Making Sense of Out Phrasal Verbs: the Instruction of Out Senses

Abstract

The issue of phrasal verb learning has caused much discussion and attracted vigorous investigation. Inspired by the theory of conceptual metaphor, a pedagogical experiment was conducted to investigate whether an approach focussing on sense extension of particle out in terms of conceptual metaphors can enhance the learning of phrasal verbs containing out. One control group was instructed with general reading materials embedded with various phrasal verbs, and two experimental groups with self-constructed lessons, in which six sense types of out were identified and corresponding phrasal verbs were selected, and in addition, an L1 lexical item was employed to illustrate the mechanism of metaphorical extension for one experimental group. The result showed that learners receiving a cognitive inspired approach to instruction achieved significantly better learning outcomes than those receiving the traditional approach, not only on taught items but also on untaught items. However, the use of L1 lexical items to illustrate sense extension was not as effective as expected in boosting the learning of out-phrasal verbs . It was concluded by discussing the benefit of the proposed approach to phrasal verb instruction and, more importantly, the need of teaching materials providing more profound understanding of phrasal verbs so as to facilitate phrasal verb learning.

Keywords

particles polysemy conceptual metaphors cognitive linguistics

Introduction

The acquisition of phrasal verbs has triggered substantial concerns for decades. This group of verbal phrases presents an enormous and diverse range of meanings, resulting in great difficulty for vocabulary learning in the English as a Foreign Language (EFL) classroom. Although language teachers have made every effort to develop alternative instruction approaches and EFL learners have demonstrated strong motivation to learn phrasal verbs, learning outcomes are not always satisfactory. So far, phrasal verbs have remained a seemingly unmanageable task for teachers and learners. In this research, we assume that the sense extension mechanism of particles in phrasal verbs holds the key to effective learning of phrasal verbs (Dirven, 2002; Kӧvecses and Szabó, 1996; Kurtyka, 2001). We specifically focus on the instruction of the particle out and teach EFL learners how senses of particle out are extended in terms of conceptual metaphors. If positive results can be obtained, the proposed approach will have crucial implications for the teaching and learning of English phrasal verbs.

Literature Review

A phrasal verb is defined as a combination of a verb and an adverbial particle. The particle can be an adverb, a preposition, or both (Darwin and Gray, 1999). Although they consist of more than one word, phrasal verbs are indisputably regarded as single units like other one-word lexical items (Cappelle et al., 2010). Nevertheless, the idiomaticity and polysemous nature of phrasal verbs have greatly confounded EFL learners and thus become a major source of learning difficulty in the EFL classroom (Armstrong, 2004; Cornell, 1985; Cowie, 1993; McArthur, 1989; Moon, 1997; Neagu, 2007). Earlier studies have found that learners employed the strategy of avoidance to cope with the learning of phrasal verbs (Dagut and Laufer, 1985; Hulstijn and Marchena, 1989; Laufer and Eliasson, 1993; Liao and Fukuya, 2004). In their studies, Swedish and Dutch learners of English did not avoid phrasal verbs (Laufer and Eliasson, 1993; Hulstijn and Marchena, 1989), but Hebrew and Chinese learners did (Dagut and Laufer, 1985; Liao and Fukuya, 2004). Language distance seems to play a role in the learning of phrasal verbs. In addition, the avoidance of phrasal verbs was found to be frequent not only in learners of pre-intermediate proficiency level, but also in advanced learners (Liao and Fukuya, 2004). These studies all pointed out that learners did not have much confidence in using this group of unusual lexical items. The learning of phrasal verbs became a challenging task but could not be overestimated in EFL.

Application of Cognitive Linguistics to Phrasal Verb Learning

As mentioned above, phrasal verbs are a combination of lexical verbs and adverbial particles such as prepositions. Analysing these prepositions provides opportunities to grasp the semantic motivation of particles involved in phrasal verbs (Beitel et al., 1997; Lindstromberg, 1996). Moreover, the application of conceptual metaphor theory to the instruction of phrasal verbs revealed that this approach could enhance phrasal verb learning (Beréndi et al., 2008; Boers, 2000; Condon, 2008; Ganji, 2011; Gao and Meng, 2010; Karahen, 2015; Kӧvecses and Szabó, 1996; Yang and Hsieh, 2010; Yasuda, 2010).

An earlier study obtained preliminary positive results in applying cognitive theory with Hungarian learners (Kӧvecses and Szabó, 1996). While 15 learners were assigned to the experimental group and received the instruction of phrasal verbs involving up and down in terms of conceptual metaphors, another 15 subjects in the control group were given the L1 translation of phrasal verbs for memorization. An immediate post-test showed that the experimental group scored higher than the control group. Similarly, metaphors for various particles, such as up, down, over, and forward, were organized for instruction with French learners in the experimental group in Boers (2000). An immediate cloze test showed that the experimental group achieved significantly better learning than the control group (Boers, 2000). Subsequent research brought more evidence for the benefits of a cognitive linguistics inspired (CL-inspired) approach to phrasal verb instruction and shed more pedagogic insights in the language classroom. A notable study was conducted with Belgium university students (Condon, 2008). Concerned with the benefit for a genuine classroom setting, the researcher implemented a ten-week instruction programme of phrasal verbs involving four particles, in/out and up/down. Experimental groups received explicit instruction on cognitive motivations of particle extension as propounded in cognitive linguistics. The significant results indicated that a CL-inspired approach could enhance the learning of phrasal verbs. This research also revealed that this approach was plausible and practical in a genuine classroom setting when merged into a routine syllabus (Condon, 2008).

More research provided positive evidence for the effectiveness of phrasal verb instruction focusing on the metaphor awareness of particles in spite of the subjects’ various L1 backgrounds. Yasuda (2010) investigated the learning of phrasal verbs by Japanese learners of English. Pedagogic materials included phrasal verbs of five particles, up, down, into, out, and off. The experimental group receiving instruction of particle sense extension in terms of orientational metaphors performed significantly better on novel items of phrasal verbs, although not significantly better on taught items. While taught items were explicitly taught in the classroom, novel items were those that were not taught and only appeared in the test. Ganji (2011) experimented with Iranian students with four particles and similarly obtained significant results on novel items. Yang and Hsieh (2010) studied with Taiwanese teenage learners with 12 phrasal verbs and found better performance for the experimental group, again on the novel items. Karahen (2015) investigated Turkish university students and the experimental group presented better performance in the test. Among these, Yasuda (2010), Ganji (2011) and Yang and Hsieh (2010) deliberately designed novel phrasal verbs and found that the experimental groups performed significantly better than the control groups on these items. All these experiments obtained consistently superior learning outcomes for groups instructed with a CL-inspired approach.

Previous research rendered valuable guidelines for this research. First, previous studies investigated various particles. Yasuda (2010) experimented with five particles (up, down, into, out, off) and Condon (2008) with four (in, out, up, down), but Yang and Hsieh (2010) chose only two, off and up. For this research, however, only one particle, out, was selected for investigation to prevent the confusion that different particles might contain similar senses. For instance, the sense of ‘completion’ conveyed by up can be found in the phrasal verb ‘clean up,’ as well as in the senses of out in ‘dry out’. Second, although previous studies found that explicit instruction of particle senses in terms of conceptual metaphors for phrasal verbs was effective, whether the instruction can be generalized and applied to novel items would be a more important question. Following Yasuda (2010) and Ganji (2011), we deliberately designed untaught items for phrasal verb tests and intended to see whether learners receiving the proposed approach would perform significantly better than the control group on these items. Finally, the length of instruction for particle senses would be a crucial concern. Indisputably, lengthening the instruction phase would be more beneficial for language learning because ‘distributed learning’ can be more conducive (Boers and Lindstromberg, 2008: 21). Accordingly, the instruction of phrasal verbs would be incorporated into routine classroom practice and continued for eight weeks, similar to Condon’s study (2008).

Cognitive Linguistics View on English Particle Out and Mandarin Chu

The meaning of out involves the concept of containment, an experience embodied by our interaction with the environment. In cognitive linguistics, ‘trajectory’ (TR) and ‘landmark’ (LM) were used to describe the relationship of the entities involved in the discussion of lexical meaning. The former is the prominent figure, which can be an object, a human being, or even an emotion, and the latter functions as a reference point (Langacker, 1988: 75–79). The basic meaning of out is visualized as an entity (trajector) moving out of its bounded container (landmark). The various senses of out investigated in this study mainly follow the analysis by Lindner (1983), Rudzka-Ostyn (2003), and Tyler and Evans (2003). When the TR is moving towards the exterior of LM, it is consequently outside of the bounded LM so that the sense ‘entities moving out of the containers’ is conceived. The bounded LM can extend metaphorically to groups or sets, which similarly function as containers that constrain TR’s movement. When the entities are removed out from the sets/groups, it turns into the second sense. The removal of TR can be seen as ‘exclusion’ that forms the third sense. In addition, human bodies can also function as containers for our voices or our breath. When voice or breath escapes from our bodies, it constitutes another sense of out. In contrast to the third sense, TR can become visible and thus accessible if the viewpoint is shifted to the exterior part of LM, and therefore, an opposite sense arises, ‘entities becomes visible or accessible’, which can extend to the conceptual domain and indicated the existence of knowledge. Finally, the TR can expand to its maximum and hence approach the boundary of LM, indicating entities expanding to a maximum boundary (Lindner, 1983) as the sixth sense. These six senses of out are identified and corresponding phrasal verbs subsequently were selected for the research. Table 1 lists the six senses of out and corresponding phrasal verb examples.

Table 1.

Meanings of Each Out Sense and Corresponding Phrasal Verb Examples.

Out senses	Meaning	Example Sentences
Out-1	entities moving out of containers	1. My brother’s family love to camp out in the mountain area and enjoy the fresh air. 2. Whenever the bell rings, all students rush out and do not pay any attention to what I say.
Out-2	entities removed out of sets or groups	1. Let’s go shopping and you can pick out the dress you like. 2. The assistant will hand out exam papers when the bell rings.
Out-3	exclusion	1. The bleach can make the dirty spot come out . 2. If you make any spelling mistake in writing, you just need to cross it out and write the corrections above it.
Out-4	voice or breath coming out of self-body	1. Many soldiers were wounded in the battle and cried out in great pain at night. 2. If you really want that chair in the auction, you have to call out .
Out-5	entities becoming visible or accessible	1. Your parents would be very disappointed if they found out that you failed some courses in the midterm. 2. My father pointed out a mistake in my mathematic assignment.
Out-6	entities expanding to a maximum boundary	1. Please roll out the map on the table, and I will make it easier to show you the flooding area. 2. The plastic rubber can be stretched out to ten times its length.

On the other hand, chu is a common directional verb in Mandarin. Directional verbs are a special group of verbs. Typically they can not only stand alone and have independent meanings but can also combine with other verbs to form a resultative verb compound that indicates that verb’s direction/path. Accordingly, chu has an independent meaning ‘exit’ and a directional one ‘out’ (Li and Thompson, 1981: 59). The selection of chu as the illustration for a metaphorical extension mechanism for the particle out is grounded in the semantic similarities that both out and chu involve the concept of containment. Like the English particle out, chu indicates not only the removal of the trajector but also the shift of perspective from the container’s interior to its exterior.

A number of fundamental sense types are adopted from Li’s study (2014: 128–33). Chu literally refers to an entity (TR) moving out of a container (LM) and hence its basic meaning is considered to be ‘departure or exit’, as in ‘chū chéng’ (leaving town) and ‘chū mén’ (leaving home). The container refers not only to concrete objects but also to abstract notions such as ‘situation’, ‘group’, or even ‘human bodies’, such as the phrase ‘chū hàn’ (sweating). The outward movement can extend metaphorically to the provision of tangible substances such as ‘money’ or intangible concepts such as ‘ideas’. An example can be found in the phrase ‘chū yìjiàn’ (providing ideas). Like the English particle out, the viewpoint can shift to the exterior of the container and focusses on the result of the outward movement. Therefore, it indicates the occurrence of events or phenomena as in ‘chū chēhuò’ (occurrence of car crash) and the origin or source of something or somebody as in ‘chū měinǚ’ (the origin of beauties). The exterior region of the LM can become the focus so that the destination of movement is foregrounded and therefore the meaning of ‘reach’ is conceived as in ‘chū ting’ (appearing in court). The destination can be a place as well as the abstract notion of a ‘situation’. The phrase ‘chū shī’ (becoming a professional) is a typical example. One sense of chu is more remote from its literal meaning in that the amount, number and a crowd of people can become a kind of container and the outward movement from the container brings about the concept of outnumbering, exceeding and outstanding. The phrase ‘bù chū wǔ fēnzhōng’ (no more than five minutes) is a common usage, although it is always in the negative form. All these senses will be covered in the Mandarin lessons.

Phrasal verb usage is ubiquitous in English, and learning this particular group of lexical items seems persistently difficult. They may create an insurmountable learning obstacle to EFL learners whose native languages use few of these types of verbs, or even do not have similar types of verbs. Mandarin Chinese belongs to the latter group of languages that do not contain such a construction. Chinese learners tend to avoid phrasal verbs (Liao and Fukuta, 2004) and therefore much greater difficulty would be expected for EFL learners of Mandarin natives than for those whose L1 contained similar lexical constructions. It would be a great challenge to overcome the language difference between English and Mandarin, but be more insightful if positive results can be obtained. With a view to enhance the understanding of metaphorical extension, Mandarin verb chu is also introduced in terms of conceptual metaphors. Therefore, the following hypotheses are under investigation:

EFL learners who receive an instruction on the sense extension of the particle out in terms of conceptual metaphors can learn out-PVs more effectively than the control group who receive a traditional approach to phrasal verb instruction.

EFL learners who receive the illustration of the sense extension mechanism with L1 lexical items before instruction on the sense extensions of particle out in terms of conceptual metaphors can understand the mechanism better and hence learn out-PVs more effectively than the group that receives only instruction on the sense extension of the particle out.

EFL learners who receive an instruction on the sense extension of the particle out in terms of conceptual metaphors can learn out-PVs more effectively than the control group receiving a traditional approach on novel items which are not taught to all groups.

Different sense types of out can affect the learning of out-PVs so that literal senses are easier than metaphorical extended ones.

Methodology

Participants

Taiwanese EFL learners of pre-intermediate English proficiency in a technology university were selected as subjects and formed into three groups: one control group (n = 39) and two experimental groups: cognitive (n = 36) and cognitive-plus groups (n = 35). This arrangement was intended to compare the effect of the proposed approach as well as to investigate whether the illustration of L1 lexical items could enhance learners’ understanding of the sense extension mechanism of the particle out in terms of conceptual metaphors and hence facilitate the learning of out-PVs, given that semantic similarities existed between the English out and Mandarin chu.

Preparation of Experimental Materials

Teaching materials were different for the three groups and included 1) vocabulary lessons for the control group; 2) out-PV instruction materials for both cognitive and cognitive-plus groups; and 3) L1 lexical introduction for the cognitive plus group. Examples of instructional materials are provided in Appendix A.

For the control group, three short stories were adopted from the internet for classroom instruction. A vocabulary exercise section was constructed with Chinese translation equivalents for phrasal verbs along with exemplar sentences. On the other hand, the instruction materials of out-PVs for the experimental groups involved the identification of out senses, the selection of corresponding phrasal verbs and the construction of appropriate contexts for each phrasal verb. The identification of out senses principally followed the classification by Tyler and Evans (2003) and Rudzka-Ostyn (2003). Six senses of out were selected, as seen in the following, along with corresponding conceptual metaphors.

1. out-1: entities moving out of containers (A PREVIOUS BOUNDARY IS A CONTAINER);

2. out-2: entities removed out of sets or groups (A SET/GROUP IS A CONTAINER);

3. out-3: exclusion (EXCLUSION IS OUT);

4. out-4: voice or breath coming out of self-body (SELF BODY IS A CONTAINER);

5. out-5: entities becoming visible or accessible (ACCESSIBILITY/VISIBILITY/EXISTENCE IS OUT);

6. out-6: entities expanding to a maximum boundary (A PREVIOUS BOUNDARY IS A CONTAINER).

Subsequently, out-PVs exemplifying these sense types of out were identified and each was embedded in a sentential context to disambiguate meanings. In total, six lessons were prepared for six sense types. Moreover, two Mandarin lessons on chu were designed to guide the cognitive-plus group to review the meanings of chu, but focused on the introduction of sense extension in terms of conceptual metaphors (Li, 2014).

For the assessment of phrasal verb learning, a test sheet was designed to assess subjects’ knowledge of out-PVs. In the test, five test items were designed for each sense type of out and made a total of 30 test items. Among the five test items for each type, two were taught explicitly to all groups, one was taught to the experimental group but not to the control group, another was taught to the control group but not to the experimental group, and the last one was not taught either to the control or the experimental groups. In other words, for each type of out-PVs, all three groups would receive explicit instruction of three test items in the classroom, but no instruction for another two test items. This arrangement was intended to balance the difficulty of the test for all groups and, more importantly, to see whether the experimental groups were able to generalize the motivation of out and apply to new out-PVs. The task of the test sheet required subjects to provide appropriate Chinese translations for English out-PVs embedded in a mini-dialogue (Appendix B).

Classroom Procedures

Before the instruction, we conducted a simulated national GEPT (The General English Proficiency Test), which contained sections of vocabulary assessment and reading comprehension. Both were regarded as highly correlated to the phrasal verbs tests. We used the proficiency test as a covariate rather than testing the subjects’ prior knowledge of phrasal verbs as a pre-test for two reasons. First, the ‘facilitating effect’ might compromise the effect of instruction (Yasuda, 2010: 259). Second, a negative effect might arise if subjects failed most phrasal verb items in the pretest, and they would possibly avoid learning this particular group of lexical items in the instruction phase.

The control group was required to read three short stories before class and the teacher would teach all the phrasal verbs in the classroom. For the cognitive group, the instruction involved the explanation of underlying conceptual metaphors for out senses and out-PVs of corresponding senses. For the cognitive-plus group, the subjects received an additional two lessons on the Mandarin directional verb chu before the instruction on out senses. After the instruction phase was completed, the test sheet was administered to all three groups in Week 9. Subjects of all groups were required to provide correct translation of out-PVs.

Results

Effect of a CL-Inspired Approach to Phrasal Verbs Learning

To find out whether the three instruction approaches had an effect on phrasal verb scores, a one-way ANCOVA was conducted on phrasal verb scores, treating the proficiency test score as a covariate. The homogeneity of all three groups was first assured, F(2, 107) = 2.62, p > .05, and the interaction of the independent variable (instructional approaches) and the covariate (proficiency) was not significant: F(2, 104) = 0.26, p > .05. Thus, it confirmed the homogeneity of the regression slopes. The result of ANCOVA revealed the instructional approaches had a significant effect on the learning of out-PVs: F(2, 106) = 16.81, p < .001, η_p² = 0.241, and that learners’ proficiency significantly affected the learning of out-PVs: F(1, 106) = 32.54, p < .001, η_p² = 0.235. Table 2 shows the result of the ANCOVA analysis on the phrasal verb test by controlling the factor of proficiency.

Table 2.

Summary of ANCOVA Analysis on Phrasal Verb Test by Controlling the Factor of Proficiency.

Source	SS	Df	MS	F
Proficiency	452.10	1	452.10	32.53^***
Group	467.40	2	233.70	16.81^***
Error	1473.34	106	13.90

Note: R Squared = .386 (Adjusted R Squared = .369). ^***p < .001.

Moreover, a post-hoc comparison using the Bonferroni method revealed that the cognitive group (M = 18.86, SD = 5.06) performed significantly better than the control group (M = 14.44, SD = 4.07), t(106) = 5.00, p < .001, and the cognitive-plus group (M = 18.69, SD = 3.43) also outperformed the control group significantly, t(106) = 4.96, p < .001. Nevertheless, the difference between cognitive and cognitive- plus group was not significant, as Table 3 indicates.

Table 3.

Multiple Comparison and Mean Differences for Phrasal Verbs Test by the Instruction Approach Controlling the Factor of Proficiency.

Comparison	Mean Difference	Std. Error	95% Confidence Interval for Difference
Comparison	Mean Difference	Std. Error	Lower Bound	Upper Bound
Control vs. Cognitive	−4.31^***	0.86	−6.41	−2.21
Control vs. Cognitive-plus	−4.31^***	0.87	−6.42	−2.20
Cognitive vs. Cognitive-plus	0.001	0.89	−2.15	2.16

Note: ^***p < .001.

Taught and Untaught Items

To compare subjects’ performance on taught and untaught items, ANCOVA analyses were conducted separately. The results confirmed our expectation that the effect of instructional approaches was significant for the items taught to all three groups: F(2, 106) = 12.91, p < .001, η_p² = 0.196. A post hoc analysis using the Bonferroni method indicated that the cognitive group (M = 8.81, SD = 2.16) scored significantly higher than the control group (M = 6.64, SD = 1.61) and that the cognitive-plus group (M = 8.06, SD = 2.33) also scored significantly higher than the control group. For items taught only in the control group, the effect of instructional approaches was nonsignificant: F(2, 106) = 0.25, p > .05, η_p² = 0.005, but a post hoc analysis demonstrated that the control group (M = 3.67, SD = 1.44) scored higher than the cognitive group (M = 3.53, SD = 1.61) but, unexpectedly, slightly lower than the cognitive-plus group (M = 3.69, SD = 1.13). For items taught only to the experimental groups, the effect of instruction approaches was significant: F(2, 106) = 35.45, p < .001, η_p² = 0.401, and a post hoc analysis showed that both experimental groups, i.e. cognitive (M = 3.81, SD = 1.49) and cognitive-plus (M = 3.77, SD = 1.11), scored significantly higher than the control group (M = 1.67, SD = 1.20). For untaught items, the effect of the instruction approaches was also significant: F(2, 106) = 3.17, p < .05, η_p² = 0.056, and a post hoc analysis showed that the cognitive group (M = 2.72, SD = 1.45) scored higher than the control group but not significantly, and that the cognitive-plus group (M = 3.17, SD = 1.27) scored significantly higher than the control group (M = 2.46, SD = 1.19). These results are shown in Table 4.

Table 4.

Summary of ANOVA Results for Taught and Untaught Items in Phrasal Verb Test.

Items		SS	df	MS	F
Items taught to all groups	Group	88.01	2	44.01	12.91^***
	Error	361.45	106	3.41
	Total	7230.00	110
Items taught to control group	Group	0.85	2	0.43	0.25
	Error	182.32	106	1.72
	Total	1661.00	110
Items taught to experimental groups	Group	113.01	2	56.50	35.46^***
	Error	168.93	106	1.59
	Total	1302.00	110
Untaught items	Group	9.85	2	4.93	3.17^*
	Error	164.84	106	1.56
	Total	1037.00	110

Note: ^***p < .001, ^*p < .05.

Comparison of Sense Types of Out

One of our hypotheses was to investigate whether the six sense types of out had an effect on the learning of out-PVs, and accordingly, the scores of various out sense types were subjected to a repeated measure analysis. Since previous analysis did not find significant difference between the cognitive and cognitive-plus group, their scores were combined and treated as one group. The result did not violate the sphericity assumption: W = 0.79, X²(14) = 15.81, p > .05 and the effect of out sense types was significant, F(5, 350) = 47.33, p < .001, η_p² = 0.403, meaning that the difference of the scores for various out sense types was significant, as shown in Table 5.

Table 5.

Results of Repeated Measure on Out Sense Types.

Source	SS	df	MS	F
Sense type	178.24	5	35.65	47.33^***
Error	263.60	350	0.753

Note: ^***p < .001.

The descriptive statistics for each sense type is listed in Table 6 and a score ranking for the six out sense types is constructed as following: out-4 > out-2 > out-1 > out-5 > out-3 > out-6. This ranking partially confirmed our hypothesis. For instance, out-6 was assumed to be the most difficult one and the statistic result did show that the score for this type of out sense was the lowest. Detailed discussion will be provided in the Discussion section.

Table 6.

Descriptive Analysis for Six Sense Types of Out.

	Mean	SD	Std. Error	95% Confidence Interval
	Mean	SD	Std. Error	Lower Bound	Upper Bound
Out-1	3.48	0.86	0.102	3.275	3.682
Out-2	3.56	1.09	0.130	3.305	3.822
Out-3	2.54	1.07	0.127	2.283	2.788
Out-4	4.03	1.10	0.130	3.769	4.287
Out-5	3.06	1.24	0.147	2.763	3.350
Out-6	2.11	1.02	0.121	1.871	2.355

Finally, the results of the descriptive statistics is listed in Table 7. First of all, one phrasal item, let out, seemed to be extremely difficult for all subjects because of its much lower mean than others’; no subject in the cognitive group gave the correct answer. In addition, leave out and rule out were somewhat difficult for both cognitive groups. On the other hand, some items seemed to be easier, such as pass out and pull out. To compare the means of all items among three groups, the performance of the cognitive and cognitive plus group were better than that of the control group for most items. Nevertheless, there were exceptions, such as break out and scream out. The findings obtained from the comparison of various out sense types and individual phrasal verbs brought up an issue that some sense types would be difficult even though the motivations for out senses was provided.

Table 7.

Descriptive Statistics for All Subjects’ Performance on Each Phrasal Verb Item.

	Context (n=39)			Cognitive (n=37)			Cognitive Plus (n=35)
	Sum	M	SD	Sum	M	SD	Sum	M	SD
stretch out	8	0.21	0.41	18	0.50	0.51	8	0.23	0.43
find out	29	0.74	0.44	32	0.89	0.32	24	0.69	0.47
leave out	10	0.26	0.44	15	0.42	0.50	7	0.20	0.41
call out	25	0.64	0.49	21	0.58	0.50	27	0.77	0.43
go out	27	0.69	0.47	25	0.69	0.47	32	0.91	0.28
rush out	6	0.15	0.37	17	0.47	0.51	21	0.60	0.50
cry out	27	0.69	0.47	34	0.94	0.23	27	0.77	0.43
lock out	8	0.21	0.41	14	0.39	0.49	27	0.77	0.43
take out	21	0.54	0.51	28	0.78	0.42	22	0.63	0.49
deal out	4	0.10	0.31	31	0.86	0.35	33	0.94	0.24
reach out	23	0.59	0.50	29	0.81	0.40	35	1.00	0.00
roll out	7	0.18	0.39	20	0.56	0.50	13	0.37	0.49
pass out	31	0.79	0.41	36	1.00	0.00	33	0.94	0.24
break out	25	0.64	0.49	16	0.44	0.50	21	0.60	0.50
get out	25	0.64	0.49	33	0.92	0.28	21	0.60	0.50
miss out	7	0.18	0.39	24	0.67	0.48	19	0.54	0.51
cut out	25	0.64	0.49	17	0.47	0.51	27	0.77	0.43
pull out	34	0.87	0.34	31	0.86	0.35	33	0.94	0.24
dish out	18	0.46	0.51	15	0.42	0.50	19	0.54	0.51
make out	15	0.38	0.49	25	0.69	0.47	23	0.66	0.48
pick out	28	0.72	0.46	23	0.64	0.49	25	0.71	0.46
let out	4	0.10	0.31	1	0.03	0.17	0	0.00	0.00
figure out	19	0.49	0.51	21	0.58	0.50	13	0.37	0.49
rule out	9	0.23	0.43	6	0.17	0.38	8	0.23	0.43
last out	9	0.23	0.43	22	0.61	0.49	23	0.66	0.48
give out	16	0.41	0.50	26	0.72	0.45	12	0.34	0.48
scream out	36	0.92	0.27	27	0.75	0.44	31	0.89	0.32
spread out	23	0.59	0.50	21	0.58	0.50	24	0.69	0.47
turn out	22	0.56	0.50	21	0.58	0.50	21	0.60	0.50
read out	22	0.56	0.50	30	0.83	0.38	25	0.71	0.46

Discussion

As the data analysis showed, the scores of both cognitive groups were significantly higher than that of the control group, meaning that EFL learners who received out-PV instruction focussing on the sense extension of out in terms of conceptual metaphors achieved significantly better learning outcomes than those receiving traditional instruction. The effect was more evident for the cognitive-plus group, who had a lower proficiency level than the control group but obtained a significantly higher score in the phrasal verb test. The results thus confirmed our first hypothesis that EFL learners receiving the CL-inspired instruction could learn out-PVs more effectively than learners receiving a traditional approach to phrasal verb instruction. More robust evidence for the superiority of this approach comes from the result of untaught items, which indicated that the two experimental groups performed significantly better than the control group on untaught items, thus confirming the third hypothesis. In other words, learners receiving the proposed instruction on out-PVs could generalize their particle sense knowledge and apply it to novel items because the approach provides an opportunity for learning with more depth of processing and thus renders a more systematic and comprehensive understanding of language (Boers, 2000; Boers and Lindstromberg, 2008).

The second research enquiry was intended to see whether the illustration of L1 lexical knowledge was able to improve the understanding of the sense extension mechanism and hence of the sense extension of particle out. However, it was found that the use of L1 lexical items did not effectively boost subjects’ understanding of out senses and the cognitive-plus group did not perform any better than the cognitive group. Thus, the second hypothesis was rejected. It was speculated that the two lessons of chu might not be sufficient for learners to understand the mechanism of sense extension. In particular, it was highly likely that the illustration of Chinese chu might implicitly encourage the transfer of chu meanings to out senses, rather than to understand how metaphorical extension gave rise to other non-central senses.

As for the fourth hypothesis, it was assumed that the literal senses of out would be easier to understand and thus easier to learn but that metaphorical senses were more abstract in nature and thus would be more difficult. In comparing the scores for out sense types by the two experimental groups, a ranking was constructed: out-4 > out-2 > out-1 > out-5 > out-3 > out-6. The ranking followed our assumption that out-1, out-2 and out-4 were more literal and thus obtained higher scores, especially for out-2 and out-4, of which the concept of ‘container’ presented specific referents. In addition, the lower ranking for out-6 was also expected in that the construal of TR expansion towards LM was considered more abstract. The motivation for certain sense types was not so easy to understand and, as a result, the CL-inspired instruction did not enhance the learning of these types of phrasal verbs as the research had assumed (Condon, 2008). The ‘perceived plausibility of the motivations’ might contribute to the failure (Boers and Lindstromberg, 2008: 29). However, what surprised us was the scores of out-5 and out-3, with out-5 scoring significantly higher than out-3. Note that out-5 indicated entities becoming visible or accessible but out-3 indicated the exclusion of entities. That is, these two senses were completely opposite in terms of visibility. For this group of Mandarin native speakers, out-5 seemed to be more acceptable, although it involved a perspective shift. It was speculated that the usage of perspective shift was common in language, as evidenced in the senses of Mandarin chu, and thus subjects scored higher for the sense type of out-5. The sense of out-3 as ‘exclusion’, on the other hand, was more complicated than the meaning of ‘invisibility’ and seemed to be more difficult.

An issue inevitably follows. What sense type of phrasal verbs or what kind of phrasal verbs should be taught to learners? It is widely recognized that some phrasal verbs are transparent and some are idiomatic and opaque (Herra, 2013; Walkova, 2012), but the distinction is not a sufficient criterion. What aggregates the situation is the polysemous nature of phrasal verbs which renders an enormous meaning range to this group of lexical items. Practical suggestions for selecting phrasal verbs were provided in two corpus studies (Gardner and Davies, 2007; Garnier and Schmitt, 2015). Equally important is the compilation of pedagogic materials for phrasal verb learning. Nevertheless, very few efforts were paid to this issue except for the earlier work by Rudzka-Ostyn (2003). The lack of appropriate teaching materials for phrasal verb learning was revealed in a thorough survey of English textbooks for Spanish secondary education (Alejo et al., 2010). The provision of instruction of phrasal verbs in light of cognitive linguistics requires attention in EFL.

The discussion of our findings reveals certain limitations and shortcomings inherent in this study. First, the teaching materials for the two experimental groups were not so satisfactory in that only short sentences or mini-dialogues were constructed, rather than longer reading passages. It is believed that sufficient context is conducive to and necessary for vocabulary development (Coady, 1993; Kang, 1995; Nagy et al., 1985). Nevertheless, the construction of reading materials with phrasal verbs can be time-consuming and beyond the time limit of this research. Second, the number of phrasal verb items identified for each sense type was not equal. That is, some sense types contained more phrasal verbs than others. This could possibly influence the understanding and learning of certain sense types. Unfortunately, this factor was not recognized as a potential variable. Future research needs to take this into consideration for more fruitful results.

Footnotes

Appendix A

Appendix B

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Alejo

Piquer

Reveriego

(2010) Phrasal verbs in EFL course books. In: Knop

Boers

Rycker

(eds) Fostering Language Teaching Efficiency through Cognitive Linguistics. New York: Walter de Gruyter, 59–78.

Armstrong

(2004) Sexing up the dossier: a semantic analysis of phrasal verbs for language teachers. Language Awareness 13(4): 213–24.

Beitel

Gibbs

Sanders

(1997) The embodied approach to the polysemy of the spatial preposition on. In: Cuyckens

Zawada

(eds) Polysemy in Cognitive Linguistics. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 241–60.

Beréndi

Csábi

Kӧvecses

(2008) Using conceptual metaphors and metonymies in vocabulary teaching. In: Boers

Lindstromberg

(eds) Cognitive Linguistic Approaches to Teaching Vocabulary and Phraseology. New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 65–99.

Boers

(2000) Metaphor awareness and vocabulary retention. Applied Linguistics 21(4): 553–71.

Boers

Lindstromberg

(2008) How cognitive linguistics can foster effective vocabulary teaching. In: Boers

Lindstromberg

(eds) Cognitive Linguistic Approaches to Teaching Vocabulary and Phraseology. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1–61.

Cappelle

Shtyrov

Pulvermuller

(2010) Heating up or cooling up the brain? MEG evidence that phrasal verbs are lexical units. Brain and Language 115(3): 189–201.

Coady

(1993) Research on ESL/EFL vocabulary acquisition: putting it in context. In: Huckin

Haynes

Coady

(eds) Second Language Reading and Vocabulary Learning. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 109–29.

Condon

(2008) How cognitive linguistic motivations influence the learning of phrasal verbs. In: Boers

Lindstromberg

(eds) Cognitive Linguistic Approaches to Teaching Vocabulary and Phraseology. New York and Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 133–58.

10.

Cornell

(1985) Realistic goals in teaching and learning phrasal verbs. International Review of Applied Linguistics 23: 269–80.

11.

Cowie

(1993) Getting to grips with phrasal verbs. English Today 9(4): 38–41.

12.

Dagut

Laufer

(1985) Avoidance of phrasal verbs: a case for contrastive analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 7(1): 73–79.

13.

Darwin

Gray

(1999) Going after the phrasal verb: an alternative approach to classification. TESOL Quarterly 33(1): 65–83.

14.

Dirven

(2002) Recent cognitive approaches to English phrasal verbs. In: Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk

Turewicz

(eds) Cognitive Linguistics Today. New York and Berlin: Peter Lang, 483–500.

15.

Ganji

(2011) The best way to teach phrasal verbs: translation, sentential contextualization or metaphorical conceptualization? Theory and Practice in Language Studies 1(11): 1497–1506.

16.

Gao

Meng

(2010) A study on the effect of metaphor awareness raising on Chinese EFL learners’ vocabulary acquisition and retention. Canadian Social Science 6(2): 110–24.

17.

Gardner

Davies

(2007) Pointing out frequent phrasal verbs: a corpus-based analysis. TESOL Quarterly 41(2): 339–59.

18.

Garnier

Schmitt

(2015) The PHaVE list: a pedagogical list of phrasal verbs and their most frequent meaning senses. Language Teaching Research 19(6): 645–66.

19.

Gibbs

Matlock

(2001) Psycholinguistic perspectives on polysemy. In: Cuyckens

Zawada

(eds) Polysemy in Cognitive Linguistics. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 213–39.

20.

Herra

(2013) Phrasal verbs: their teaching and acquisition. Revista De Lenguas Modernas 19: 487–509.

21.

Hulstijn

Marchena

(1989) Avoidance: grammatical or semantic causes? Studies in Second Language Acquisition 11(3): 241–55.

22.

Johnson

(1987) The Body in the Mind: the Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination, and Reason. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

23.

Kang

S–H

(1995) The effects of a context-embedded approach to second-language vocabulary learning. System 23(1): 43–55.

24.

Karahan

(2015) The effect of conceptual metaphors on Turkish EFL learners’ comprehension and production of phrasal verbs. International Journal of Linguistics and Communication 3(1): 76–86.

25.

Kurtyka

(2001) Teaching English phrasal verbs: a cognitive approach. In: Dirven

Niemeier

Putz

(eds) Applied Cognitive Linguistics: Language Pedagogy. New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 29–54.

26.

Kӧvecses

Szabó

(1996) Idioms: a view from cognitive semantics. Applied Linguistics 17(3): 326–55.

27.

Lakoff

Johnson

(1980) Metaphors We Live By. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

28.

Lakoff

Johnson

(1999) Philosophy in the Flesh. New York: Basic Books.

29.

Langacker

(1988) A review of linguistic semantics. In: Rudaka-Ostyn

(ed.) Topics in Cognitive Linguistics. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 49–90.

30.

Laufer

Eliasson

(1993) What causes avoidance in L2 learning, L1–L2 difference, L1–L2 similarity, or L2 complexity? Studies in Second Language Acquisition 15(1): 35–48.

31.

Thompson

(1981) Mandarin Chinese: a Functional Reference Grammar. Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.

32.

(2014) The framework for distinction of senses of Chinese polysemy. Unpublished PhD Thesis, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, Republic of China.

33.

Liao

Fukuya

(2004) Avoidance of phrasal verbs: the case of Chinese learners of English. Language Learning 54(2): 193–226.

34.

Lindner

(1983) A Lexico-semantic Analysis of Verb-particle Constructions with Up and Out. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club.

35.

Lindstromberg

(1996) Prepositions: meaning and method. ELT Journal 50(3): 225–36.

36.

McArthur

(1989) The long-neglected phrasal verb. English Today 5(2): 38–44.

37.

Moon

(1997) Vocabulary connections: multi-word items in English. In: Schmitt

McCarthy

(eds) Vocabulary: Description, Acquisition and Pedagogy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 40–63.

38.

Morgan

(1997) Figuring out figure out: metaphor and the semantics of the English verb-particle construction. Cognitive Linguistics 8(4): 327–57.

39.

Nagy

Herman

Anderson

(1985) Learning words from context. Reading Research Quarterly 20(2): 233–53.

40.

Neagu

(2007) English verb particles and their acquisition: a cognitive approach. Revista Espanola de Linguista Aplicada 20: 121–38.

41.

Rudzka-Ostyn

(2003) Word Power: Phrasal Verbs and Compounds, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

42.

Side

(1990) Phrasal verbs: sorting them out. ELT Journal 44(2): 144–52.

43.

Tyler

Evans

(2003) The Semantics of English Prepositions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

44.

Walkova

(2012) Helping students figure out the meanings of phrasal verbs. Forlang 7th International Conference on Foreign Languages in an Academic Environment, 169–78.

45.

Yang

Hsieh

(2010) Conceptual Metaphor Awareness on English Phrasal Verbs Teaching and Learning for Adolescents in Taiwan. Available at: http://ir.lib.ncku.edu.tw/handle/987654321/108255

46.

Yasuda

(2010) Learning phrasal verbs through conceptual metaphors: a case of Japanese EFL learners. TESOL Quarterly 44(2): 250–73.