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
Acknowledgements................................................................................................ 3
Introduction............................................................................................................ 4
1. Learning strategies............................................................................................. 5
2. The nature of particle verbs............................................................................... 8
3. How particle verbs structure space..................................................................10
3.1. Idiomaticity and compositionality as the fundamental features of particle
verbs................................................................................................................. 10
3.2. Analyzability in SLA.................................................................................... 10
3.3. How in, out and down structure space.......................................................12
3.3.1. The topology of in................................................................................ 12
3.3.2. The topology of out.............................................................................. 14
3.3.3. The topology of down...........................................................................15
4. Research........................................................................................................... 17
4.1. Aims and hypotheses................................................................................. 17
4.2. The instrument........................................................................................... 18
4.3. The sample and the procedure...................................................................18
4.4. The data - preliminary analysis and coding................................................19
5. Results.............................................................................................................. 22
5.1. Strategic construal in relation to the semantic nature of particle verbs
(light vs. heavy verbs)....................................................................................... 22
5.2. Construal of particles................................................................................. 25
5.2.1. Strategic construal of out.....................................................................26
5.2.2. Strategic construal of in.......................................................................29
5.2.3. Strategic construal of down.................................................................31
5.2.4. Final comparison with the research done by Geld................................33
6. Conclusion........................................................................................................ 35
7. References....................................................................................................... 37
8. Appendices....................................................................................................... 39
1
8.1. Appendix 1: Final research questionnaire...................................................39

8.2. Appendix 2: Participants answers (a 9-page sample)................................42
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
5
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 identify
them 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).
6
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, explanation
and/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).
8
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 space

3.1. 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).
10
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,
11
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 openclass 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).
12
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,
13
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
14
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.
15
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.
16
4. Research
4.1. 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.
17
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.
18
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.1
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.;
The answers were originally given in Croatian.
19
- 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.
20
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.
21
5. Results
5.1. 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:
CATEGORIES OF ANSWERS
VERBS
go out
go in
go down
break in
break out
break down
take out
take down
take in
call in
call out
call down
put out
put in
TOP
LX
COMP
NO (USABLE)
ANSWER
6
18.75%
4
12.5%
7
21.875%
2
6.25%
4
12.5%
7
21.875%
4
12.5%
7
21.875%
10
31.25%
3
9.375%
1
3.125%
1
3.125%
8
25%
4
11
34.375%
14
43.75%
10
31.25%
7
21.875%
13
40.625%
7
21.875%
5
15.625%
14
43.75%
10
31.25%
7
21.875%
14
43.75%
17
53.125%
12
37.5%
12
15
46.875%
14
43.75%
15
46.875%
22
68.75
14
43.75%
17
53.125%
22
68.75
11
34.375%
12
37.5%
16
50%
15
46.875%
10
31.25%
12
37.5%
12
1
3.125%
1
3.125%
1
3.125%
6
18.75%
1
3.125%
4
12.5%
4
22
12.5%
3
9.375%
1
3.125%
2
6.25%
1
3.125%
put down
cut out
cut in
cut down
12.5%
6
18.75%
2
6.25%
2
6.25%
37.5%
17
53.125%
12
37.5%
11
34.375%
13
40.625%
37.5%
12
37.5%
13
40.625%
17
53.125%
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.
CATEGORIES OF ANSWERS
VERBS
light verbs (go,
take, put)
heavy verbs
(break, call, cut)
TOP
LX
COMP
NO (USABLE)
ANSWER
53
9.17%
22
3.8%
4
0.69%
28
4.84%
105
18.17%
101
17.47%
125
21.63%
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.
23
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).
24
Figure 3. Semantic determination in strategic construal of particle verbs (taken

from Geld, 2009: 97)
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 selfexplanatory 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 RudzkaOstyns 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 categoryspecific 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;
25
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:
26
Figure 2. A potential path of grammaticalization in the

strategic construal of out (taken from Geld, 2009: 137)
The following results for the strategic construal of out were obtained from the present
research:
1. Van2 (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)3
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)

2
Translation of the text in the sketch: break + out something.
27
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;
28
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, usred4 (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)5
Figure 9. put in (elect political party as the government)
Figure 10. take in (understand or absorb something)6
Translation of the text in the sketch: (it cannot be seen anymore).
Translation of the text in the sketch: take + in
information
29
Figure 11. take in (understand or absorb something)7
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
Translation of the text in the sketch: Take and in together mean that something
becomes a part of something else, for example, through learning information enters our
head (as shown in the picture).
30
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. Dolje8 (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)9
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)10
Figure 15. go down (to be defeated by somebody, especially in a sports game

or competition)11
Translation of the text in the sketch: Take and down together mean that something
is put on something else, for example, we can write words in a notebook.

10
Translation of the text in the sketch: go down = fall
11
Translation of the text in the sketch: Take and down together mean movement
downward. In this case, defeating your opponent can be explained in terms of throwing
them on the ground.
31
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,
5.
6.
7.
8.
quantity, size, degree, value, activity, status, strength): 5 (4.71%)

Pribliiti (eng. moving closer): 1 (0.94%)
Ponititi, preokrenuti neto (eng. undoing, reversing something): 1 (0.94%)
Rezati van (eng. cutting and throwing out): 1 (0.94%)
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:
32
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.
33
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.
34
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.
35
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.
36
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.
37
8. Appendices
8.1. 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.
38
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.
39
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:
___________________________________________________________________________
40
8.2. Appendix 2: Participants answers (a 9-page sample)12
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 outDakle, 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
12
The full learner corpora collected and used in this research can be obtained from the author.
41
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)
42
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:
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:
zamisliti kontekst ili sliku): 2, 5, 9, 15, 17, 23, 25, 26, 29
offered as an explanation:
43
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!!
44
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
znaenja): 19, 21, 26, 28
CMP for compositional meaning: 6, 7, 23, 24, 27
PPH for paraphrase (parafraziranje): 14
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
45
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:
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
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.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Put (staviti), out (van) staviti neto izvan funkcije

Vizualna konotacija- neto je izalo iz svog prirodnog stanja.
Ozlijediti, Istroiti
Izloiti se neemu
Nauila iz rjenika
Staviti van ozljede na tijelu
46
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
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
zamisliti kontekst ili sliku): 15, 29
47
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
48

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
MIS for misinterpretation:
zamisliti kontekst ili sliku): 5, 16, 17, 26, 29
49

Strategic Construal of Phrasal Verbs in Adult Learners of English As A Second Language

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Descrição original:

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Strategic Construal of Phrasal Verbs in Adult Learners of English As A Second Language

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

University of Zagreb

Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences

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

Advisor: Renata Geld, PhD

Zagreb, September 2010

8.1. Appendix 1: Final research questionnaire...................................................39

2. The nature of particle verbs

3. How particle verbs structure space

3.2. Analyzability in SLA

Figure 1. Integrated model of second language acquisition (taken from Geld

According to Johnson, the experience of boundedness and containment is inherent in all

4.4. The data - preliminary analysis and coding

is regarded as more informative than the meaning of the particle);

verb being used or explained;

The answers were originally given in Croatian.

Odsijecanjem dijela od cjeline, umanjujemo

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

Figure 3. Semantic determination in strategic construal of particle verbs (taken

Figure 2. A potential path of grammaticalization in the

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

Figure 4. break out (to escape)3

Figure 5. break out (to escape)

Figure 6. go out (stop burning)

The answers were originally given in Croatian.

Translation of the text in the sketch: break + out something.

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

Figure 7. go in (become hidden)

Figure 8. go in (become hidden)5

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

Figure 10. take in (understand or absorb something)6

The answers were originally given in Croatian.

Translation of the text in the sketch: (it cannot be seen anymore).

Translation of the text in the sketch: take + in

Figure 11. take in (understand or absorb something)7

Figure 12. take down (to write down information)9

Figure 13. take down (to write down information)

2. Dolje, poraeno, slabije (eng. down, defeated, weaker) - (decrease in intensity,

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

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

The answers were originally given in Croatian.

is put on something else, for example, we can write words in a notebook.

Translation of the text in the sketch: go down = fall

3. Pasti, raspasti se (eng. falling, falling apart) - (movement from a higher to

quantity, size, degree, value, activity, status, strength): 5 (4.71%)

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

15. Traugott. E. C. (1989). On the epistemic meanings in English: An example of

Jasna Vinter, Faculty of Philosophy, University of Zagreb

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

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

IME I INICIJAL PREZIMENA:_________________________________________________

8.2. Appendix 2: Participants answers (a 9-page sample)12

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

13. Slomiti unutra nauljati

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

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

Odgovor bez objanjenja kognitivne strategije:

Você também pode gostar