Strategic construal of phrasal verbs in adult learners of English as a second language

University of Zagreb

Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences

Ivana Luia 3

Jasna Vinter

Strategic construal of phrasal verbs in adult learners of English as a second language

graduation thesis

Advisor: Renata Geld, PhD

Zagreb, September 2010

3Acknowledgements

4Introduction

51. Learning strategies

82. The nature of particle verbs

103. How particle verbs structure space

103.1. Idiomaticity and compositionality as the fundamental features of particle verbs

103.2. Analyzability in SLA

123.3. How in, out and down structure space

123.3.1. The topology of in

143.3.2. The topology of out

153.3.3. The topology of down

174. Research

174.1. Aims and hypotheses

184.2. The instrument

184.3. The sample and the procedure

194.4. The data - preliminary analysis and coding

225. Results

225.1. Strategic construal in relation to the semantic nature of particle verbs (light vs. heavy verbs)

255.2. Construal of particles

265.2.1. Strategic construal of out

295.2.2. Strategic construal of in

315.2.3. Strategic construal of down

335.2.4. Final comparison with the research done by Geld

356. Conclusion

377. References

398. Appendices

398.1. Appendix 1: Final research questionnaire

428.2. Appendix 2: Participants answers (a 9-page sample)

Acknowledgements

First of all, I would like to thank my advisor, Renata Geld, PhD, for her generous advice, guidance and all the freedom she gave me. I would also like to thank my students and all the respondents, who helped me with my research, especially for their time spent on filling in my research forms and tests. I thank my colleagues for all their help and support. Finally, and most importantly, I thank my parents, closest family and friends, who encouraged me, tolerated my lack of time and provided me with all the support throughout all these years at college.

This work is dedicated to the most beloved ones: my parents and the one and only love of my life, Dominik.

Introduction

Cognitive linguistics, as a branch of linguistics, started its development during the 1970s and 1980s. Until the present time it has developed into one of the most significant viewpoints of second language acquisition (SLA) theories. CL defines language development as related to human cognitive abilities and argues that people understand semantic structures through conceptual structures which have been developed and influenced by culturally specific background. Therefore, as cognitive linguists claim, it seems natural that second language acquisition should also take place under the same principles of cognition which govern acquisition of learners first language (see Ellis 1994; Geld 2009). However, the connection between language and cognition became prominent only when individual differences in SLA, or learning strategies came into focus (see Geld 2009).

Learning strategies are under the influence of various linguistic factors and include all kinds of processes that can either facilitate language acquisition or, if not used properly, even complicate it. Which learning strategy an L2 speaker will employ is very individual. However, it is not wholly unpredictable, and this is what the present research will attempt to show through investigating what Geld has named semantic determination (2009: 8) of in, out and down in English particle verbs. The author makes a difference between topological and lexical determination, and investigates linguistic meaning through the so called strategic construal (i.e. meaning construal in L2) (see Geld 2006, 2009). Moreover, the aim is to find out if / how much adult learners of English are conscious of the symbolic nature of language and specific contributions of grammatical elements in their conceptual structure.

The work is organized as follows: chapter one gives a general introduction into learning strategies and their classification, and outlines the importance of cognitive strategies; chapter two defines particle verbs, explains their nature (light verbs vs. heavy verbs) and why they are so hard to learn; chapter three introduces idiomaticity and compositionality as fundamental to the semantics of particle verbs and ends with descriptions of particles; chapter four presents research aims and hypotheses, the instrument used, the sample and research procedure, and the data; chapter five describes and discusses results and chapter six provides conclusions and suggests potential paths for further research.

1. Learning strategies

Prepositions are by nature very polysemous words, which means that there is a group of related but distinct meanings attached to them. Lakoff uses the term radial category for the pattern produced by the metaphorical extension of meanings from a central origin (see Wu 2009: 6). Traditionally, all the senses of a preposition were considered unrelated to one another. Dictionaries and grammars had lists of unrelated senses for each preposition and its uses in various contexts. The problem became worse with the study of PV constructions, where the contribution of the particle to the meaning of the whole is crucial. Moreover, prepositions and phrasal verbs are hard to translate, which seemed to support the idea that their senses were arbitrary. Consequently, students of English were desperate to find any learning strategy that might help them to understand and learn English prepositions and phrasal verbs.

This graduation thesis deals with learning strategies, so we have to start by defining learning strategies. It is mental or behavioural activity related to a specific stage in the process of language acquisition or language use (see Ellis 1994: 529). Individual learner differences (beliefs, affective states, general factors and learning experiences) together with various situational factors (the target language being studied, formal/informal setting, the instruction being used, and the nature of tasks learners have to perform) determine which learning strategies speakers will opt for (see Ellis 1994: 529). These then, in turn, influence the rate of acquisition and the level of achievement. However, various individual learner differences and situational factors are not going to be taken into account in the present study.

There are three types of learning strategies that are usually distinguished: production, communication, and learning. A production strategy is 'an attempt to use one's linguistic system efficiently and clearly, with a minimum of effort' (see Ellis 1994: 530). Examples are simplification, rehearsal, and discourse planning. Communication strategies involve attempts to deal with problems of communication arisen in interaction. A language learning strategy is 'an attempt to develop linguistic and sociolinguistic competence in the target language'. Examples include memorization, initiation of conversation with native speakers, and inferencing (see Ellis 1994: 530).

There is also a crucial difference between language learning strategies and skill learning strategies. Language learning strategies involve the learners' attempts to grasp new linguistic and sociolinguistic information about the target language. Skill learning strategies include the learners' attempts to become skilled listeners, speakers, readers, or writers (see Ellis 1994: 530). When it comes to the present research, it will explore learning strategies as actions exploited by learners both consciously and intentionally. What motivates the use of learning strategies is not yet clear. They are used in order to learn something about the L2, but they can also have an affective purpose (i.e. to increase enjoyment). According to Ellis, the safest way to define learning strategies is by listing their main features (1994: 532). He offers the following characteristics:

a) Learning strategies refer to both general and specific actions used to learn an L2.

b) They are problem-orientated - the learner employs a strategy to solve a particular learning problem.

c) Generally, learners are aware of the strategies they use and can identifythem if asked to pay attention to what they are doing.

d) Strategies include both linguistic behaviour (e.g. requesting the name of an object) and non-linguistic (e.g. pointing at an object in order to be told its name).

e) Linguistic strategies can be used in both the L1 and L2.

f) Some strategies refer to behavior, while others are mental. Therefore, some strategies can be directly observed, while others cannot.

g) Strategies indirectly facilitate learning because they provide learners with data about the L2 which they can then process.

h) Strategy use varies according to the kind of task the learner is involved in and individual learner preferences.

For research purposes, Ellis defines learning strategies as production sets that exist as declarative knowledge and are used to solve some learning problem (1994: 533).

According to O'Malley and Chamot's there are three bacis groups of learning strategies: cognitive strategies, metacognitive strategies and social/affective strategies (see Ellis 1994: 536). Cognitive strategies are actions aimed at solving problems and they include direct analysis, transformation or synthesis of learning materials. Examples are repetition (imitating a language model, either covertly or overtly), note-taking and elaboration (making connections between new concepts with what we already know). Cognitive strategies, such as these mentioned, seem to be directly related to the performance of specific learning tasks.

Metacognitive strategies utilize cognitive processes and control language learning through planning, monitoring and evaluating. Examples are directed attention (deciding in advance to pay attention to particular aspects of language input) and self-management (showing understanding of the conditions which facilitate learning and trying to enable them).

Social/affective strategies involve the ways in which learners decide to interact with other learners and native speakers, for example, co-operation (working with one or more peers to get feedback, collect information or organize a language activity) and question for clarification (asking a teacher or other native speaker for repetition, paraphrase, explanationand/or examples) (O'Malley and Chamot's as cited in Ellis 1994: 536-538).

As stressed by Ellis 1994, Oxford uses a different taxonomy. For this author a distinction between direct and indirect strategies is fundamental. Direct strategies are directly involved with the target language since they require mental processing of the language, while indirect strategies provide indirect support for language learning through focusing, planning, evaluating, seeking opportunities, controlling anxiety, increasing cooperation and empathy and other means (see Ellis 1994: 539). The subcategories of direct and indirect strategies have familiar labels. Each subcategory is followed by two further levels. For example, one type of cognitive strategy is practising, which has five different kinds of behaviour (repeating, formally practising, recognizing and using formulas, recombining, and practising).

Learners, however, vary considerably in both the frequency of employing strategies and the types of strategies they use, and that is exactly what is in the focus of the present research.

2. The nature of particle verbs

Particle verbs (PVs) are constructions in which the particle follows the verb and not the noun (see Geld 2009: 9). The focus of this paper is the particle. But how can we define it? In order for a word to be a particle, it should not be used as a preposition. Talmy names particles satellites in order to capture the commonality between such particles and comparable forms in other languages (Talmy as cited in Geld 2009: 9). Moreover, satellites partially overlap with forms from other grammatical categories.

English satellites are sometimes prepositions at the same time, and are largely used in the expressions of path. However, they should not be deemed as an equivalent for prepositions. This is because satellites and prepositions, above everything else, do not belong to the same category: e.g. together, apart and forth are satellites but not prepositions, while of, at and toward are prepositions but not satellites. If a word is both a satellite and a preposition, it has different senses. For example, to is a preposition in I went to the store, but it is a satellite in I came to (see Geld 2009: 9).

There is a particular group of verbs and, thanks to their basicness, they have proved to be very prolific when it comes to idiomatic and grammaticalized usages. However, their basicness also makes them particularly hard for L2 students to learn. They are called basic, light, delexical, high-frequency etc. verbs (see Geld 2009: 15). What is essential for this graduation thesis is exactly the importance of light verbs in the process of meaning construction in L2. As Geld points out, even though L2 learners may understand the meaning of a phrasal verb, at least vaguely, they still do not have precise lexical knowledge of such constructs (2009: 15). Thus, they were inclined to avoid idiomatic expressions (during and outside of the class). As a result, learners were indistinctly aware of the meaning range and behavior that particle verbs possess. As suggested by Altenberg and Granger, light verbs portray several features interesting for this paper:

a) they show basic meanings and are inclined to dominate various semantic fields;

b) they have their equivalents in most languages;

c) they have a high degree of polysemy, due to two kinds of meaning extensions:

- one involved in more general, abstract, delexicalized or grammaticalized uses,

- one providing specialized meanings, collocations, and idiomatic uses,

d) they seem to be problematic for foreign language learners (Altenberg and Granger as cited in Geld 2009: 15).

As previously said, this graduation thesis deals with the process of strategic construal of English particle verbs and it will investigate to what extent one can expect that a semantically light verb will lead an L2 learner towards grammatical/topological determination, while a semantically heavier verb should provide strong grounds for lexical determination.

We have relied on the following theoretical ideas provided by Geld in her research (2009: 20):

a) both lexicon and grammar contribute to the meaning, while grammar is symbolic;

b) language is related to other cognitive processes;

c) learning strategies simply copy general cognitive processes in the process of meaning construal.

Thus, our general aim is:

a) to investigate how much the components of particle verbs determine the predictability of the semantic determination in L2 (lexical vs. topological/grammatical determination);

b) to relate meaning construal in L2 to meaning construal in L1;

c) explore strategic construal of in, out and down in particle verbs, and L2 learners ability to comprehend English idiomatic expressions;

d) to prove that learners are aware of the symbolic nature of language.

3. How particle verbs structure space3.1. Idiomaticity and compositionality as the fundamental features of particle verbs

Cognitive linguistics has paid much attention to polysemy and different senses of English prepositions. Generally, cognitive linguists relate polysemy to radial categories introduced by Lakoff and view the meaning of a polysemous word as a big semantic network of related senses (see Lakoff 1987). Moreover, it seems that they all originate from a primary spatial schema or proto-scene (see Tyler & Evans 2003) and then proceed to other non-spatial, abstract senses by means of generalization or specialization of meaning or by metonymic or metaphoric transfer (see Cuyckens & Radden, 2002: xiii).

When it comes to degrees of idiomaticity of English particle verbs, the categories form a continuum from the most literal to the most figurative. Dirven stresses that it is not unlikely that each figurative phrasal verb has a story of its own and is, consequently, to be situated at a different point on the continuum from purely literal to purely idiomatic meanings (Dirven as cited in Geld 2009: 22).

As stressed by Geld, one of the most accepted classifications of particle verbs related to their semantic nature is the one by Celce-Murcia and Larsen-Freeman (Geld 2009: 23). They labeled them phrasal verbs and put into three categories: literal, aspectual, and idiomatic. Literal phrasal verbs usually consist of a verb and a directional preposition, and their meaning is, as their name says, literal (e.g. sit down, hand out, fall down, etc.). According to Jackendoff, particles here keep their prepositional meaning, and one gets a phrasal verb whose meaning is fully compositional (Jackendoff as cited in Geld 2009: 24). Aspectual phrasal verbs are a category between literal and idiomatic and their meaning is neither fully transparent nor fully idiomatic (e.g. set up, take off, carry on, etc.). Idiomatic phrasal verbs (e.g. keep up, chew out, put off, etc.) are classified as such because it is very difficult to get to their meaning through the meaning of their parts.

Just as in the work by Geld, probably the most important aspect for this graduation thesis is the fact that there is a gradience in meanings (see Geld 2009: 24).

3.2. Analyzability in SLA

To define analyzability in the sense used in her thesis Geld quotes Langacker, who defines it as the extent to which speakers are cognizant of the presence and the semantic contribution of component symbolic elements (Langacker as cited in Geld 2009: 33). A speaker can easily tackle the meaning of a component structure through the meanings of its component parts. This is easily applicable in the domain of second language: when an L2 speaker is presented with a component structure, it can be expected that they will attempt to understand its meaning through its component parts, especially if L2 speakers are already quite familiar with individual components, and that is usually the case with particle verbs. However, over the time L2 learners realize that things are not always that simple and they stop expecting that individual parts are bricks building meanings of component structure. Learners either try to memorize particle verb meanings as a whole without attending to component parts or they take into consideration various aspects of meaning and form. Which road they will take depends on various language internal and external factors and their previous linguistic and world experience, as portrayed in Figure 1 (Geld 2006: 108).

Figure 1. Integrated model of second language acquisition (taken from Geld 2006:108)

Figure 1 shows Gelds scheme according to which language is closely related to human experience and other cognitive abilities/processes, e.g., attention, comparison, perspective... Meaning construal is dynamic and subjective, and construal devices (e.g. metonymy, metaphor, categorization, etc.) are mere examples of the general cognitive processes. Consequently, strategic meaning construal and second language acquisition inevitably depend on everything that precedes. This graduation thesis expresses the belief that all learners, no matter what, process language and meaning construal by attending to both meaning and form.

Thus, in order to investigate meaning construal in L2, it is necessary to direct L2 learners attention to form and ask questions about meaning.

3.3. How in, out and down structure space

The schematic meaning of English particles always starts from a spatial scene and proceeds to other abstract, non-spatial senses. Thus, spatial relations have interested linguists for a very long time. According to Hickmann and Robert, space is a universal cognitive primitive that conditions all of our experience (2006: 1).

It is interesting to mention Talmys two subsystems of meaning-bearing forms: the open-class or lexical subsystem and the closed class or grammatical subsystem (2000a, 2005). According to Talmy, the spatial schemas of closed-class system belong into two groups: either to schemas which point to paths and sites or to schemas related to the shape and position of objects. The following sections are to investigate how English particles in, out and down as meaning-bearing forms structure space, how they contribute to the process of meaning construal in English as L2 and how they are involved with various related senses which, by extension, belong into abstract domains.

3.3.1. The topology of in

According to Herskovits, in expresses inclusion or surrounding (1982: 73). Furthermore, a very important semantic aspect of in is tolerance related to inclusion in an area (ibid.: 78). For example, the baloon in the field can describe a baloon hovering over the field, as long as it does not hover too high. Herskovits also stresses extraordinary interpretations of locative constructions (ibid.: 129). There are situations we take as ordinary. However, there are others we do not. This knowledge of the world enables us to understant locative constructions such as flowers on a plate as a design motif on it if we know that the speaker is describing its appearance. Herskovits concludes by defining the core meaning of in as inclusion of a geometric construct in a one-, two, or three-dimensional geometric construct (ibid.: 200).

According to Johnson, the experience of boundedness and containment is inherent in all human beings (1987: 21): we are always surrounded by something and we constantly place objects into containers. Intuitively, boundedness is primarily related to three-dimensional containment, but containment is present even if one or two dimensions are eliminated. Johnson stresses five features of experiential image-schematic structures for in-out orientation:

1) containment protecs an object from external forces;

2) containment restricts forces inside container;

3) the contained object is relatively fixed in place;

4) the contained object becomes either accessible or inaccessible;

5) containment is transitive, i.e. if B is in A, then whatever is in B is also in A.

According to Dewell (2005), CONTAINMENT is related to two experiential patterns: ENTRY and ENCLOSURE. ENTRY involves cases where people put various different objects into open containers (ibid.: 374). The second experiential pattern is ENCLOSURE, which can be realized in many different ways due to the nature of containers. Containers can be boxes whose shapes do not change, or gloves which involve both entry and enclosure. However, there are objects that contain only by bending or closing in on the object (ibid.: 380). Dewell concludes by stressing that people experience containment through both ENTRY and ENCLOSING. The TR enters the LM and the LM encloses the TR (ibid.: 381).

Evans and Tyler claim that through human interaction with the physical world, certain spatial relations have non-trivial consequences, which leads to situated inferences (2004: 163). Through usage, they become customarily associated with a particular lexical item. This is called pragmatic strengthening (Traugott 1989), a process providing lexical forms with new meaning components. Furthermore, Evans and Tyler organize the semantic network of in as a radial-like structure where some senses are closer to the primary sense, while some others are more related to other derived senses. As a matter of fact, they introduce a proto-scene a highly abstract representation of a recurring spatial configuration between two (or more) objects (2004: 166). According to Evans and Tyler, the proto-scene through experience and situated inferences generates derived senses which become conventionalized through the process of pragmatic strengthening.

According to Rudzka-Ostyn, the core meaning of in is being inside or entering a container (2003: 48-49). Containers can be glasses, bags, buildings, lakes, cities, parts of human bodies, etc. The object enters these containers or is inside of them. Extended meanings derive from the versatile nature of containers. Thus, containers can be atmospheric circumstances, time, groups, activities, situations, relations and circumstances, human psychological and physical states

3.3.2. The topology of out

According to Lindner, the prototypical meaning of out is the removal or departure of one concrete object from within another object or place (1981: 81). Out actually denotes point/points taken up by an object (ibid.: 82). Lindner proceeds by presenting the meaning extensions around out (cited in Geld 2009: 61):

1) out is distinguishing, choosing, and rejecting;

2) LM is some abstract, coherent set of information;

3) LM is a restriction or obligation;

4) LM is abstract neighbourhood of possession;

5) LM is privacy;

6) LM is an individual;

7) out is change from hiddenness to accessibility;

8) out is change from accessibility to inaccessibility.

The first meaning extension describes out in terms of distinguishing, choosing and rejecting objects from among others, as in: She singled out flowers to make a bouquet. As pointed out by Lindner (1981: 104), sometimes we see information, conditions, events, etc., as bounded objects or even containers, and in that case LM can stand for an abstract, coherent set of information, as in: There are flaws in this design. I want you to engineer them out (taken from Geld 2009: 62). The third meaning is related to restrictions of boundaries, which can be transferred through meaning extensions to responsibilities, promises, obligations, etc., as in, for example, back out, bail out, skip out... (taken from Geld 2009: 62) The next meaning portrays possession as an abstract neighbourhood around a person, as in: The company bought the first floor of a building and rented out the apartments. The LM can also refer to privacy and when something goes past its boundary, it stops being private and becomes public, as in: His new book should come out in June. Out can also denote an individual with all his thoughts and feelings. A person can share them with somebody else, and then these thoughts and feelings leave the owner, who acts as a container, as in: In despair, she threw out her most private fears. The last two meaning extensions denote change from either hiddenness to accessibility or from accessibility to inaccessibility. As Lindner points out (1981), entities, both concrete and abstract, can be hidden from the observer and out reveals them, as in: He always stands out in meetings because of his enthusiasm. When it comes to change from accessibility to inaccessibility, the entity becomes hidden from the observer, as in: The lights went out in her neighborhood, so she did not dare to go out.

Lindners work also stresses that particular meanings are not members of only one category, but most often belong to more than one category at the same time (ibid.: 130).

According to Rudzka-Ostyn, the core meaning of out is leaving a container, which may be: an enclosure, a building, a room, a tunnel, a field, a liquid or solid substance, a set of objects, our body and mind, etc. (2003:15) In addition, she lists the following meanings and aspects of meanings (Rudzka-Ostyn as cited in Geld 2009: 76):

a) eat or inviting to eat away from home (as in: He would like to take me out to dinner for his birthday.);

b) sets as containers (as in: He picked out socks from a pile of clothes.);

c) bodies, minds, mouths as containers (as in: She reached out her hands to hold the baby.);

d) states or situations as containers (as in: Her parents talked her out of marriage.);

e) non-existence, ignorance, invisibility as containers (as in: The police wanted to know how the information leaked out to the press.);

f) containers increasing to maximal boundaries (as in: Their boss dragged out the meeting.).

In accordance with Lindner (1981), Rudzka-Ostyn portrays particles as entities containing a single schema, but with the categories generating a continuum from one set of meanings to another. At the same time, one version cannot be preferred over the other. Thus verbs simultaneously belong to more than one category.

3.3.3. The topology of down

According to Rudzka-Ostyn, down is after up, out and off the most frequently used particle (2003:104). There are many reasons for that in our everyday experience. Up down motion is very common, since the human body is in a straight upright position, with the head at the top. Related to our experience, however, we perceive the upright position as something good, whereas a lying body is an omen of death, illness or an unconscious state. Therefore, GOOD IS UP/BAD IS DOWN are common metaphors in our conceptual system and, by extension, we have learned that MORE IS UP/LESS IS DOWN (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980). Consequently, everything up is positive, while everything down is negative.

Rudzka-Ostyn describes down as a particle denoting negative verticality and lists the first meaning of down as related to movement from a higher to a lower place. Down often means that an object has changed its location or moved from a higher to a lower position (2003:105).

Next meaning is related to time and geographically orientated motion. Down has two fundamental metaphorical uses related to (ibid 2003:106):

(a) time (as a surface), often with a point in time later than some other point/period, as in: She attended ballet courses down to 2005.

(b) the geographic orientation of an object, with down denoting the movement of an object to the south or the object located south of a specific point, as in: Lets go down to the coast.

Rudzka-Ostyn also relates down to decrease in intensity, quality, quantity, size, value, activity, status, strength..., as well as reaching a goal, completion, extreme limit down the scale.

Due to the downward movement associated with eating and writing, it is natural as well, that many verbs denoting these activities contain the particle down.

4. Research4.1. Aims and hypotheses

The aim of this graduation thesis is to investigate the process of strategic construal in 32 respondents whose second language is English, but who have not received any formal linguistic education, i.e. they are not students of English, as opposed to Geld's research, which dealt with English majors. Moreover, this graduation thesis is to investigate how much cognitive strategies in the acquisition of a second language reflect the general cognitive abilities in the first language.

The aims and hypotheses of this research were motivated by the results of research into strategic construal of English phrasal verbs carried out by Geld in 2006 and 2009. There were two central assumptions governing Gelds research: a) language is an experiential phenomenon and, b) it is closely related to other cognitive processes (2009: 83). Furthermore, it dealt with the idea that meaning construal in L2 may present a link between cognitive (learning) strategies in SLA and general cognitive processes of construal in L1.

The abovementioned research was used as a starting point for this graduation thesis and established the aims and hypotheses of the present research. The fundamental aim was to explore cognitive processes during the process of meaning construction in English as a second language and to see whether the learners of English try to understand particle verb constructions through topological/grammatical construal of meaning.

More specifically, we were interested in the following:

1) The relationship between topological and lexical determination in relation to the semantic nature of the verb (light vs. heavy).

2) Frequency of compositional meanings in relation to the semantic nature of the verb (light vs. heavy).

3) The nature of topological determination in relation to strategic construal of in, out and down.

4) To what extent our results will support or defy the results obtained by Geld whose participants were English majors, i.e. linguistically educated learners.

The following hypotheses were made:

1) Topological determination is expected with particle verbs containing light lexical parts.

2) Lexical determination is expected with particle verbs containing heavy lexical parts.

3) Compositionality is expected with particle verbs containing heavy lexical parts.

4) Construal of in, out and down shows a cognitively motivated path from the topological to the aspectual.

5) There will be very little or no differences between results obtained in this research and those obtained by Geld.

4.2. The instrument

The instrument used for this research was a questionnaire which consisted of 18 particle verbs. The primary aim was to get a balanced language material, so there were several criteria for the selection of particle verbs: there should be the equal number of heavy and light lexical parts and the same number of verbs for all three particles. Three light and three heavy verbs were selected: go, take, put and call, cut, break. All verbs had to be semantically productive with in, out and down. After the selection of particle verbs, a questionnaire was made using metaphoric meanings selected from a learners dictionary. The tasks were organized so as to avoid listing the same particle one after another (see Appendix 1). Finally, it was decided that the final version of a questionnaire would contain a particle verb, its explanation and an example sentence.

4.3. The sample and the procedure

The sample consisted of 32 adult learners/speakers of English. They were tested separately and each of them was given a questionnaire to take it home and have enough time to fill in their answers. If it was possible, the researcher gave detailed instructions to participants themselves. Otherwise, all the details were explained to the people who helped with finding more respondents for the research. Detailed instructions were provided in the questionnaire as well. Each participant was also asked to provide the following data: name, age, years of learning English and other languages that they use. All the questionnaires were numbered - the numbers refer to particular respondents. In order to carry out analyses, all the answers were first copied and grouped. Then they were sequenced numerically for the quantitative analysis, according to the number of each participant. For the qualitative analysis, the answers, which are actually translations, were sequenced from the most literal to the most abstract.

4.4. The data - preliminary analysis and coding

After the data had been copied, grouped and sequenced, each answer explaining the learning strategy used for a specific particle verb was put into a particular category, which were coded in the following way:

1) No answer;

2) Translation;

3) Answer without explaining the cognitive strategy used;

4) Drawings that are enough self-explanatory;

5) TOP for topological determination (all the answers in which the meaning of the particle is regarded as more informative than the meaning of the lexical part);

6) LX for lexical determination (all the answers in which the meaning of the lexical part is regarded as more informative than the meaning of the particle);

7) CMP for compositional meaning;

8) PPH for paraphrase;

9) OPP for basic opposition (e.g., put up explained as being opposite to put down, or as opposite to down);

10) MIS for misinterpretation (where the answer is not in any way related to the particle verb);

11) CTX for examples where situational context is described without the particle verb being used or explained;

12) LXD for examples where particle verbs are lexicalized, that is, a Latinate verb is provided as an explanation.

We will briefly illustrate the three categories of meaning construal crucial for this graduation thesis. The particle verb and its meaning are followed by an example of the participantsanswers and the translation of that answer.

a) Topological determination:

- go in (become hidden) Naglasak mi je na in - ulazak, neto ulazi u neto drugo, izlazi iz vidokruga jer se skriva unutar neega veega od sebe., eng. In is stressed entering, one thing enters another; it leaves the range of sight because it hides within something larger than itself.;

- go out (stop burning) Vatra gori unutra i kao da se otvaraju vrata i putam vatru vani, pa prestane gorjeti jer samo unutra moe gorjeti., eng. Fire burns inside and when I open the door, I let the fire go out, so it stops burning, because it can only burn inside.;

- take in (understand or absorb something) Informacije koje su izvan mene, upijam, uzimam u sebe, postaju dijelom mene... Ja otvaram sebe za ono to je izvan., eng. I take information, which is outside of me, absorb it and take it so that it becomes a part of me I open myself for something that is outside.;

- put out (injure your back, shoulder, hip etc.) Vizualna konotacija- neto je izalo van iz svog prirodnog stanja., eng. Visualization something got out of it natural condition..

b) Lexical determination:

- call out (ask somebody to come and help you when there is an emergency) Nazvati nekog zbog neeg, jocker zovi i on e pomoi, eng. You call somebody because of something, you use Phone-a-Friend, and he will come to help you.;

- cut out (stop doing something) Prekinuti neto/s neime, kao filmska vrpca kad ju prereemo, prestane prikazivati (ostatke) film(a)., eng. You stop doing something, as if you cut a film tape and it stopped showing the rest of the film.;

- cut down (to eat, drink or use less of something, especially in order to improve your health) Odsijecanjem dijela od cjeline, umanjujemo cjelinu., eng. By cutting away a part from a whole, we make this whole smaller.;

- call in (make a short visit usually on the way to another place) Call in me podsjea na nazvati nekoga. Telefonirati je isto to i nakratko se javiti pa to izjednaavam sa svratiti., eng. Call in reminds me of phoning somebody. Phoning is the same as briefly stopping by, so I see it the same as call in.

c) Compositional meaning:

- go out (stop burning) Go out doslovno ii van. Vatra izala van otila je pa je nema, ugasila se., eng. Go out means literally to walk outside. Fire went outside, so it is gone, it stopped burning.);

- go down (to be defeated by somebody, especially in a sports game or competition) Glagol go znai ii, down znai dolje. Zajedno znae pomicanje prema dolje. U ovom sluaju znai poraziti protivnika, moe se objasniti kao da ga bacamo dolje tj. na pod., eng. Together go and down mean moving downwards. In this case it means defeating your opponent, for example, by throwing him on the ground.;

- break out (to escape) Treba prijei neku prepreku (slomiti ju) kako bi se izalo van (out)., eng. One should cross an obstacle (break it) in order to get outside (out).;

- take out (to pay for something to be insured) Uzeti ( imati naknadno neke koristi od toga to sada dajemo (out, eng. Take ( to have some benefits in the future because at this moment we give something ( out;

- put in (elect political party as the government) Staviti (put) u (in) neto umetnuti neku stvar negdje, postaviti neku osobu na odreenu poziciju, eng. You put something somewhere, you place a person into a certain position.

After all the 576 answers had been put into one of the 12 categories, all the answers were further categorized according to strategic construal of the particles.

5. Results5.1. Strategic construal in relation to the semantic nature of particle verbs (light vs. heavy verbs)

There were three hypotheses related to the semantic nature of particle verbs:

1) Topological determination is expected with PVs containing light lexical parts.

2) Lexical determination is expected with PVs containing heavy lexical parts.

3) Compositionality is expected with PVs containing heavy lexical parts.

The following tabels (Tables 1 and 2) present the results obtained from the present research:

VERBS

CATEGORIES OF ANSWERS

TOP

LX

COMP

NO (USABLE) ANSWER

go out

6

18.75%

-

11

34.375%

15

46.875%

go in

4

12.5%

-

14

43.75%

14

43.75%

go down

7

21.875%

-

10

31.25%

15

46.875%

break in

2

6.25%

1

3.125%

7

21.875%

22

68.75

break out

4

12.5%

1

3.125%

13

40.625%

14

43.75%

break down

7

21.875%

1

3.125%

7

21.875%

17

53.125%

take out

4

12.5%

-

5

15.625%

22

68.75

take down

7

21.875%

-

14

43.75%

11

34.375%

take in

10

31.25%

-

10

31.25%

12

37.5%

call in

3

9.375%

6

18.75%

7

21.875%

16

50%

call out

1

3.125%

1

3.125%

14

43.75%

15

46.875%

call down

1

3.125%

4

12.5%

17

53.125%

10

31.25%

put out

8

25%

-

12

37.5%

12

37.5%

put in

4

12.5%

4

12.5%

12

37.5%

12

37.5%

put down

3

9.375%

-

17

53.125%

12

37.5%

cut out

1

3.125%

6

18.75%

12

37.5%

13

40.625%

cut in

2

6.25%

2

6.25%

11

34.375%

17

53.125%

cut down

1

3.125%

2

6.25%

13

40.625%

16

50%

Table 1. Results for all particle verbs according to the categories of answers

The first table contains numbers and percentages of answers for all the particle verbs used in the research. These numbers refer to particular categories of answers. The categories describe the types of strategic construal used in order to comprehend particle verbs (whether it was topological, lexical or compositional construal of meaning). The last category refers to the number of answers which were not usable (simple translation, self-explanatory drawings, paraphrase, basic opposition, misinterpretation, contextualization, particle verb is lexicalized) or there was no answer at all. The only feature different for the second table is that it shows the differences between light and heavy verbs used in this research.

VERBS

CATEGORIES OF ANSWERS

TOP

LX

COMP

NO (USABLE) ANSWER

light verbs (go, take, put)

53

9.17%

4

0.69%

105

18.17%

125

21.63%

heavy verbs (break, call, cut)

22

3.8%

28

4.84%

101

17.47%

140

24.22%

Table 2. Results in relation to light vs. heavy verbs

In the light of the scope of the present research, its starting assumptions and the research done by Geld in 2009, which was a starting point for the present study, the following can be concluded:

1) learners of English find both lexicon and grammar meaningful and they are aware of the symbolic nature of language;

2) the nature of both verbs and particles influences the predictability of the process of semantic determination.

In the light of our aims and hypotheses, the following can be concluded:

a) topological determination is more expected with PVs containing light lexical parts (9.17% for light verbs as opposed to 3.8% for heavy verbs);

b) lexical determination is more expected with PVs containing heavy lexical parts (4.84% for heavy verbs as opposed to 0.69% for light verbs);

c) if we take into account their light and heavy lexical parts, there is not any significant difference between PVs in relation to compositionality, which is almost equally present, although there is a slight advantage of PVs with light lexical parts (18.17% as opposed to 17.47% for PVs with heavy lexical parts);

d) The results of the present research support those obtained by Geld.

The results clearly prove that the semantic nature of both verbs and particles greatly determines the process of meaning constructual in L2. It is not uncommon that semantically light verbs are understood as vague, while particles structure space and are well rooted in learners'minds. Thus, it could be expected that learners will rely on them. According to Geld, and approved by the present results, compositionality is "partial and gradient, which "means that: a) the relation between a particle verb and its components is not arbitrary, b) a composite structure is not constructed out of its components, nor is it fully predictable, and c) the continuum of compositionality is likely to have various stages corresponding to a particular aspect of strategic construal (2009 : 95). The semantic contribution of component parts varied from one respondent to another. Just like native speakers, L2 learners use the component parts as a helping tool for understanding the composite structures. Sometimes it seems logical to comprehend a particle verb through its verb, sometimes it seems easier to understand it through its particle and sometimes compositionality seems the best option. As researchers, we might expect that learners will opt for a specific direction, but, in reality, which road a particular learner will decide to take is completely individual and different for every learner. The only possible conclusion is that strategic construal of particle verbs forms a semantic continuum where learners, on the one hand, find meaning in semantically heavy verbs, while on the other hand, they can rely solely on grammaticalized particles. According to Geld (2009: 97), in between the two extremes, there are a number of intermediate cases representing gradient and partial compositionality (see Figure 3).

Some participants also avoided making sense of the meaning of PV constructions and did one of the following:

a) they simply paraphrased the meaning (e.g. for go down, to be defeated by somebody, especially in a sports game or competition, we can find a paraphrase such as: to be beaten);

b) they explained the meaning by offering basic opposition, simple translation and self-explanatory drawings;

c) they provided various contexts of use.

None of these strategies bears any significant difference in relation to light and heavy lexical parts.

In summary, the results confirm all the three hypotheses and show that semantic determination in the strategic construal of particle verbs depends on the nature of the lexical part of the composite structure. How a learner sees the meaning of a composite structure depends on what they know about a particular lexical item and its component parts, but it is hard to predict which road in the process of meaning construal they will take.

5.2. Construal of particles

In order to discuss specific construals of particles, we first grouped participants translations of the particles into categories. Therefore, each translation was first singled out and put together with other similar translations or they were left to stand alone because those translations were unique. Afterwards, these groups of translations were put in the order from the most literal to the most abstract. Then they were labeled according to the types of strategic construal listed by Geld in her research of 2009 (for out and in) or according to Rudzka-Ostyns types of strategic construal for down (2003). For each category there are a number of answers that fall into a particular category and a percentage denoting the amount of category-specific answers in relation to the sum of all the answers amounted in this research.

5.2.1. Strategic construal of out

The following list provides the types of strategic construal of out offered by Geld (2009: 126):

a) Processual topology (concrete/physical). Out is: going out or leaving an enclosed space;

b) Static topology (concrete/physical). Out is: out of our dominion or out of the usual place. Out is: out of where we are; out of our world;

c) Abstract topology (static displacement/change of state). Out is: out of the previous state; out of the previous activity; out of routine; out of the usual;

d) Out is: absence; absent; isolation;

e) Processual topology without direct reference to the container. Out is: disappear; disappearing; leaving;

f) Aspectual (termination). Out is: something finished; something ended; end; completely;

g) Out emphasizes the action;

h) Static topology (both concrete and abstract) - focus on the space outside our immediate dominion. Out is: outside, out where other people are; visible; not hidden;

i) Established metaphor. Out is: out of the group; not belonging; free; something discarded;

j) Aspectual (inception). Out is: the action starts; the activity is in effect; things are in effect; things are in existence; things begin;

k) There is some kind of reverse viewing; change of focus.

Geld also claims that if her research results were reordered into a gradient line denoting the process of grammaticalization, the following order might be obtained (2009: 137), as shown in Figure 2:

The following results for the strategic construal of out were obtained from the present research:

1. Van (eng. out) - (processual topology (concrete/physical)): 41 (33.89%)

The following respondents answers and sketches belong to concrete processual topology:

Figure 3. take out (to pay for something to be insured)

Figure 4. break out (to escape)

Figure 5. break out (to escape)

2. Odlazak, izlazak (eng. going away, exiting) - (processual topology without direct reference to the container): 12 (9.91%)

The following answer and sketch belong to processual topology without direct reference to the container:

Figure 6. go out (stop burning)

3. Iz, izvan (eng. (from) outside) - (static topology (concrete/physical)): 48 (39.67%)

4. Prestanak, nestanak neega (eng. termination, disappearance of something) - (aspect): 10 (8.26%)

5. Izbaciti, od, odbaciti (eng. throwing out, discarding) - (established metaphor): 4 (3.3%)

6. Dalje (eng. further away) - (established metaphor): 2 (1.65%)

7. Izloiti (eng. exposing) - (static topology (both concrete and abstract)): 3 (2.48%)

8. Izvui (iz nevolje) (eng. saving somebody in trouble): 1 (0.82%)

As it can be seen from the results of the present research, participants answers generally correspond to Gelds suggested path of grammaticalization in the strategic construal of out. Categories denoting more literal understanding of the particle contain the highest number of answers, and in the case of the present research these are: processual topology (concrete/physical) (33.89%), processual topology without direct reference to the container (9.91%) and static topology (concrete/physical) (39.67%). However, there are some peculiarities. In the present research the concrete static topology contains the highest number of answers (48), while in Gelds research this category comes third. According to the number of answers, the concrete processual topology is the second most frequent category (41 answers), while in Gelds research it comes first. The processual topology without direct reference to the container is the second most frequent category in Gelds research. However, in the present research it contains only two answers more than the aspectual topology, which means 12 and 10 respectively. The order of categories denoting more abstract understanding of the particle corresponds to the order of Gelds list of the types of strategic construal for out (aspect, established metaphor and static topology (both concrete and abstract)). In conclusion, the present results confirm those obtained by Geld. However, certain peculiarities have to be allowed due to the fact that every individual respondent participating in the research is different. Therefore, the results inevitably vary.

5.2.2. Strategic construal of in

According to Geld (2009: 139), the meaning of in was construed as follows:

a) Processual topology (concrete/physical). In is: entering a new space;

b) Static topology (concrete/physical) - there is no motion, just physical space and location. In is: a place; a location; space; limited space; confined space; something like a hiding place;

c) Abstract topology leaning towards inceptive aspect. In is: be/get (in)to a new activity; be/get (in)to a new situation; (in)to a (new/another) group of people;

d) Static topology - focus on the subjects dominion. In is: where the subject is, i.e. his/her world; control; dominion; power;

e) In is: inside, inside of something (not very informative);

f) Process (concrete and physical, but no container specified). In is: going into; jumping into; moving towards inside; moving inwards; entering;

g) In intensifies the action;

h) Reverse topology;

i) Established metaphor. In is: acceptable and accepting.

The following results for the strategic construal of in were obtained from the present research:

1. U, unutar, usred (eng. in, inside, in the middle of) - (static topology concrete/physical)): 60 (60.6%)

2. Ulazak u neto, nestanak iz vidokruga (eng. entering something, disappearing from the range of sight) - (processual topology (concrete/physical)): 22 (22.22%)

The following respondents answers and sketches belong to concrete processual topology:

Figure 7. go in (become hidden)

Figure 8. go in (become hidden)

Figure 9. put in (elect political party as the government)

Figure 10. take in (understand or absorb something)

Figure 11. take in (understand or absorb something)

3. Iznutra (eng. from inside) - (static topology - focus on the subjects dominion): 7 (7.07%)

4. Upasti (eng. dropping in) - (abstract topology leaning towards inceptive aspect): 1 (1.01%)

5. Na (eng. on): 5 (5.05%)

6. U svrhu (eng. in order to): 1 (1.01%)

7. Iza (eng. behind): 3 (3.03%)

As the results show, participants answers generally correspond to the order of Gelds list of the types of strategic construal for in. More literal understanding of the particle is the most frequent, and in the present research these categories are: concrete static topology (60.6%), concrete processual topology (22.22%) and static topology with focus on the subjects dominion (7.07%). However, some peculiarities are present here as well. In the present research the concrete static topology contains the highest number of answers (60), while in Gelds list this category comes second. According to the number of answers, the concrete processual topology is the second most frequent category (22 answers), while in Gelds list it comes first. The static topology with focus on the subjects dominion is the third most frequent category with 7 answers and it comes before the abstract topology leaning towards inceptive aspect (with one answer), which reverses the order of Gelds list. The categories denoting more abstract understanding of the particle are the least frequent and come at the end of our list. In conclusion, the present results confirm the path of grammaticalization proposed by Geld. Our categories start with very literal understanding of the particle and end by listing very abstract images (e.g. on, in order to, behind). Nevertheless, certain peculiarities have to be allowed due to variability of respondents answers in every research.

5.2.3. Strategic construal of down

The strategic construal of down provided by Rudzka-Ostyn has already been explained in section 3.3.3. What follows are the results for the strategic construal of down obtained from the present research:

1. Dolje (eng. down) - (movement from a higher to a lower place): 60 (56.6%)

The following respondents answers and sketches belong to this category:

Figure 12. take down (to write down information)

Figure 13. take down (to write down information)

2. Dolje, poraeno, slabije (eng. down, defeated, weaker) - (decrease in intensity, quality, quantity, size, degree, value, activity, status, strength): 26 (24.53%)

The following respondents answers and sketches belong to this category:

Figure 14. go down (to be defeated by somebody, especially in a sports game or competition)

Figure 15. go down (to be defeated by somebody, especially in a sports game or competition)

Figure 16. call down (to ask for someone, especially a god, to make something unpleasant happen to someone or something)

Figure 17. put down (to criticize someone and make them feel silly or stupid)

Figure 18. break down (if talks, a marriage, etc. break down, they fail)

3. Pasti, raspasti se (eng. falling, falling apart) - (movement from a higher to a lower place): 11(10.38%)

4. Oboriti s nogu (eng. knocking down) - (decrease in intensity, quality, quantity, size, degree, value, activity, status, strength): 5 (4.71%)

5. Pribliiti (eng. moving closer): 1 (0.94%)

6. Ponititi, preokrenuti neto (eng. undoing, reversing something): 1 (0.94%)

7. Rezati van (eng. cutting and throwing out): 1 (0.94%)

8. Ispod (eng. underneath): 1 (0.94%)

The results for down once again confirm the proposed path of grammaticalization from the literal to the aspectual. Literal understanding of the particle is the most frequent and it denotes movement from a higher to a lower place (56.6% of answers). The second most frequent category is more abstract one: decrease in intensity, quality, quantity, size, degree, value, activity, status and strength (24.53% of answers). This category is followed again by movement from a higher to a lower place (10.38% of answers), which is more literal understanding of the particle. Categories which follow continue to belong to the field of the abstract. Again we end up with the path of grammaticalization in spite of peculiarities which arise in every individual research.

5.2.4. Final comparison with the research done by Geld

The strategic construal of in, out and down confirms Gelds research:

a) L2 learners are aware of the symbolic nature of language;

b) their cognitive strategies in L2 reflect cognitive processes as aspects of construal in L1;

c) their strategic construal shows a cognitively motivated path from the topological to the aspectual: The results in the charts are organized in a way that the most literal/topological understanding of the particle comes first; and then they proceed towards the most abstract ones. The figures clearly show that literal construals are the most frequent and there is a continuum towards the abstract perception of the particles.

d) the process of meaning construal in L2 reflects a number of elements which present the linguists description of English as L1.

6. Conclusion

Cognitive linguistics has dealt with meaning construal since its very beginning. This research was motivated by some fundamental cognitive linguistic principles and we brought it in relation to Geld's research in order to investigate the link between aspects of construal in L1 and those in L2. In terms of our starting assumptions, aims and hypotheses, we have come to the following conclusions:

1) The semantic determination of particle verbs depends on the nature of their component parts. All the PVs (with in, out and down) lean towards topological determination more often when they contain light verb. On the other hand, lexical determination is more frequent with heavy lexical parts. Finally, compositionality may equally be expected with both light and heavy verbs. Thus, in the process of strategic construal of particles there is the semantic continuum where learners either rely exclusively on semantically heavy verbs or grammaticalized particles. In between the two extremes, there are a number of intermediate cases representing compositionality.

2) Learners answers for in, out and down signal the path of grammaticalization from the physical and concrete to the aspectual and schematic.

3) Learners of English find both lexicon and grammar meaningful and they are very much aware of the symbolic nature of language. This is explained by the fundamental cognitive linguistic premise that language is intimately related to other cognitive processes and the fact that the meaning construal in L2 is related to the meaning construal in L1. This is also implied by the learning strategies employed in learners construal of particles. Their cognitive strategies in L2 reflect general cognitive processes in L1.

4) The process of meaning construal is very different for every individual speaker and it depends on learners' accumulated experience and knowledge. Thus, some learners tend to construct concrete meanings in an abstract way, or they can make abstract meanings easier to understand if they see them in a more literal way. Nevertheless, speakers do attempt to extract some patterns in composite structures which might help them to construct meaning, but it is up to them to decide which patterns these are.

5) In sum, the data presented in this graduation thesis support three fundamental cognitive linguistic premises: a) language is not an autonomous cognitive faculty, b) grammar is conceptualization, and c) knowledge of language is related to language use.

In conclusion, the study of language acquisition, language learning and meaning construal in L2 can help teachers to understand students' learning strategies and reasoning. Furthermore, they can use these findings in order to improve not only students' techniques but their teaching as well so as to facilitate learners' language acquisition. Thus, grammaticalized meanings of particles can be taught in a meaningful way in order to avoid speaker's constant learning of particle verbs by heart. Hopefully, this graduation thesis has provided findings which could help to understand not only the relation of language to experience and other cognitive processes, but to tackle the complex phenomenon of language acquisition as well.

7. References

1. Cuyckens, H & G. Radden (eds.) (2002). Perspectives on Prepositions. Tbingen: Niemeyer.

2. Dewell, R. (2005). Dynamic patterns of CONTAINMENT. In Hampe, B. (ed.) From

Perception to Meaning, Image Schemas in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 369-393). Berlin/ New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

3. Ellis, R. (1994). The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

4. Geld, R. (2009). From topology to verbal aspect: Strategic construal of in and out in English particle verbs. Zagreb: Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences.

5. Geld, R. (2006). Strateko konstruiranje znaenja engleskih fraznih glagola [Strategic constral of English phrasal verbs]. Jezikoslovlje, 7.1-2, 67-111.

6. Herskovits, A. (1982). Space and prepositions in English: Regularities and irregularities in a complex domain. PhD Dissertation, Stanford University.

7. Hickmann, M. & Robert, S. (eds.) (2006). Space in Languages. Linguistic Systems and Cognitive Categories. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

8. Johnson, M. (1987). The Body in the Mind. The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination, and Reason. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London.

9. Porto Requejo, Maria D. Making sense of prepositions in Computer English. URL: http://www.unizar.es/aelfe2006/ALEFE06/6.cognitive/100.pdf. (12.7.2010.).

10. Lakoff G. & M. Johnson (1980). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago, London. University of Chicago Press.

11. Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

12. Lindner, S. J. (1981). A Lexico-Semantic Analysis of English Verb Particle Constructions with OUT and UP. PhD dissertation, University of California at San Diego.

13. Rudzka-Ostyn, B. (2003). Word Power: Phrasal Verbs and Compounds, A Cognitive Approach. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

14. Talmy, L. (2000a). Toward a Cognitive Semantics, vol. 1: Concept Structuring Systems. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

15. Traugott. E. C. (1989). On the epistemic meanings in English: An example of subjectification in semantic change. Language, 65, 31-55.

16. Tyler, A. & V. Evans (2003). The Semantics of English Prepositions: Spatial Scenes, Embodied Meaning and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

17. Wu, Jie. (2009). A cognitive approach to the description of the polysemy of preposition. US-China Foreign Language. 7, 6-10.

8. Appendices8.1. Appendix 1: Final research questionnaire

Jasna Vinter, Faculty of Philosophy, University of Zagreb

Diploma research - LINGUISTICS / APPLIED LINGUISTICS / SLA

Dragi ispitanici,

Cilj ovog istraivanja je ispitati koje strategije koristite u smislenom uenju engleskih fraznih glagola.

Zadatak

a) Pred Vama se nalazi popis 18 fraznih glagola. Nakon svakog glagola slijedi kratko objanjenje njegovog znaenja iz rjenika i primjer toga glagola u reenici.

b) Pokuajte objasniti to je to u fraznom glagolu to proizvodi znaenje koje je navedeno!!

Molim Vas, nemojte samo prepriati objanjenje iz rjenika, nego pokuajte objasniti kako bi Vi smisleno nauili znaenje fraznog glagola, dakle NE tako da jednostavno napamet nauite definiciju iz rjenika.

Svoje odgovore moete ilustrirati i obrazloiti na koji god nain elite tj. bit e nam od velike koristi ako nam navedete bilo koju 'strategiju' koja bi vam pomogla pri uenju navedenih glagola, a koja je vezana uz njihovo znaenje moete pisati, oznaavati, crtati ( !!! itd.

1. go out - stop burning - You let the fire go out.

2. go in - become hidden - The sun went in and the wind became cold.

3. go down - to be defeated by somebody, especially in a sports game or competition - Liverpool went down 2-0 to Everton.

4. break in - wear something until it is comfortable - It will take months to break in these awful shoes.

5. break out - to escape - The two men broke out of Brixton jail earlier this month.

6. break down - if talks, a marriage, etc. break down, they fail Their marriage broke down after three years.

7. take out - to pay for something to be insured The earlier you take out a personal pension the better.

8. take down to write down information Can I just take some details down?

9. take in - understand or absorb something He just culdn't take in what had happened.

10. call in - make a short visit, usually on the way to another place - Could you call in at the store andget some milk?

11. call out - ask somebody to come and help you when there is an emergency - I've never had to call the doctor out at night.

12. call down to ask for someone, especially a god, to make something unpleasant happen to someone or something He called down vengeance on him.

13. put out - injure your back, shoulder, hip etc. - I put my back out trying to lift that thing.

14. put in - elect political party as the government - The voters put the Conservatives in with a large majority.

15. put down to criticize someone and make them feel silly or stupid I hate the way Dave puts me down the whole time.

16. cut out - stop doing something - It's high time you cut out smoking.

17. cut in - interrupt somebody's conversation - She cannot help cutting in all the time.

18. cut down to eat, drink or use less of something, especially in order to improve your health I've always smoked, but I'm trying to cut down.

IME I INICIJAL PREZIMENA:_________________________________________________

STAROST:__________________________________________________________________

KOLIKO DUGO UITE ENGLESKI:____________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

DRUGI JEZICI KOJE GOVORITE / KOJIMA SE SLUITE:

___________________________________________________________________________

8.2. Appendix 2: Participants answers (a 9-page sample)

go out - stop burning - You let the fire go out.

1. Go (ii), out (van) - asocira na odlazak, prestanak ili nestanak neega

2. To go out, osjetilno (vizualno, auditivno itd.) nestajanje iz osjetilne percepcije (npr. he went out- on je izaao, nestao iz mog vidokruga). The fire went out- Dakle, vatra je nestala, prestala postojati.

3. Ugasnuti, Potroiti

4. Izai van, gasiti se (priloena slika)

5. Slika vatre koja se gasi u kaminu

6. izai ; go- ii i out iz

7. ii van zaustaviti neto

8. uenje ponavljanjem i ispisivanjem primjera u reenici.

9. DOPUSTIO SI VATRI DA ZAVRI TO JOJ JE POSAO. TJ. OLA VATRA NA GODINJI (

10. Zavriti zapoeto (U smislu reenice dopustiti da se neto zavri)

11. Otii van; iseznuti, nestati

12. IZAE, GO II, OUT VAN (crte)

13. Ii van, samo ako mi same rijei neto znae mogu protumaiti frazu

14. Extinguish

15. Izai van neega, vatra je otila (nestala).

16. Out odlaziti ( prestati

17. Meni je najznakovitije ono OUT to znai neto izbaciti

18. Go out = nestati iz neega = prestati gorjeti

19. GO OUT DOSLOVNO II VAN. VATRA IZALA VAN OTILA JE PA JE NEMA, UGASILA SE.

20. Nema asocijacija, teko mogu povezati sa poznatom rijei ili reenicom, meutim samo razmiljanje o ovom glagolu mi je pomoglo da ga zapamtim

21.

22. Vatra gori unutra i kao da se otvaraju vrata i putam vatru vani, pa prestane gorjeti jer samo unutra moe gorjeti.

23. FRAZA U KOJOJ NETO NESTAJE /ODLAZI; IZAI, OTII, NESTATI, OUT = pa je vie nema vatra je izala, nema je tu

24. Otii, otjerati (go) neto vatru dalje (out)

25. MALO KOJA MATERIJA NE GORI U DOSEGU VATRE (DOVOLJNO VISOKE TEMPERATURE). TO INIMO DA SE NETO NE ZAPALI? POSTAVLJAMO IZVAN DOSEGA VATRE (OGENJ). (crte tednjak izvan kue)

26. (crte vatre kako nestaje i na kraju ar s dimom i strelicom gdje pie IT WENT OUT WITH THE SMOKE)

27. Go ii, nekakva radnja; out neto van ( da vatra izae = nestane

28. Ono to u ovom fraznom glagolu proizvodi znaenje koje je navedeno je rije out. Nain kako bih zapamtila znaenje te rijei je zamisao neke slike, primjerice vatra se gasi ako ja izaem van iz kue.

29. Go out u ovoj reenici znai ugasiti vatru. Prva asocijacija na glagol go out mi je izai van i zabaviti se s prijateljima. Pr. Let's go out!

30. Izai - Vatra izlazi iz prostorije i nestaje

31. EXIT

32. Doslovan prijevod ( ii van ( izai ( znai, vatra je izala i nema je vie.

Analiza:

Nema odgovora: 21

Prijevod: 3, 4?, 11, 13

Odgovor bez objanjenja kognitivne strategije: 8, 20

Crtei koji dovoljno govore o znaenju glagola: 5

TOP for topological determination (znaenje prijedloga/priloga i topoloko odreenje znaenja): 16, 17, 22, 23, 26, 28

LX for lexical determination:

CMP for compositional meaning: 1, 2, 6, 12, 15, 18, 19, 24, 27, 30, 32

PPH for paraphrase (parafraziranje):

OPP for basic opposition:

MIS for misinterpretation: 7, 10

CTX for examples where situational context is provided without the phrasal verb

itself being used or explained (kontekstualizacija vezana uz neto osobno relevantno, s novim primjerima koji bi pomogli u uenju glagola ili je znaenje glagola lagano te je samo dovoljno zamisliti kontekst ili sliku): 9, 25, 29

LXD for examples with particle verbs being lexicalized, that is, a Latinate verb

offered as an explanation: 14, 31

break in - wear something until it is comfortable - It will take months to break in these awful shoes.

1. Break (slomiti), in (u, unutar) asocira na neto slomiti, razbiti, unititi, posebice neto u emu sam (cipele, odjea)

2. Break in zapravo za mene ima znaenje razbijanja, nalaenja ulaza u neto to je kruto definirano- moe biti pozitivno, razbiti neto to je napeto, osloboditi (kao u datom primjeru)... sama fraza to break in mi je poznatija iz situacija kada se spominje u primjerima poput: to break into someones house , znai kada je to razbijanje zatvorenog (ulazak u zakljuanu kuu, ulazak u tui prostor) vezano uz negativne konotacije.

Primjerice, get in stvara mi osjeaj pozitivnijeg jer je to ulazak, a break in mi je vie kao nasilni ulazak. Treba snaga, effort, da se ue unutra.. (moe biti i kao neki napredak, npr. I finally got through to him, I finally broke in through his walls) kaj ja znam (

3. Razgaziti, Rairiti, Rastegnuti

4.

5. Cipele koje nosim stare su ve 5 god i malo se ve raspadaju

6. nositi neto; ne mogu rei kako sam ga nauila osim iz rjenika

7. Prekid u unititi ono to ti je udobno

8. Razbiti se u neem neudobnom. Break daje smisao glagolu. Slino naem nabijaju me cipele, pa se lako pamti!!!

9. PRILAGODITI SEBI NA NAIN DA SVOJIM DJELOVANJEM UTJEETE NA ODREENI MATERIJAL ILI ODREENI PREDMET, KOJI POSTAJE PRILAGOENIJI VAMA.

10. Nositi odjeu dok ne postane ugodna za noenje

11. Lomiti iznutra

12. SLOMITI UNUTRA, TJ. DOK SE NE SLOMI IZNUTRA (npr. cipela)

13. Slomiti unutra ( nauljati

14. Get used to something

15. Upasti u neto, tj. upasti u odjeu koja na kraju popusti i bude ugodna.

16. Break ( neto loe, slomljeno, in ( da se to popravi, postane udobno

17. Preskaem formu i prilagoavam se oblikujem po sebi

18. Break in me asocira na provaliti u neto, ui u neto = ulazimo u odjeu koja se oblikuje po nama

19. PRELOMITI + U/UNUTRA (crte - cipela)

20. Jako teko za nauiti jer za mene nema smisla, tj. ne mogu povezati sa nekim znaenjem na hrvatskom ili njemakom jeziku

21.

22.

23. Break in ( PROVALITI ( PRIMJER ( UI U TIJESNE CIPELE SILOM

24. In biti u neemu, osjeati da si u neemu, break prekinuti taj osjeaj

25. MODA SE CIPELE I RAZGAZE NAKON NEKOG VREMENA I POSTANU PODNOLJIVE ZA NOSITI. DO TAD TKO IH NOSI, TRPI I NADAJ SE.

26. NETO TO JE VEE TREBA UI U NETO MANJE. CIPELE E POSTATI UDOBNIJE AKO SE RAZGAZE.

27. To break=slomiti neto, provaliti + in=u, unutra ( slomiti tijesne cipele = razgaziti

28. Dodatak rijei in. I opet bih si zamislila sliku, primjericekako nosim cipele i kako sam sretna kada su one konano udobne

29. Break in u ovoj reenici znai razgaziti tj. nositi onoliko dugo dok ne postane udobno. Prva asocijacija mi je odjea.

30. Razbiti, provaliti u - provaliti u odjeu koja mi je premala i prilagoditi je sebi (da bude udobna)

31. TO ENTER A PLACE BY FORCE

32. -

Analiza:

Nema odgovora: 4, 20, 21, 22, 32

Prijevod: 3, 10, 11, 13

Odgovor bez objanjenja kognitivne strategije: 6, 7

Crtei koji dovoljno govore o znaenju glagola:

TOP for topological determination (znaenje prijedloga/priloga i topoloko odreenje znaenja): 18, 28

LX for lexical determination: 8

CMP for compositional meaning: 1, 12, 16, 19, 24, 27, 30

PPH for paraphrase (parafraziranje): 14, 31


MIS for misinterpretation:


itself being used or explained (kontekstualizacija vezana uz neto osobno relevantno, s novim primjerima koji bi pomogli u uenju glagola ili je znaenje glagola lagano te je samo dovoljno zamisliti kontekst ili sliku): 2, 5, 9, 15, 17, 23, 25, 26, 29


offered as an explanation:

take out - to pay for something to be insured The earlier you take out a personal pension the better.

1. Take (uzeti), out (van) asocira na uzeti neto to ti treba ili to ti ini ivot boljim

2. Mm take out mi uvijek zvui kao hrana koja se narui u restoranu pa se nosi doma (

Iskreno nisam nikad ula objanjenje to pay for something to be insured u obliku to take out.

Reenica The earlier you take... mi zvui logino, no ne vezana uz objaenje koje je dano. Mogu Vam samo dati dojam smisla koji osjeam u reenici, no ne i objanjenju fraze. Dakle, to take out u reenici The earlier you take out a personal pension- take out mi ima znaenje uzimati neto to tebi pripada..

3. Podii, Uzeti

4. Slika dokumenta

5. Koliki dio plae moram izdvojiti za crkavicu koju u moda dobivati u mirovini

6. Take-nositi, out van

7. Uzeti van uzeti neto zbog svoje sigurnosti

8. Zapamtila sam je jer je slina naoj frazi bolje golub u ruci

9. KAO IZVUI OD NEKUD DA UGLEDA SVJETLO DANA

10. Izvui ili uplatiti neto radi vlastitog osiguranja

11. Izvesti van, okonati s neim

12. (nauiti napamet)

13. Uzeti van ( izvaditi ( otvoriti

14. Paying

15. Neznam

16. Take- uzeti ( osigurati

17. Gurnuti nekom kradom novce, potplatiti

18. Ja ovo nikada ne bih nauila, a vjerojatno nikada ni neu jer ni na koji nain taj glagol ne mogu povezati s njegovim znaenjem.

19. (crte 2 novanice, a strelica ide od njih)

20. Dugo sam razmiljala o ovom glagolu i jednostavno mi se ne svia, ne mogu se sjetiti nekog memory hook. Moda upravo zbog toga to mi se ne svia uspijem zapamtiti

21. Glagol take znai uzeti, prijedlog out znai van. Zajedno znae da dajemo neto nekom drugom, npr. kada kupujemo stvari. (crte novanice od 5 i 10 sa strelicama prema boci)

22.

23. OUT = VAN; TAKE = UZETI; UZETI VAN NETO = NOVCE, OSIGURANJE

24. Uzeti ( imati naknadno neke koristi od toga to sada dajemo (out

25. OSIGURATI SE UGLAVNOM ZNAI PODUZETI, UINITI, UNAPRIJED NEKE STVARI DA UMANJI MOGUNOST NEPOVOLJNIH POJAVA.

26. (crte: ruka kako uzima neto iz posude sa strelicom koja ide iz posude)

27. Take=uzeti + out=izvan ( biti siguran, osigurati se

28. Dodatak rijei out. I opet zamiljanje slike, primjerice scena kako potpisujem ugovor o osiguranju auta.

29. Take out znai osiguranje, u ovoj re je ivotno kako bi sredstva koja si osigurao imali za starost. Isto tako moemo uplatiti i osigurati si auto ili stan. Prva asocijacija je take me out!!

30. Uzeti van prva mi je asocijacija na take out food.pa bi uzela i platila hranu za svaki sluaj, da se osiguram

31. CAUSE TO LEAVE, UNPACK

32. -

Analiza:

Nema odgovora: 15, 22, 32

Prijevod: 3, 10, 11, 13, 16

Odgovor bez objanjenja kognitivne strategije: 12, 18, 20


TOP for topological determination (znaenje prijedloga/priloga i topoloko odreenje znaenja): 19, 21, 26, 28


CMP for compositional meaning: 6, 7, 23, 24, 27

PPH for paraphrase (parafraziranje): 14




itself being used or explained (kontekstualizacija vezana uz neto osobno relevantno, s novim primjerima koji bi pomogli u uenju glagola ili je znaenje glagola lagano te je samo dovoljno zamisliti kontekst ili sliku): 1, 2, 5, 8, 25, 29, 30



call down to ask for someone, especially a god, to make something unpleasant happen to someone or something He called down vengeance on him.

1. Call (zvati), down (dolje) pozvati neto da se spusti na nekoga ili neto

2. Opet taj call mi openito ima auditivnu kontaciju- jasan izraaj osjeaja kroz zvuk. Ja molim neto iznad sebe da me uje...

3. Navoditi na nekog, Prizvati, Pozvati

4. -

5. Neto to prizovemo na sebe ili nekog drugog

6. Nauila sam iz rjenika

7. Zvati dolje pozovi nekoga, naroito boga da napravi neto

8. Zvati pomo od gore dolje. Uenje kroz primjer i logikom.

9. ZAZIVATI NESREU I OSVETU BOGOVA KOJI SU GORE

10. Pozvati nekog da uini neto

11. Prizvati dolje, zacoprati

12. CALL pozvati, DOWN DOLE, tj. da sie, da se obrui

13. Pozvati dolje odozgora nestvarno

14. Unpleasant prayer

15. Pozvati na nekoga dolje.

16. Pozvati odozgo

17. Prokleti nekoga, da bog da imao pa nemao

18. Mi kaemo baciti kletvu, traiti (call) da na nekog padne (down) kletva

19. (crte, crna mrlja mobitel strelica niz stepenice = uplakano lice)

20. Povezuje rijei dobro i loe; dobro je na nebu gore; loe je u paklu dolje

21. Glagol call znai zvati, prijedlog down znai dolje.

22. Prozvati nekoga/neto nadnaravno da doe sa npr. nebesa dolje, na zemlju za neto/zbog neega.

23. Poziv prema dolje /loe/ ispod nivoa

24. Dozivati (call) neto loe (down) za nekoga

25. ZAZIVATI NEKOGA DA UINI NETO PO NAOJ VOLJI.

26. CALL pozvati u ovom sluaju ovjek zaziva Boga koji je na nebu da poalje osvetu dolje = DOWN

27. Call=zvati + down=dole ( zazivati pomo vie sile

28. Dodatak rijei down. I opet zamiljanje slike, primjerice kako netko priziva zle sile.

29. Call down znai osveta nekome. Glagol me podsjea na prolost i stvari koje bih ispravila da mogu u kontekstu osvete.

30. Nazvati dolje zvati u pakao i traiti za pomo

31. RAISE

32. -

Analiza:


Prijevod: 3, 5

Odgovor bez objanjenja kognitivne strategije:


TOP for topological determination (znaenje prijedloga/priloga i topoloko odreenje znaenja): 28

LX for lexical determination: 2, 7, 10, 25

CMP for compositional meaning: 1, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 30

PPH for paraphrase (parafraziranje):

OPP for basic opposition: 20



itself being used or explained (kontekstualizacija vezana uz neto osobno relevantno, s novim primjerima koji bi pomogli u uenju glagola ili je znaenje glagola lagano te je samo dovoljno zamisliti kontekst ili sliku): 17, 29



put out - injure your back, shoulder, hip etc. - I put my back out trying to lift that thing.

1. Put (staviti), out (van) staviti neto izvan funkcije

2. Vizualna konotacija- neto je izalo iz svog prirodnog stanja.

3. Ozlijediti, Istroiti

4. -

5. Izloiti se neemu

6. Nauila iz rjenika

7. Staviti van ozljede na tijelu

8. Ostaviti neto izvan upotrebe. Slino znaenje kao ostavih lea diui teret, lako zapamtiti. Out oznaava van a put stavit pa je logian i prijevod i upotreba.

9. IZBACIO IZ UPOTREBE ZA ODREENO VRIJEME.

10. Ozlijediti se radei neto

11. Staviti van funkcije, ozlijediti

12. PUT STAVITI, OUT VAN (upotrebe)

13. Staviti izvan upotrebe!

14. Hurt back, shoulder

15. Meni znai dati nekome neto, u smislu samoga sebe.

16. Staviti van pogona ( ozlijediti

17. Neto to je zbog nezgode izalo iz funkcije (ali da se popraviti)

18. Staviti izvan (put out) upotrebe = ne funkcionira jer je ozljeeno.

19. STAVI + VAN ( IZALO IZ MJESTA GDJE JE INAE (crte dislociranog ramena)

20. out vani, vanjski lom kosti

21.

22. Put out . uzeti i staviti van uporabe, kao da smo uzeli lea i stavili ih van tijela jer su ozlijeena.

23. IZLOITI PR. IZLOITI DIO TJELA PRITISKU

24. Staviti (put) dio tijela van (out) funkcije

25. STAVITI IZVAN FUNKCIJE. (IZBACITI IZ STROJA) ALI PRIVREMENO SUZAVAC MOE IZBACITI IZ STROJA NA DESETKE HULIGANA.

26. PUT staviti OUT van funkcije

27. Put=staviti + out=izvan ( staviti izvan upotrebe ( ozlijediti se

28. Dodatak rijei out. I opet zamiljanje slike, primjerice igram nogomet i iaim zglob

29. Put out u ovom primjeru znai ozlijediti dio tijela ili tetiti. Asocirale me na zagaivanje okolia.

30. Staviti van staviti kosti izvan tijela (stre, slomljene su)

31. PUBLISH, RETIRE

32. -

Analiza:

Nema odgovora: 4, 6, 21, 32

Prijevod: 3, 5, 10, 23



TOP for topological determination (znaenje prijedloga/priloga i topoloko odreenje znaenja): 2, 7, 9, 17, 19, 20, 22, 28


CMP for compositional meaning: 1, 8, 11, 12, 13, 16, 18, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30

PPH for paraphrase (parafraziranje): 14


MIS for misinterpretation: 31


itself being used or explained (kontekstualizacija vezana uz neto osobno relevantno, s novim primjerima koji bi pomogli u uenju glagola ili je znaenje glagola lagano te je samo dovoljno zamisliti kontekst ili sliku): 15, 29



cut in - interrupt somebody's conversation - She cannot help cutting in all the time.

1. Cut (rezati), in (u, unutar) prekinuti neto to je u tijeku dogaanja

2. Linija naeg razgovora izrezana je da bi netko u nju ugurao svoj govor. Opet taj izraz cut ima znaenje rezanja, nekakvog otrog ina.

3. Ubaciti se, Umijeati

4. prekidati, umjeati, upadati

5. asocijacija mi je osoba koja stalno neto dobacuje i neda drugima da zavre misao

6. nauila iz rjenika

7. rezati u prekinuti neki razgovor

8. esto upotrebljavano u koli. Lako zapamtiti.

9. UMETANJE, POPUT NOEM NAGLO. U POSTOJEI REDOSLJED.

10. Ubaciti se u razgovor, nekulturno prekidanje razgovora

11. Ubaciti, uplesti se

12. CUT ODREZATI, IN UNUTRA (UZNEMIRITI ONO TO SE DOGAA UNUTRA

13. Cut rezati, in u = urezati (logino se moe zakljuiti da to znai ubacivati

14. Be rude and do not wait until somebody finish talking

15. Ubaciti se u neiji razgovor tj. sasjei nekoga prilikom razgovora i ubaciti se.

16. Kad je ansa za gol u nogometu, i obrambeni igra u zadnji trenutak niotkud uklie

17. Ubaciti osobu u drutvo, upoznati je i odmah suoiti sa ostalima na nain da mora sudjelovati

18. Kada netko prekida neiji razgovor ili govor, urezuje (cut in) svoje rijei izmeu tuih rijei

19. (crte 2 lica s govornim oblaiima)

20. CUT = rez, prestanak; in ulaziti, biti u neem

21. Glagol cut znai prerezati, prijedlog in znai u. Zajedno znae da se neto prekida neim, npr. ako dvije osobe priaju a trea osoba ih prekida. (crte)

22.

23. UBACITI

24. Cut presjei, prekinuti usred (in) neega

25. PRESJECA PROCES UPADOM U NJEGA I TAKO OMETA ISTI.

26. Prekidati kontinuitet stalnim (kratkim, otrim) ubacivanjem (razgovor)

27. Cut=rezati + in= u ( srezati tj. prekinuti nekoga u razgovoru svojim upadicama

28. Dodatak rijei in. I opet zamiljanje slike, primjerice kako karama prekidam neiji razgovor

29. Cut in znai prekinuti neto, upasti nekome u rije pri razgovoru. Mene je asociralo na prekid ljubavne veze

30. Urezati urezuju mi se njeni prekidi razgovora

31. INTERRUPT

32. Urezati, upasti unutra

Analiza:


Prijevod: 3, 4, 10, 11, 15, 23



TOP for topological determination (znaenje prijedloga/priloga i topoloko odreenje znaenja): 12, 28

LX for lexical determination: 2, 25

CMP for compositional meaning: 1, 7, 9, 13, 18, 20, 21, 24, 27, 30, 32

PPH for paraphrase (parafraziranje): 14, 31

Documents

Strategic construal of phrasal verbs in adult learners of English as a second language