to get a professional job or a higher academic
degree in Iran. Regarding that spoken English is replete with PVs, students taking part in
such exams need to be really proficient in understanding and making appropriate pragmatic
use of PVs not only in reading but also in all other skills: listening, writing and speaking. The
present study will, hopefully, show the way to obtain such knowledge.
1.4. Research Questions
1. To what extent does a CL-based approach to teaching idiomatic phrasal verbs yield
different results from a traditional approach such as the use of dictionary definitions, single
verb equivalents, and examples?
2. To what extent do CL-instructed students and the students who received their treatment by
dictionary definitions and single verb equivalents differ in transferring their acquired
knowledge to unrehearsed novel phrasal verbs?
1.5. Definitions of Key Terms
Cognitive Linguistics (CL)
Incepted in the mid to late 1970s, Cognitive Linguistics is a fast growing approach and
influential perspective that studies language as a window to the mind. It assumes language is
not divorced from the rest of human cognition and proposes that much of human knowledge
is not static and arbitrary; but is grounded in, structured, and motivated by various patterns of
human physical experience in the environment, bodily actions, and manipulations of objects
(Johnson, 1987; Lakoff, 1987; Lakoff & Johnson, 1980, 1999; Talmy, 1988). The reason
Cognitive Linguistics is spelled with capital letters C and L is to lay emphasis on its
opposition and separation from the broad paradigm of cognitive linguistics introduced and
influenced by Noam Chomsky in the mid-1950s.
Conceptualization
An underlying assumption in Cognitive Linguistics which states that perceptions of the
physical and sociocultural environment give rise to concepts in human mind that are not the
exact copies of the referents in the external world. Due to their body limitations, humans can
only perceive a projected world and most of the attributes and meanings of this projected
world do not come from the physical referents but are constructed in human mind. Such
cognitive construction that is shaped by highly developed processes is called
conceptualization (Evans, 2012; Jackendoff, 1997; Langacker, 1987; Talmy, 1998).
Embodiment Principle
A main thesis of Cognitive Linguistics that – as opposed to the time-honored Cartesian mindbody dualism theory– holds body and mind are not separate entities and human body has a
crucial role in shaping his mind. The mind is situated in a physical body and the body, in
turn, is situated in space. In other words, “cognition is embedded- both in body and world”
(Atkinson, 2010, p.606). Therefore, human cognition is driven from and structured by his
body constraints, bodily experiences and interactions with the physical world. Yet, human is
also situated in a sociocultural environment; hence, his cognition is also determined by his
sociocultural experience (Evans, 2012; Evans & Green, 2006; Lakoff & Johnson, 1999).
Idiomacity
Idiomacity is the characteristic of idiomatic multi-word expressions where the meaning of the
whole construction is different from its literal meaning. In other words, the meaning of
idiomatic units is not predictable from the meaning of their components in isolation
(Bolinger, 1971; Waibel, 2007). Idiomacity is one of the main hurdles to non-native English
students in mastering multi-word expressions including PVs.
Motivation
From the 19th century, following Saussure, language was considered as a system of arbitrary
signs. Saussure equated arbitraire (arbitrary) with immotivé (unmotivated) and believed that
there is no relationship between forms and meanings of the language. Cognitive Linguistics
challenges that idea and proposes that there are non-arbitrary relationships between forms and
meanings. Such non-arbitrariness brings in the notion of motivation. A linguistic unit is
motivated if some of its properties are shaped by a linguistic source (e.g., linguistic context)
and/or language- independent factors (e.g., bodily experience, general knowledge of the
world, cultural factors) (Radden & Panther, 2004).
Phrasal Verbs
Are combinations of a verb and a particle (or two particles). The meaning of some phrasal
verbs is not equal to the meaning of verb plus particle; such phrasal verbs are called idiomatic
phrasal verbs (Rudzka-Ostyn, 2003).
Spatial scene
A particle designates a conceptual spatial relation between a Trajector (TR; a movable
object) and a Landmark (LM; the immovable background) which is conceived as constituting
an abstract spatial scene (Evans & Tyler, 2005).
Traditional Approach
The time-honored approach toward language that considers idiomatic phrasal verbs (and
other figurative aspects of language) as lexical items, that is, an item that functions as a single
meaning unit (regardless of the number of words it contains) and carries an arbitrary
conventional meaning (Bloomfield,1933; Frank, 1972). Cognitive Linguistics provides
strong evidence to reject such position by taking account of particles as powerful elements in
the phrasal verbs that determine the meaning of these constructions in systematic principled
ways. Nevertheless, opposition of Cognitive Linguistics with traditional approach is not
limited to the field of phrasal verbs. In general, Cognitive Linguistics – contrary to traditional
approach that treats language as a bundle of arbitrary signs – maintains that figurative
domains of thought are construed based on bodily and sociocultural experiences and hence
are motivated (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980, 1999; Johnson & Rohrer, 2007).
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
2. Overview
This chapter is devoted to a concise description of research relevant to the field of PVs. This
review is divided into two parts. The first part takes focus on PVs: definitions in use, the
prevailing theories and previous trends that have been applied on them and two major
categories of exploring them so far, namely: syntactic and semantic approaches. The second
part of this chapter presents the contribution of Cognitive Linguistics in PV research. At first,
after a section with essential terminology, a selective inspection is given to how particles and
PVs have featured in CL framework from early days until the present time. Then
developments over time in CL-based pedagogical methodologies are addressed. Finally, the
way in which the present study builds on current CL research and the direction it takes in
teaching PVs is discussed.
2.1. Phrasal Verbs: Preliminaries