Cover not available
Article published In:
Review of Cognitive Linguistics
Vol. 21:2 (2023) ► pp.486–514

Top-down and bottom-up approaches to teaching English verb-particle constructions

Construction-based and metaphor-based instruction

| Gyeongin National University of Education
The present study examines two cognitive linguistics approaches to foreign language teaching. One draws on the conventionality of language use that a variety of expressions can be understood as instances of more general patterns, e.g., kick them out and eat it up as verb-object-particle, whereas the other centers on linguistic creativeness such as novel combinations or associations, e.g., chest down the ball. Noting that English verb-particle constructions (VPCs) exemplify both linguistic conventionality and creativeness, two types of instruction have been developed–namely, top-down instruction and bottom-up instruction. The top-down instruction presents VPCs as instances of conventional argument structures such as motion and resultative constructions (Goldberg, 2015), whereas the bottom-up instruction focuses on creative compositions of literal and metaphorical meanings (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980). The two types of instruction were provided for Korean EFL learners, and their knowledge of VPCs was measured by a pretest, an immediate posttest, and a four-week delayed posttest. Results of the immediate posttest showed that both types of instruction were effective in improving the learners’ knowledge of literal and figurative VPCs. In the delayed posttest, significantly greater retention was observed for the construction-based top-down instruction. This finding highlights the importance of argument structures as super-constructions in teaching VPCs to EFL learners.
Keywords: English verb-particle constructions, construction grammar, conceptual metaphor, instructed second language acquisition, retention
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Verb-Particle Constructions
    • 2.1General descriptions
    • 2.2Constructionist approaches
    • 2.3Metaphor-based approaches
  • 3.Method
    • 3.1Participants
    • 3.2Instruction
      • 3.2.1Construction-based instruction
      • 3.2.2Metaphor-based instruction
    • 3.3Testing
    • 3.4Analyses
  • 4.Results
    • 4.1Short-term effects
    • 4.2Longer-term effects
  • 5.Discussion
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgement
  • Notes
  • The abbreviations are as follows
  • References
Published online: 27 March 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.00145.sun
References
Alejo, R.
(2010) Making sense of phrasal verbs: A cognitive linguistic account of L2 learning. AILA Review, 23 (1), 50–71. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E.
(1999) Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.Google Scholar
Boers, F.
(2000) Enhancing metaphoric awareness in specialised reading. English for Specific Purposes, 19 (2), 137–147. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2004) Expanding learners’ vocabulary through metaphor awareness: What expansion, what learners, what vocabulary? In M. Achard & S. Niemeier (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics, second language acquisition, and foreign language teaching (pp. 211–232). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boers, F., & Lindstromberg, S.
(2012) Experimental and intervention studies on formulaic sequences in a second language. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 32 1, 83–110. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bowerman, M.
(1982) Reorganizational processes in lexical and syntactic development. In L. Geitman & E. Wanner (Eds.), Language acquisition: The state of the art (pp. 319–346). CUP Archive.Google Scholar
Cappelle, B.
(2006) Particle placement and the case for “allostructions”. Constructions SV1-7, 1–28.Google Scholar
Celce-Murcia, M., & Larsen-Freeman, D.
(1999) The grammar book (2nd edition). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.Google Scholar
Choi, S., & Bowerman, M.
(1991) Learning to express motion events in English and Korean: The influence of language-specific lexicalization patterns. Cognition, 41 1, 83–121. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Condon, N.
(2008) How cognitive linguistic motivations influence the learning of phrasal verbs. In F. Boers & S. Lindstromberg (Eds.), Cognitive linguistic approaches to teaching vocabulary and phraseology (pp. 133–158). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Csábi, S.
(2004) A cognitive linguistic view of polysemy in English and its implications for teaching. In M. Achard & S. Niemeir (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics, second language acquisition, and foreign language teaching (pp. 233–256). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dagut, M., & Laufer, B.
(1985) Avoidance of phrasal verbs: A case for contrastive analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 7 (1), 73–79. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Knop, S., & Gilquin, G.
(2016) Applied construction grammar. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fraser, B.
(1976) The verb-particle combination in English. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Gardner, D., & Davies, M.
(2007) Pointing out frequent phrasal verbs: A corpus-based analysis. TESOL Quarterly, 41 (2), 339–359. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Geld, R.
(2009) From topology to verbal aspect: Strategic construal of in and out in English particle verbs. Doctoral dissertation, University of Zagreb, Croatia.
Gibbs, R. W.
(1991) Semantic analyzability in children’s understanding of idioms. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 34 1, 613–620. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gilquin, G.
(2015) The use of phrasal verbs by French-speaking EFL learners: A constructional and collostructional corpus-based approach. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 11 (1), 51–88. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. E.
(1995) Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(2006) Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2015) Tuning in to the verb-particle construction in English. In L. Nash & P. Samvelian (Eds.), Approaches to complex predicates (pp. 110–141). Leiden: Bril.Google Scholar
Gorlach, M.
(2004) Phrasal constructions and resultativeness in English: A sign-oriented analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hulstijn, J. H., & Marchena, E.
(1989) Avoidance: Grammatical or semantic causes? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11 (3), 241–255. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
IBM Corp
(2012) IBM SPSS statistics for windows: Version 21.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.Google Scholar
Kim, H., & Rah, Y.
(2021) Applying constructionist approaches to teaching English argument structure constructions to EFL learners. TESOL Quarterly, 55 (2), 568–592. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kovecses, Z., & Szabo, P.
(1996) Idioms: A view from cognitive semantics. Applied Linguistics, 17 (3), 326–355. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M.
(1980) Metaphors we live by. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Liao, Y., & Fukuya, Y. J.
(2004) Avoidance of phrasal verbs: The case of Chinese learners of English. Language Learning, 54 (2), 193–226. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Littlemore, J.
(2009) Applying cognitive linguistics to second language learning and teaching. Hampshire, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Longman Phrasal Verbs Dictionary
(2000) Essex: Pearson Education Limited.Google Scholar
Lu, Z., & Sun, J.
(2017) Presenting English polysemous phrasal verbs with two metaphor-based cognitive methods to Chinese EFL learners. System, 69 1, 153–161. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nhu, N., & Huyen, P.
(2009) Conceptual metaphor and its application in teaching phrasal verbs to English majors at Thuc Hanh High School, HCMC. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ho Chi Minh City University of Education, Ho Chi Minh, Vietnam.
Side, R.
(1990) Phrasal verbs: Sorting them out. ELT Journal, 44 (2), 144–152. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Slobin, D. I.
(2017) Typologies and language use. In I. Ibarretxe-Antuñano (Ed.), Motion and space across languages: Theory and applications (pp. 419–446). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Slobin, D. I., Bowerman, M., Brown, P., Eisenbeiss, S., & Narasimhan, B.
(2011) Putting things in places: Developmental consequences of linguistic typology. In J. Bohnemeyer & E. Pederson (Eds.), Event representation in language and cognition (pp. 134–165). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sung, M.
(2020) Underuse of English verb-particle constructions in an L2 learner corpus: Focus on structural patterns and one-word preference. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 16 (1), 189–214. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Talmy, L.
(2000) Toward a cognitive semantics, vol. 1: Concept structuring systems. Cambridge, MS: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M.
(1987) Learning to use prepositions: A case study. Journal of Child Language, 14 1, 79–98. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1992) First verbs: A case study of early grammatical development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trebits, A.
(2009) The most frequent phrasal verbs in English language EU documents: A corpus-based analysis and its implications. System, 37 (3), 470–481. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verhelst, N., Van Avermaet, P., Takala, S., Figueras, N., & North, B.
(2009) Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
White, B. J.
(2012) A conceptual approach to the instruction of phrasal verbs. The Modern Language Journal, 96 (3), 419–438. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yasuda, S.
(2010) Learning phrasal verbs through conceptual metaphors: A case of Japanese EFL learners. TESOL Quarterly, 44 (2), 250–273. DOI logoGoogle Scholar