learning phrasal verbs through conceptual...

Learning Phrasal Verbs ThroughConceptual Metaphors A Case ofJapanese EFL Learners

SACHIKO YASUDAUniversity of HawaiiManoa Hawaii United States

Recent research in cognitive linguistics has shown that idiomaticphrases are decomposable and analyzable and that the individual wordsin idiomatic phrases systematically contribute to the overall figurativeinterpretations This cognitive linguistic view suggests that enhancingawareness of conceptual metaphors embedded in the individual wordsmay help second language students to learn idioms This studyexamined whether enhancing awareness of orientational metaphorsof particles facilitates acquisition of phrasal verbs by Japanese English asa foreign language (EFL) students The students in the control grouplearned a set of phrasal verbs through traditional instruction whereasthose in the experimental group received the same input through acognitive linguistic approach The students in both groups were thenasked to fill in the missing adverbial particles of the phrasal verbsResults showed that the students in the experimental group performedsignificantly better than those in the control group implying that whenthe target idioms are not stored as a unit in learnersrsquo mental lexiconlearners who are aware of conceptual metaphors may rely onmetaphorical thought to produce an appropriate adverbial particleThis highlights the implications that EFL learners need to be explicitlytaught about the notion of orientational metaphors before they canactively comprehend and produce appropriate phrasal verbsdoi 105054tq2010219945

I n English there are several elements of vocabulary and grammar thatare extremely difficult for learners of English as a foreign language

(EFL) to master or comprehend Phrasal verbs are perennial sources ofconfusion and they constitute major obstacles on the path toproficiency in English (Boers 2000b Kurtyka 2001 Littlemore amp Low2006) in spite of the fact that they are the most frequently occurringidiomatic strings of language in both spoken and written English(Crutchley 2007) This confusion appears to be true especially forlearners who lack phrasal verbs in their mother tongue (Neagu 2007)

250 TESOL QUARTERLY Vol 44 No 2 June 2010

such as Japanese-speaking students Research into language typology hasshown that conceptual structures are lexicalized differently in differentlanguages For example in English the core schema of the pathtrajectory (movement into out of etc) is encoded by a satellite to themain verb such as a particle and preposition whereas it is encoded bythe verb itself in Japanese (Conventry amp Guijarro-Fuentes 2008 Talmy2008) as in go through versus tooru and go across versus koeru (Matsumoto1996 1997) It is reported that the satellite-framed language speakerstend to provide richer descriptions of path trajectories than the verb-framed language speakers (Cadierno 2008 Slobin 1997) Thesefindings underpinned by the typological difference between Englishand Japanese imply that the chief problem with comprehending phrasalverbs for Japanese EFL learners may exist in their lack of awareness ofthe orientational meaning(s) of particles and their failure to fullyunderstand why one particle is used in preference to another Many JapaneseEFL learners may thus perceive phrasal verbs as being purely idiomaticinseparable and arbitrarily used because they may not be aware of thespecial constructional contribution of the original particle to the wholestructure It is no wonder that even students at advanced levels oflearning often show a poor command of phrasal verbs and tend to usefewer phrasal verbs and many more single-word verbs than nativespeakers executing similar tasks (Neagu 2007 Rudzka-Ostyn 2003)

It is precisely in presenting a systematic semantic view of phrasal verbconstructionsmdashto what extent the individual parts contribute to themeaning of the wholemdashthat the output of cognitive linguistic researchsince the 1980s has played a significant role (Crutchely 2007 Levoratoamp Cacciari 1999 Morgan 1997) The cognitive linguistic view of phrasalverbs emphasizes that particles are orientational metaphors that havemuch to do with spatial orientations derived from the experiences of thehuman body such as up-down in-out front-back on-off deep-shallow andcentral-peripheral (Lakoff amp Johnson 1980) and that an in-depthunderstanding of these spatial connotations of the particles that isthe cognitive image schema (Morgan 1997) will assist in the acquisitionof phrasal verbs by the learners For example Kurtyka (2001) argues thatstrong and well-organized visual support would put an end to incidentalimagery that results in poor retention and that promoting thedevelopment of visualization skill (the ability to form mental representa-tions of verbal and nonverbal input) would enhance storage andretention This claim by Kurtyka assumes that enhanced mentalvisualization of orientational metaphors would help learners to processmetaphorical extensions easily that is to expand literal meaning tometaphorical meaning without merely memorizing the meaningsKovecses and Szabo (1996) also suggest that the more importantelement in phrasal verbs is usually the adverbial constituent because

LEARNING PHRASAL VERBS THROUGH CONCEPTUAL METAPHORS 251

phrasal verbs normally have the primary stress laid on the adverb as inhold up and make out (p 346) and therefore enhancing the awareness oforientational metaphors in the adverbial particles would facilitate theacquisition of phrasal verbs by the learners Similarly Stefanowitch andGries (2005) emphasize the importance of awareness of the orientationalmetaphors pointing out that particles in phrasal verbs provide richimagery and schematic content whereas verbs are overwhelmingly lightverbs words that have very little imagery or schematic content The noveltyof the cognitive approach to teaching and learning phrasal verbs thus liesin the assumption that the ability to arrive at mental generalizations isbased on explicit awareness about orientational metaphors

In line with the cognitive linguistic framework research into acquisi-tion of idioms by EFL learners has indicated that enhanced awareness ofthe conceptual metaphors behind figurative expressions leads thelearners to use the strategy of visualizing idioms in terms of conceptualmetaphors and consequently involves them in deep cognitive processingwhich increases the probability of memory storage (Boers 2000a 2000b2004 Cooper 1999 Irujo 1986 1993 Johnson amp Rosano 1993 Kovecses2001 2002 2003 Kovecses amp Szabo 1996 Littlemore 2001 2003Littlemore amp Low 2006 Neagu 2007) The most relevant to this study isresearch into learnersrsquo comprehension of phrasal verbs undertaken byKovecses and Szabo (1996) and Boers (2000b) In the study by Kovecsesand Szabo university students (first language [L1] 5 Hungarian) wereasked to fill in the missing adverbial particles in the contexts of sentencesThe phrasal verbs used in the study were bow down cheer up bring up chewup run down use up hold up put down turn up look up cast down make upbreak down sell up set down keep down wind up pick up and turn up Beforeattempting the fill-in-the-blank test students in the control group wereinstructed to memorize 10 phrasal verbs whereas those in the experi-mental group received explanations about several hundred phrasal verbsgrouped according to the orientational metaphors such as COMPLETION IS

UP (eat up give up) and HAPPY IS UP (cheer up feel up) The results indicatedthat students in the experimental group surpassed those in the controlgroup Kovecses and Szabo therefore argued that students need to beexplicitly taught the notion of conceptual metaphors

Likewise in Boersrsquos (2000b) study university students (L1 5 French)were asked to fill in the missing phrasal verbs in a passage designed forreading practice (cloze test) The phrasal verbs used in the study wereput off cope with drop out show up feel up to take up go on be fed up with setup break down make up figure out get on with give in point out followthrough with turn out track down and find out The control group receivedexplanatory notes on phrasal verbs as listed alphabetically in adictionary whereas the experimental group received the same inputplus the explanation about orientational metaphors of adverbial

252 TESOL QUARTERLY

particles The results showed that students in the experimental groupwere more apt to correctly fill in the blanks than those in the controlgroup The results of Boersrsquos study appear to confirm the claim byKovecses and Szabo (1996) that enhancing metaphor awareness willfacilitate an analysis of the orientational metaphors of the particles bythe learners and thus help them to learn phrasal verbs through imageryprocessing rather than by mere memorization

Although these two studies offer significant insight into the relation-ship between awareness of orientational metaphors and learning ofphrasal verbs the findings need to be followed up with more empiricalstudies in different contexts focusing on students with different L1backgrounds This is because second language (L2) acquisition isaffected by the differences between the target language and any otherlanguage that has been previously acquired (Odlin 1989) This studythus investigates whether and to what extent enhancing the awarenessabout orientational metaphors helps Japanese EFL learners to learnphrasal verbs As indicated earlier because of the typological differencesbetween English and Japanese (ie satellite-framed vs verb-framedlanguages) Japanese EFL learners can be expected to show acomparatively lower awareness of the metaphorical force of particlesand hence confront more difficulties in mastering phrasal verbs thanlearners whose native language is typologically close to English Takingthis into consideration the cognitive linguistic approach may go beyondmemorization strategy and be of immense benefit to Japanese EFLlearners in learning idioms This may certainly be true of other languagebackground students whose L1 is verb framed such as Korean TurkishTamil and Polynesian (Cadierno 2008)

TRADITIONAL VERSUS COGNITIVE LINGUISTIC VIEWSOF IDIOMS

A long-standing belief in the field of linguistics and psychology hasbeen that idiomatic phrases are dead metaphors whose figurativemeanings cannot be determined through an analysis of the meanings oftheir individual units (Gibbs 1991 p 613) The traditional theories ofidiomatic phrases entail the assumption that idiomatic phrases arenoncompositional (Gibbs 1990) and are therefore learned as giantlexical units (Nippold 1998 p 106) The link between figurativemeanings and the expression created by a speaker is lsquolsquoarbitraryrsquorsquo andunsystematic and hence there is no particular reason why differentphrases generate any particular meaning (Boers 2004)

Many of these long-standing beliefs about idiomatic phrases howeverhave been questioned by cognitive linguists since the early 1980s Recent


research in cognitive linguistics has shown that the individual words inmany idiomatic phrases systematically contribute to the overall figurativeinterpretations (Crutchley 2007 Dirven 2001 Gibbs 1990 Gibbs ampOrsquoBrien 1990 Lakoff 1987 Langacker 1987 Levorato amp Cacciari1999 Morgan 1997 Neagu 2007 Nippold amp Taylor 1995 Rudzka-Ostyn 2003) According to this cognitive linguistic view idiomaticphrases are decomposable and analyzable and their meanings are notarbitrary but motivated in the sense that the speakers recognize a fewbasic relationships between the words in the idioms and their overallfigurative interpretations (Boers 2004) For example when speakersjudge idioms such as let off steam they can find a specific relationshipbetween the components let off and steam with their figurative referenceslsquolsquoreleasersquorsquo and lsquolsquoangerrsquorsquo (Gibbs amp OrsquoBrien 1990 p 423) Similarlyphrasal verbs such as eat up can be interpreted with both the literalmeaning of lsquolsquoeatrsquorsquo and the orientational metaphor of COMPLETION IS UPThe implications of the cognitive linguistic view of idiomatic phrases aresignificant not only for the study of figurative language but also forunderstanding the relationship between thought and language (Boers2004)

Analyzability and compositionality of idiomatic phrases have beenmanifested in a series of experiments in both L1 and L2 contexts In L1settings psychological studies on young children have shown thatyounger children rely on contextual information in interpretingunknown idioms yet as children become older they are more liableto interpret the meaning of metaphor-based idioms based on thesemantic relation between the connotation of the individual words andthe overall figurative interpretation even if noncontextual cues areprovided (Crutchley 2007 Levorato amp Cacciari 1999 Nippold amp Taylor1995) These studies report that semantic analyzability (Levorato ampCacciari 1999) of idiomatic phrases is also evident in the attempt ofadults to interpret figurative meanings Gibbs and OrsquoBrien (1990) havereported that native speakers have a tacit knowledge of the metaphoricalbasis for idioms and that their intuitions or mental images for theseidioms are consistent The consistency in the interpretations ofidiomatic phrases shows that the conventional meanings are constrainedby conceptual metaphors and that figurative expressions can besystematically organized according to their underlying metaphoricthemes for example LOVE IS FIRE in the case of the sentence lsquolsquoThe firebetween them finally went outrsquorsquo and IMAGINATION IS FIRE in the case of thesentence lsquolsquoThe painting set fire to the imagination of the composerrsquorsquo(Kovecses amp Szabo 1996 pp 331ndash332) This also suggests that popularknowledge of idiomatic meanings is motivated by the conceptualmetaphor that people use in relation to the domains referred to bythe idioms (Gibbs 1990 Gibbs amp OrsquoBrien 1990) In the book Metaphors

254 TESOL QUARTERLY

We Live By (1980) Lakoff and Johnson (1980) outline a series ofconceptual metaphors suggesting that the popular conceptual systemmdashthe manner in which people think their experiences and their everydayactivitiesmdashis fundamentally metaphorical in nature (p 3)

APPLICATION TO L2 IDIOM ACQUISITION

The paradigm of cognitive linguistics appears appealing in the L2idiom-acquisition process because it carries the potential to stimulatealternative and complementary strategies for learning L2 idiomaticphrases as opposed to blind memorization or rote learning which aresuggested by the traditional view (Boers 2004) Over the past twodecades the cognitive linguistic approach to teaching and learningidioms has been explored by applied linguists in terms of

N the effect of the manner of instruction for enhancing awarenessabout metaphors on the retention of idiomatic phrases (Boers2000a 2000b Kovecses amp Szabo 1996)

N types of strategies that L2 learners use to comprehend metaphor-based idioms (Cooper 1999)

N factors that shape the difficulties in comprehending and producingmetaphor-based idioms such as the levels of proficiency cognitivestyle and frequency of exposure (Cooper 1999 Johnson amp Rosano1993)

N the effect of L1 on the comprehension and production of L2metaphors (Deignan Gabrys amp Solska 1997 Irujo 1986 Kovecses2003 Littlemore 2001 2003)

N the relationship between metaphoric competence and communica-tive language ability (Littlemore amp Low 2006)

In addition conceptual syllabi that enhance metaphoric awareness inclassrooms have been proposed (Andreou amp Galantomos 2008 Boers ampDemecheleer 1998 Lazar 1996 Lindstromberg 1996 Yi-Wu 2002)

Overall these studies have identified the following findings

N An enhanced metaphoric awareness helps students to recognize thesource domain of figurative expressions and its associated inferencepatterns and to retain unfamiliar idiomatic phrases (Boers 2000a2000b Kovecses amp Szabo 1996)

N L2 learners use a variety of strategies in a trial-and-error approachmdashguessing from the contexts and using the literal meaning of theindividual wordsmdashto interpret L2 idiomatic phrases and theircomprehension processes are not identical to those discussed in thetheories of L1 idiom comprehension (Cooper 1999)


N Language proficiency is not a major factor in determining metaphorinterpretation suggesting that metaphor interpretation may bemore of a conceptual than a linguistic task (Johnson amp Rosano1993) and that difficulties in metaphor interpretation may reside inthe salience of the idioms and frequency of exposure (Cooper1999)

N L2 students interpret metaphors in ways that support their own valuesystems and the schemata shaped in their L1 (Littlemore 2003)however they have difficulties in interpreting the L2 idiomaticphrases that have no translation equivalent in their L1 (DeignanGabrys amp Solska 1997 Irujo 1986)

N Metaphoric competence is an intrinsic feature of all aspects ofcommunicative competencies and it involves grammatical compe-tence textual competence illocutionary competence and socio-linguistic competence and thus metaphor instruction needs to bean indispensable feature of all the skills that L2 learners need tomaster (Littlemore amp Low 2006)

Although the results of these studies are promising because theyprovide new insights into the theories and practices of teaching andlearning L2 idioms the scope of the experiments in these studiesappears to be limited and there are many apparent topics that need tobe further examined so that the effect of enhanced metaphor awarenesson L2 idiom learning can be verified The subject that particularly needsto be further explored is phrasal verbs because since Boers (2000b)little attention has been thus far paid to phrasal verbs in spite of theanecdotal evidence that phrasal verbs constitute a notoriously difficultpart of the lexicon for L2 learners Furthermore the acquisition ofphrasal verbs by L2 learners needs to be examined in relation to theirnative languages Boers (2000b) suggests that English learners fromplaces with a distant language may face different types of comprehensionproblems because of the different lexicalization patterns inherent totheir languages The typological difference between Japanese andEnglish is apparent as discussed earlier in the use of the particle asan orientational metaphor in the phrasal verb

THE PRESENT STUDY

The purpose of the present study is therefore to assess whether andto what extent Japanese EFL learners are aware of the meanings oforientational metaphors embedded in particles that form a phrasal verbMore specifically the study aims to investigate whether enhancing theawareness of students regarding orientational metaphors through thecognitive linguistic approach plays a role in helping students to learn

256 TESOL QUARTERLY

phrasal verbs The other aim of this study is to examine whether thepositive effect of metaphor awareness on retention of phrasal verbs bylearners as identified by Kovecses and Szabo (1996) and Boers (2000b)can be replicated with students in an EFL setting at a Japaneseuniversity

Participants

The participants were 115 Japanese university students enrolled in theEnglish Language Program at the School of Liberal Arts in a privateuniversity in Tokyo Japan They were all freshmen when the study wasconducted They had studied English as a foreign language for at least 6years mostly in formal educational settings Their average Test ofEnglish as a Foreign Language score was 450

Phrasal Verbs

The students were presented with a set of phrasal verbs in class for thepurpose of the experiment The phrasal verbs including up down intoout and off were selected break down burst into call off calm down dry upenter into figure out get off keep off knock down leave out make out open uppay off rule out run into show up take off turn down turn into and use upThese phrasal verbs according to Lakoff and Johnson (1980)instantiate the orientational metaphors MORE VISIBLEACCESSIBLE IS UP

(open up show up) COMPLETION IS UP (dry up use up) LOWERING

DECREASING IS DOWN (break down calm down) DEFEATINGSUPPRESSING IS

DOWN (knock down turn down) CHANGING IS INTO (burst into turn into)INVOLVINGMEETING IS INTO (enter into run into) OUT IS REMOVING

EXCLUDING (rule out leave out) OUT IS SEARCHINGFINDING (figure out makeout) OFF IS DEPARTURESEPARATION (get off take off) OFF IS STOPPING

CANCELLING (call off pay off) OFF IS PREVENTIONPROTECTION (keep off)These 21 phrasal verbs were selected because (1) they frequently occur inmany idiom textbooks for Japanese high school students (2) it istherefore expected that they are already familiar to the university studentsand (3) they are thus expected to be stored as noncompositional units inthe mental lexicon of the student The instruction aimed to reactivate theirfamiliarity with these phrasal verbs because it was anticipated that thesetwo-word verbs might not be firmly stored in the studentsrsquo long-termmemory because by comparison to second language instruction contextsforeign language contexts are unlikely to fully expose students to theseverbs Further learners in foreign language contexts are likely to undergoa generally slower pace of development and to achieve overall lower levelsof ultimate attainment (Ortega 2003 p 512)


Treatment

The students were divided into two treatment groups a control group(ie traditional approach N 5 56) and an experimental group (iecognitive semantic approach N 5 59) Both groups were judged to besimilar in terms of English proficiency level because the students inboth groups were placed into the same-level English classes based ontheir performance on the in-school placement test In addition theirclassroom exposure before the study was similar because the classesshared the same goal the same content and the same textbook

The students in the control group were presented with the phrasalverbs based on the traditional method The instructor told the studentswhat each of the phrasal verbs meant in Japanese by simply translating itThe students were then instructed to memorize the phrasal verbs using achecklist In the checklist the 21 phrasal verbs were listed alphabeticallytogether with their Japanese translations (Appendix A) In contrast thestudents in the experimental group were presented with the 21 phrasalverbs through the cognitive approach The meanings of these 21 phrasalverbs were explained based on the orientational metaphors embeddedin the adverbial particles The instructor emphasized the manner inwhich the orientational metaphor of the adverbial particle contributedto the meaning of the whole string rather than simply translating it Thestudents were then instructed to memorize the meanings of thesephrasal verbs with reference to a checklist where the phrasal verbs werecategorized under the headings of their underlying orientationalmetaphors together with their Japanese translations (Appendix B)The students were instructed to pay attention to these orientationalmetaphors in learning the phrasal verbs The entire procedureincluding explanation by the instructor and memorization by studentslasted 10 minutes for both groups

Task

After instructing the students and allowing them to study on theirown the teachers took back the checklists and the students in the twogroups engaged in a task The task asked the students to fill in themissing adverbial particles of 30 phrasal verbs in the context of asentence (Appendix C) The sentences were derived from the LongmanDictionary of Phrasal Verbs (Courtney 1983) Collins Cobuild Dictionary ofPhrasal Verbs (Collins COBUILD 1989) NTCrsquos Dictionary of Phrasal Verbsand Other Idiomatic Verbal Phrases (Spears 1993) and the Google search-engine

On the basis of the study designed by Kovecses and Szabo (1996) in thecompletion task designed for analysis the researcher included phrasal

258 TESOL QUARTERLY

verbs to which students were both exposed and unexposed in theirinstruction class before taking up the test Thus the first half of thesentences (1ndash15) included the phrasal verbs to which the students hadbeen exposed in class before the task and the second half of the sentences(16ndash30) included the phrasal verbs to which the students had not beenexposed in class before undertaking the task The rationale for trying outitems to which the students were not exposed before as remarked byKovecses and Szabo was to observe whether and to what degree thestudents could generalize metaphorical thought when they encounteredunfamiliar phrasal verbs To this end the phrasal verbs unexposed to thestudents were selected based on the following criteria

N They are of infrequent occurrence in most idiom textbooks forJapanese high-school students

N It was therefore anticipated that they are not stored in the mentallexicon of the student as idiomatic phrases or fixed expressions andthat the students could not retrieve the meanings directly frommemory

N The students were thus expected to rely on metaphorical thinking toproduce an appropriate adverbial particle so that the whole sentencemade sense

The researcher did not give a pretest to make sure that the studentsreally did not know the phrasal verbs because giving a pretest may havegiven rise to a facilitating effect (ie giving a test may have led to givingknowledge)

The effectiveness with which the task was completed was determinedby the number of correct answers in the first half (that included theexposed category of phrasal verbs) and in the second half (that includedthe unexposed category of phrasal verbs) of the questions The followinghypotheses were proposed before analysis of the results

1) The experimental group and the control group will perform equallywell on the exposed list of phrasal verbs (ie the first half of thesentences [1ndash15]) given that these phrasal verbs were already likely tobe equally familiar to the students in both groups That is when thetarget idioms are already stored as a unit in the mental lexicon of thelearners the debate about whether the instructional approach istraditional or cognitive semantic may be inconsequential

2) The experimental group and the control group will perform equallyunsuccessfully on the unexposed category of phrasal verbs (ie thesecond half of the sentences [16ndash30]) if memorization plays a rolein only helping the students to learn the phrasal verbs Because thelexical unit cannot be matched with a known interpretationcomprehension fails when learners meet an unknown idiom


3) If enhancing metaphor awareness plays a role the students in theexperimental group will perform better than those in the controlgroup on the unexposed category of phrasal verbs That is when thetarget idioms are not stored as a unit in the mental lexicon of thelearners they make an attempt to understand an unfamiliar string byrelying on metaphorical thought

RESULTS

The descriptive statistics (means standard deviations and number ofparticipants) regarding the performance of students in the completiontask are reported in Table 1 The table shows that both groups executedthe task drastically better for the exposed phrasal verbs (mean [M] 5

1280 for the control group M 5 1219 for the experimental group)than for the unexposed ones (M 5 402 for the control group M 5

527 for the experimental group) The mean difference between thegroups is larger for the unexposed items (M 5 125) than for theexposed items (M 5 061) The results can be seen in Figure 1 andFigure 2

The statistical analyses of the research question were based onrepeated-measure analysis of variance (ANOVA) with a 2 (items) 6 2(groups) design The alpha level was set at 005 The repeated-measureANOVA for the completion task (Table 2) shows that a significant effectwas found for exposure F(1 113) 5 106427 g2 5 090 (p 005)Table 2 also demonstrates that a significant interaction effect was foundfor exposure 6 group F(1 113) 5 1510 g2 5 012 (p 005) Asdepicted in Table 3 no significant effect was found for groups F(1 113)5 161 g2 5 001

Table 4 describes how the students in both groups performed differentlywith reference to the exposed and unexposed categories of phrasal verbs

TABLE 1

Means and Standard Deviations of Exposed and Unexposed Items Answered Correctly

Descriptive statistics

Group Mean SD N

Exposed items Control 1280 2118 56Experimental 1219 1645 59Total 1249 1907 115

Unexposed items Control 402 1794 56Experimental 527 1874 59Total 466 1933 115

Note SD 5 standard deviation

260 TESOL QUARTERLY

The mean difference between the control and experimental groups in theunexposed items category (M 5 125) is statistically significant (p 005)whereas the mean difference between the groups in the exposed itemscategory (M 5 062) is not These results are also illustrated in Table 5Table 5 indicates that the experimental group performed significantlybetter than the control group in the unexposed category of phrasal verbsF(1 113) 5 1340 g2 5 011 (p 005) whereas the difference between thetwo groups is not statistically significant in the exposed list of phrasal verbsF(1 113) 5 306 g2 5 003

Overall the results appear to support Hypotheses 1 and 3 and rejectHypothesis 2 Concerning Hypothesis 1 which pertains to the exposedcategory of phrasal verbs the results indicate that the studentperformance in both groups is fairly high and that there is no significantdifference between the groups This result appears to support thehypothesis that when the target idioms are already stored as a lexicalunit in the mental lexicon of the learners whether the instructionalapproach is traditional or cognitive semantic may not make a differencebecause the learners have more opportunities to associate a string with a

FIGURE 1 Student performance across groups


nonliteral meaning and are able to retrieve the meaning of the wholestring from their memory without having to process the stringcompositionally Concerning Hypotheses 2 and 3 which pertain to theunexposed category of phrasal verbs the results suggest that thestudents in the experimental groups performed significantly better thanthose in the control group This appears to support the hypothesis thatwhen the target idioms are new to learners and not stored as a lexicalunit in their mental lexicon learners who are aware of orientational

FIGURE 2 Student performance across exposures

TABLE 2

Analysis of Variance for the Performance of Students as Affected by Exposure and Groups

Tests of within-subjects contrasts

Measure 1

Source ExposureType III sum

of squares dfMeansquare F Significance Partial g2

Exposure Linear 3541319 1 3541319 1064273 0000 0904Exposure 6

groupLinear 50258 1 50258 15104 0000 0118

Error(Exposure)

Linear 376002 113 3327

262 TESOL QUARTERLY

TABLE 5

Analysis of Variance for Exposure (Exposed Versus Unexposed)

Univariate tests

Measure 1

ExposureSum ofsquares df

Meansquare F Significance Partial g2

Exposed Contrast 10942 1 10942 3062 0083 0026Error 403788 113 3573

Unexposed Contrast 45131 1 45131 13398 0000 0106Error 380643 113 3369

Note Each F tests the simple effects of the group within each level combination of the othereffects shown These tests are based on the linearly independent pairwise comparisons amongthe estimated marginal means

TABLE 3

Analysis of Variance for the Performance of Students as Affected by Group

Tests of between-subjects effects

Measure 1

Transformed variable Average

SourceType III sum

of squares df Mean square F Significance Partial g2

Intercept 16879901 1 16879901 4670158 0000 0976Group 5814 1 5814 1609 0207 0014Error 408429 113 3614

TABLE 4

Analysis of Variance for Exposure 6 Group

Pairwise comparisons

Measure 1

Exposure (I) Group (J) Group

Meandifference

(I 2 J) SE Significancea

95 Confidenceinterval fordifferencea

Lowerbound

Upperbound

Exposed Control Experimental 0617 0353 0083 20082 1316Experimental Control 20617 0353 0083 21316 0082

Unexposed Control Experimental 21253 0342 0000 21932 20575Experimental Control 1253 0342 0000 0575 1932

Note Based on estimated marginal means The mean difference is significant at the 005 levelaAdjustment for multiple comparisons Bonferroni


metaphors are more likely to rely on metaphorical thought to producean appropriate adverbial particle In other words when students areunable to retrieve the meaning of the whole string from memory theytransfer the cognitive approach to the task by shifting their attention tothe orientational metaphors and by generalizing metaphoric thought toother phrases in an attempt to recreate the meaning of the wholesentence Thus the results of the experiment provide evidence for theclaim that learning phrasal verbs can be greatly aided by increasing theawareness of orientational metaphors than by encouraging merememorization

DISCUSSION

The results of this study offer support to the suggestion by Kovecsesand Szabo (1996) that the cognitive semantic approach is successfullytransferable when language learners try to tackle novel phrasal verbsThe findings can be further interpreted with respect to (a) attention orawareness and learning of foreign languages (b) strategies for teachingand learning idioms (c) the relationship between enhanced metaphorinstruction and the L1 of learners and (d) metalinguistic knowledgeand its relationship to instructional effectiveness in L2 learning

Concerning metaphor awareness there is a possibility that thestudents may have implicitly internalized the orientational meaningsof adverbial particles before this experiment without recognizing thatthey are actually metaphors given that they had learned English for atleast 6 years in formal education However as Kovecses and Szabo (1996)argue the mere presence of conceptual metaphors in the mind does notappear to be sufficient for their active use in the learning of a foreignlanguage (p 351) That the students who learned phrasal verbs throughorientational metaphors performed significantly better than those wholearned them through memorization highlights the implications thatstudents need to be explicitly taught about the notion of orientationalmetaphors before they can actively comprehend appropriate phrasalverbs The enhanced metaphor-awareness technique may fit within thepedagogical movement related to attention and awareness in foreignlanguage learning Incidental learning without awareness is bothpossible and effective but paying attention is facilitative if adult learnersare to acquire mastery over a foreign language (Schmidt 1990)

The cognitive linguistic approach thus appears to serve as analternative and complementary strategy for teaching and learningidioms In the cognitive linguistic view idioms are decomposable andanalyzable and their meanings are not arbitrary but are motivated byconceptual systems that exist in the minds of people Cognitive linguistic

264 TESOL QUARTERLY

insights hence assume that enhanced metaphor awareness will helpstudents infer the meaning of an idiom on the basis of the informationconveyed by the conceptual metaphors of the constituent words and willencourage them to figure out the meanings of unfamiliar idiomsindependently before turning to the teacher or a dictionary for help(Boers 2004) Developing the ability to transfer the strategies ofvisualizing idioms in terms of conceptual metaphorsmdashmetaphoric exten-sions of the meaning of the word (Littlemore amp Low 2006 italicsadded)mdashis the mainstay of the cognitive linguistic approach Themetaphoric extension skills will prompt learners to identify metaphoricthemes underlying the constituent words of the idiom and to categorizethem independently This will ultimately help learners to learn idiomsfaster and retain them longer The metaphoric extensions appear toexplain the reason the students in the experimental group out-performed those in the control group in this study

This study is perhaps the first to examine the effect of metaphorawareness on learning phrasal verbs in a Japanese EFL context Thefindings will therefore have serious implications for teaching phrasalverbs to students from verb-framed L1 backgrounds In these verb-framed languages as discussed earlier the path is characteristicallyencoded in the verb not in the satellites L2 learners with these L1backgrounds are likely to perceive phrasal verbs as nonanalyzable stringsof words or fixed expressions whose meanings are arbitrarily stipulatedConsequently learners may not be fully aware of the orientationalmeanings of particles and may have difficulty comprehending andproducing novel phrasal verbs such as lsquolsquoCome right back down out fromup in therersquorsquo as in Talmyrsquos (1985) example of a parent calling to a childin a treehouse (Slobin 1997 p 438) This typological differencebetween L1 and L2 may allow learners to learn phrasal verbs throughmemorization without processing them compositionally In contrastthe cognitive semantic approach assigns a fundamentally differentimportance to teaching because in this approach it really is aboutexplaining the meaning embedded within the idiom The cognitivelinguistic approach focusing on meaningmdashenhanced awareness oforientational metaphorsmdashmay therefore need to be conceived as acomplementary technique for L2 learners to learn phrasal verbs Thismay also help in their acquisition of not only phrasal verbs but also otherrelated lexical items such as phrasal (compound) nouns and adjectiveswhere particles also contribute their meaning to the whole (eg dropoutfallout and outstanding) (Neagu 2007) In the teaching of phrasal verbsin EFL textbooks dividing phrasal verbs into groups according tounderlying orientational metaphors and discussing interpretations ofeach idiom in terms of semantic compositionality will be effective insensitizing learners to the metaphorical force of satellites and in helping


them to use metaphorical thought in an attempt to understand andproduce novel phrasal verbs

The findings also need to be discussed in terms of metalinguisticknowledge and its instructional effectiveness in L2 development as one ofthe reviewers suggested Existing research indicates that metalinguisticknowledge impacts L2 learnersrsquo performance yet the operationalization ofthe construct of metalinguistic knowledge has varied across studies (Roehr2007) Typically metalinguistic tests judge a learnerrsquos ability to explain andcorrect L2 errors (eg Renou 2000) but several recent discussions ofmetalinguistic knowledge have drawn attention to learnersrsquo languageanalytic abilitymdashtheir capacity to identify rules of language and extrapolatelinguistic patterns (Skehan 1998) In this study metalinguistic knowledgeis operationalized as a learnerrsquos ability to identify and explain themetaphoric meaning of the satellite particles in phrasal verbs and to makesemantic extrapolations and the metalinguistic knowledge helps thelearning of L2 phrasal verbs The findings indicate that learnersrsquo languageanalytic ability may constitute an important component of theirmetalinguistic knowledge at least in the process of learning L2 idioms

Although the findings of this study have significant implications forteaching and learning phrasal verbs in EFL contexts these findingsshould be followed up with research that reconfirms the present resultswith varied materials and contexts

First concerning the treatment neither the instruction nor thematerials (ie the checklist) were part of normal classroom proceduresThe instruction and materials used for the treatment were specificallycreated for the experiment To further underscore the effectiveness ofenhanced metaphor awareness instruction for the acquisition of phrasalverbs by EFL learners future research would need to use authenticmaterials that are fully integrated into the curriculum Related to this isthe need to investigate the long-term effects of enhanced metaphorawareness instruction In this experimental setting the learning ofphrasal verbs by students was measured immediately after they receivedthe instruction and engaged in their self-study Therefore theexperiment only assessed their short-term memory and can onlyconclude that actively thinking of particles as metaphoric facilitatedthe short-term learning of phrasal verbs Future study should conductdelayed posttests to assess the long-term effects of enhancing the basicsof metaphor awareness for learning phrasal verbs

Second the metaphor-based instruction employed in this studyfocused on the phrasal verbs that the learners were expected to alreadybe familiar with This was designed to examine their ability to generalizethe task through metaphoric thinking but there may not really be aneffect of instructional tasks It would be more meaningful to considerhow learners deal with the two instructional approachesmdashtraditional

266 TESOL QUARTERLY

and cognitive linguisticmdashwhen these approaches are used to presentunfamiliar phrasal verbs In other words future research needs to useunfamiliar phrasal verbs not just to evaluate their ability to generalizemetaphoric thinking but also to examine the effectiveness of these twoinstructional approaches on learnersrsquo acquisition of the verbs

Last the present results were based on only 30 phrasal verbsincluding into out up down and off Given that adverbial particles havepolysemous meanings some meanings are more prototypical or centraland easier to understand than others Conversely some are morefigurative or abstract and require more metaphoric thinkingConsequently further research needs to additionally investigate whetherthe results of this study also hold good for different orientationalmetaphors embedded in the same adverbial particles Future researchshould also focus on a different set of adverbial particles

Ever since Lakoff and Johnson (1980) the importance of metaphor inlanguage has been highlighted in the field of cognitive linguisticsNevertheless the application of the cognitive linguistic view to L2acquisition is still underdeveloped and the ability of L2 learners tocomprehend and use metaphors is still not acknowledged as represent-ing a core ability (Kellerman 2001 Littlemore amp Low 2006) The reasonthe development of metaphoric competence has not fully permeatedinto mainstream pedagogical practice may be that metaphor is still feltby teachers to be a poetic and literary device irrelevant to L2 learningTeachers may perceive idioms to be distinct from metaphors and henceconclude that idioms can just as easily be taught without any reference tometaphors (Littlemore amp Low 2006 p 269) in the same manner as anyother word However the results of this study pose the question as towhether learners are actually able to process idioms novel idioms inparticular without metaphoric thinking Metaphors and languages areinseparable and hence metaphor awareness is important in languageeducation Without being explicitly taught the meaning embedded withinthe idiom learners may not be able to successfully engage in metaphoricthinking The results of this study imply that this mental engagement inmetaphoric thinking can facilitate the learning of novel idiomaticexpressions Metaphoric thinking or metaphoric competence (Low1988) is important especially for processing phrasal verbs given thatnew ones can constantly be created

THE AUTHOR

Sachiko Yasuda is a doctoral candidate in the University of Hawaiirsquos SLS programShe is currently working as an assistant professor of English at Tokyo University ofAgriculture Tokyo Japan while completing her dissertation Her research interestsinclude second language writing academic literacy genre-based pedagogy corpuslinguistics and English for specific purposes


REFERENCES

Andreou G amp Galantomos L (2008) Designing a conceptual syllabus for teachingmetaphors and idioms in a foreign language context Porta Languarum 9 69ndash77

Boers F (2000a) Enhancing metaphoric awareness in specialized reading Englishfor Specific Purposes 19 137ndash147 doi101016S0889-4906(98)00017-9

Boers F (2000b) Metaphor awareness and vocabulary retention Applied Linguistics21 553ndash571 doi101093applin214553

Boers F (2004) Expanding learnersrsquo vocabulary through metaphor awarenessWhat expansion what learners what vocabulary In M Achard amp S Niemeier(Eds) Cognitive linguistics second language acquisition and foreign language teaching(pp 211ndash232) Berlin Germany Mouton de Gruyter

Boers F amp Demecheleer M (1998) A cognitive semantic approach to teachingprepositions ELT Journal 52 197ndash204 doi101093elt523197

Cadierno T (2008) Learning to talk about motion in a foreign language In N Ellisamp P Robinson (Eds) Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second languageacquisition (pp 378ndash431) New York NY Routledge

Collins COBUILD (1989) Collins COBUILD dictionary of phrasal verbs LondonEngland Williams Collins Sons

Conventry K R amp Guijarro-Fuentes P (2008) Spatial language learning and thefunctional geometric framework In N Ellis amp P Robinson (Ed) Handbook ofcognitive linguistics and second language acquisition (pp 114ndash137) New York NYRoutledge

Cooper T C (1999) Processing of idioms by L2 learners of English TESOLQuarterly 33 233ndash262 doi1023073587719

Courtney R (1983) Longman dictionary of phrasal verbs Harlow England LongmanPublishing Group

Crutchley A (2007) Comprehension of idiomatic verb + particle constructionsin 6- to 11-year-old children First Language 27 203ndash226 doi1011770142723707078317

Deignan A Gabrys D amp Solska A (1997) Teaching English metaphors usingcross-linguistic awareness-raising activities ELT Journal 51 352ndash360doi101093elt514352

Dirven R (2001) The metaphoric in recent cognitive approaches to English phrasalverbs Metaphorikde 1 Retrieved from httpwwwmetaphorikde01dirvenhtm

Erlam R (2005) Language aptitude and its relationship to instructionaleffectiveness in second language acquisition Language Teaching Research 9147ndash171 doi1011911362168805lr161oa

Gibbs R W (1990) Psycholinguistic studies on the conceptual basis of idiomaticityCognitive Linguistics 1 417ndash451 doi101515cogl199014417

Gibbs R W (1991) Semantic analyzability in childrenrsquos understanding of idiomsJournal of Speech and Hearing Research 34 613ndash620

Gibbs R W amp OrsquoBrien J (1990) Idioms and mental imagery The metaphoricalmotivation for idiomatic meaning Cognition 36 35ndash68 doi1010160010-0277(90)90053-M

Irujo S (1986) Donrsquot put your leg in your mouth Transfer in the acquisition of idiomsin a second language TESOL Quarterly 20 287ndash304 doi1023073586545

Irujo S (1993) Steering clear Avoidance in the production of idioms IRAL 31205ndash219 doi101515iral1993313205

Johnson J amp Rosano T (1993) Relation of cognitive style to metaphorinterpretation and second language proficiency Applied Psycholinguistics 14159ndash175 doi101017S014271640000953X

268 TESOL QUARTERLY

Kellerman E (2001) New uses for old language Cross-linguistic and cross-gesturalinfluence in the narratives of native speakers In J Genoz B Hufeisen amp UJessner (Eds) Cross-linguistic influence in third language acquisition (pp 170ndash191)Clevedon England Multilingual Matters

Kovecses Z (2001) A cognitive linguistic view of learning idioms in an FLT contextIn M Putz S Niemeier amp R Dirven (Eds) Applied cognitive linguistics IILanguage pedagogy (pp 87ndash116) Berlin Germany Mouton de Gruyter

Kovecses Z (2002) Metaphor A practical introduction New York NY OxfordUniversity Press

Kovecses Z (2003) Language figurative thought and cross-cultural comparisonMetaphor and Symbol 18 311ndash320 doi101207S15327868MS1804_6

Kovecses Z amp Szabo P (1996) Idioms A view from cognitive semantics AppliedLinguistics 17 326ndash355 doi101093applin173326

Kurtyka A (2001) Teaching English phrasal verbs A cognitive approach In MPutz S Niemeier amp R Dirven (Eds) Applied cognitive linguistics II Languagepedagogy (pp 29ndash54) Berlin Germany Mouton de Gruyter

Lakoff G (1987) Women fire and dangerous things Chicago IL The University ofChicago Press

Lakoff G amp Johnson M (1980) Metaphors we live by Chicago IL The University ofChicago Press

Langacker R (1987) Foundations of cognitive grammar Vol 1 Theoretical prerequisitesStanford CA Stanford University Press

Lazar G (1996) Using figurative language to expand studentsrsquo vocabulary ELTJournal 50 43ndash51 doi101093elt50143

Levorato M C amp Cacciari C (1999) Idiom comprehension in children Are theeffects of semantic analyzability and context separable European Journal ofCognitive Psychology 11 51ndash66 doi101080713752299

Lindstromberg S (1996) Prepositions Meaning and method ELT Journal 50 225ndash236 doi101093elt503225

Littlemore J (2001) The use of metaphor in university lectures and the problemsthat it causes for overseas students Teaching in Higher Education 6 333ndash349doi10108013562510120061205

Littlemore J (2003) The effect of cultural background on metaphor interpretationMetaphor and Symbol 18 273ndash288 doi101207S15327868MS1804_4

Littlemore J amp Low G D (2006) Metaphoric competence second languagelearning and communicative language ability Applied Linguistics 27 268ndash294doi101093applinaml004

Low G D (1988) On teaching metaphor Applied Linguistics 9 125ndash147doi101093applin92125

Matsumoto Y (1996) Subjective motion and English and Japanese verbs CognitiveLinguistics 7 138ndash226 doi101515cogl199672183

Matsumoto Y (1997) Kuukan to idoo no hyoogen [Linguistic expressions of spaceand motion] Tokyo Japan Kenkyusha

Morgan P S (1997) Figuring out figure out Metaphor and the semantics of theEnglish verb-particle construction Cognitive Linguistics 8 327ndash357 doi101515cogl199784327

Neagu M (2007) English verb particles and their acquisition A cognitive approachRESLA 20 121ndash138

Nippold M A (1998) Later language development The school-age and adolescent yearsAustin TX Pro-Ed

Nippold M A amp Taylor C L (1995) Idiom understanding in youth Furtherexamination of familiarity and transparency Journal of Speech and Hearing Research38 426ndash433


Odlin T (1989) Language transfer Cambridge England Cambridge UniversityPress

Ortega L (2003) Syntactic complexity measures and their relationship to L2proficiency A research synthesis of college-level L2 writing Applied Linguistics 24492ndash518 doi101093applin244492

Renou J M (2000) Learner accuracy and learner performance The quest for a linkForeign Language Annals 33 168ndash180 doi101111j1944-97202000tb00909x

Roehr K (2007) Metalinguistic knowledge and language ability in university-levelL2 learners Applied Linguistics 29 173ndash199 doi101093applinamm037

Rudzka-Ostyn B (2003) Word power phrasal verbs and compounds A cognitive approachBerlin Germany Walter de Gruyter

Schmidt R (1990) The role of consciousness in second language learning AppliedLinguistics 11 129ndash158 doi101093applin112129

Skehan P (1998) A cognitive approach to language learning Oxford England OxfordUniversity Press

Slobin D I (1997) Mind code and text In J Bybee J Haiman amp S A Thompson(Eds) Essays on language function and language type (pp 437ndash463) AmsterdamThe Netherlands John Benjamins

Spears R A (1993) NTCrsquos dictionary of phrasal verbs and other idiomatic verbal phrasesLincolnwood IL National Textbook

Stefanowitch A amp Gries S T (2005) Covarying collexemes Corpus Linguistics andLinguistic Theory 1 1ndash43 doi101515cllt2005111

Talmy L (1985) Lexicalization patterns Semantic structure in lexical forms In TShopen (Ed) Language typology and syntactic description (pp 36ndash149) CambridgeEngland Cambridge University Press

Talmy L (2008) Aspects of attention in language In N Ellis amp P Robinson (Eds)Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition (pp 37ndash54) NewYork NY Routledge

Yi-Wu C (2002) Metaphor instruction Filling pedagogical gaps between the grammartranslation method and the communicative language teaching Paper presented at theEnglish Teaching Conference at Yuba Institute of Business Technology TaiwanROC

270 TESOL QUARTERLY

Appendix AThe Checklist Distributed to the Control Group


Appendix BThe Checklist Distributed to the Experimental Group

272 TESOL QUARTERLY

Appendix CCompletion Task

Fill in the blanks with the words given below so that the sentence will make sense

up down into out off

1 When she heard the news she burst ( ) tears2 No one can figure ( ) how the fire started3 I wonder why my application for the job was turned ( ) Is that because Irsquom a woman4 Do you know how many people showed ( ) at the party last night5 I see the bus driver grabbing a passenger and making him get ( ) the bus6 She was so shocked by the accident that it took her hours to calm ( )7 When the temperature drops this gas turns ( ) a solid8 The cricket team had to call ( ) the game because of rain9 One or two scenes in the play were left ( ) of the performance10 Keep ( ) the grass11 The coal industry is running down as coal supplies are used ( )12 Airlines found it cheaper to pay up rather than enter ( ) a prolonged dispute13 My car broke ( ) again so Irsquove had to take the bus to work every day this week14 100 workers will be paid ( ) when the factory closes next week15 The police have stated that they cannot rule ( ) murder in the case of the girlrsquos death16 He was determined to bring ( ) the issue at the meeting17 Your essay topic is too broad You should narrow it ( )18 Police have sealed ( ) the street where the gunman is hiding19 I hope this seedling grows ( ) a fine mango tree20 I tried to wash ( ) the stain on the table cloth21 When we have time we need to go ( ) this question more thoroughly22 These figures donrsquot add ( ) to the right total23 It was all I could do to keep my temper ( ) when I saw the boys treating the dog badly24 Everyone threw themselves energetically ( ) studying English25 The speakers were well-informed but I was able to argue them ( )26 Rachel lost her balance and jumped ( ) the diving board instead of diving27 Every day scientists seek ( ) new ways to cure the diseases that affect millions of people

around the world28 He has a wit with which to fend ( ) such criticism29 That story is so complicated Please boil the long story ( ) to a few sentences so I can

grasp the whole picture more clearly30 Itrsquos no good waiting for something to turn ( ) You have to take action


such as Japanese-speaking students Research into language typology hasshown that conceptual structures are lexicalized differently in differentlanguages For example in English the core schema of the pathtrajectory (movement into out of etc) is encoded by a satellite to themain verb such as a particle and preposition whereas it is encoded bythe verb itself in Japanese (Conventry amp Guijarro-Fuentes 2008 Talmy2008) as in go through versus tooru and go across versus koeru (Matsumoto1996 1997) It is reported that the satellite-framed language speakerstend to provide richer descriptions of path trajectories than the verb-framed language speakers (Cadierno 2008 Slobin 1997) Thesefindings underpinned by the typological difference between Englishand Japanese imply that the chief problem with comprehending phrasalverbs for Japanese EFL learners may exist in their lack of awareness ofthe orientational meaning(s) of particles and their failure to fullyunderstand why one particle is used in preference to another Many JapaneseEFL learners may thus perceive phrasal verbs as being purely idiomaticinseparable and arbitrarily used because they may not be aware of thespecial constructional contribution of the original particle to the wholestructure It is no wonder that even students at advanced levels oflearning often show a poor command of phrasal verbs and tend to usefewer phrasal verbs and many more single-word verbs than nativespeakers executing similar tasks (Neagu 2007 Rudzka-Ostyn 2003)

It is precisely in presenting a systematic semantic view of phrasal verbconstructionsmdashto what extent the individual parts contribute to themeaning of the wholemdashthat the output of cognitive linguistic researchsince the 1980s has played a significant role (Crutchely 2007 Levoratoamp Cacciari 1999 Morgan 1997) The cognitive linguistic view of phrasalverbs emphasizes that particles are orientational metaphors that havemuch to do with spatial orientations derived from the experiences of thehuman body such as up-down in-out front-back on-off deep-shallow andcentral-peripheral (Lakoff amp Johnson 1980) and that an in-depthunderstanding of these spatial connotations of the particles that isthe cognitive image schema (Morgan 1997) will assist in the acquisitionof phrasal verbs by the learners For example Kurtyka (2001) argues thatstrong and well-organized visual support would put an end to incidentalimagery that results in poor retention and that promoting thedevelopment of visualization skill (the ability to form mental representa-tions of verbal and nonverbal input) would enhance storage andretention This claim by Kurtyka assumes that enhanced mentalvisualization of orientational metaphors would help learners to processmetaphorical extensions easily that is to expand literal meaning tometaphorical meaning without merely memorizing the meaningsKovecses and Szabo (1996) also suggest that the more importantelement in phrasal verbs is usually the adverbial constituent because






252 TESOL QUARTERLY









254 TESOL QUARTERLY


















THE PRESENT STUDY


256 TESOL QUARTERLY


Participants


Phrasal Verbs








Treatment



Task



258 TESOL QUARTERLY











RESULTS






TABLE 1



Group Mean SD N




260 TESOL QUARTERLY







TABLE 2



Measure 1




groupLinear 50258 1 50258 15104 0000 0118

Error(Exposure)

Linear 376002 113 3327

262 TESOL QUARTERLY

TABLE 5


Univariate tests

Measure 1






TABLE 3



Measure 1


SourceType III sum



TABLE 4



Measure 1


Meandifference



Lowerbound

Upperbound






DISCUSSION




264 TESOL QUARTERLY









266 TESOL QUARTERLY




THE AUTHOR



REFERENCES





















268 TESOL QUARTERLY





































270 TESOL QUARTERLY




272 TESOL QUARTERLY












252 TESOL QUARTERLY









254 TESOL QUARTERLY


















THE PRESENT STUDY


256 TESOL QUARTERLY


Participants


Phrasal Verbs








Treatment



Task



258 TESOL QUARTERLY











RESULTS






TABLE 1



Group Mean SD N




260 TESOL QUARTERLY







TABLE 2



Measure 1




groupLinear 50258 1 50258 15104 0000 0118

Error(Exposure)

Linear 376002 113 3327

262 TESOL QUARTERLY

TABLE 5


Univariate tests

Measure 1






TABLE 3



Measure 1


SourceType III sum



TABLE 4



Measure 1


Meandifference



Lowerbound

Upperbound






DISCUSSION




264 TESOL QUARTERLY









266 TESOL QUARTERLY




THE AUTHOR



REFERENCES





















268 TESOL QUARTERLY





































270 TESOL QUARTERLY




272 TESOL QUARTERLY
















254 TESOL QUARTERLY


















THE PRESENT STUDY


256 TESOL QUARTERLY


Participants


Phrasal Verbs








Treatment



Task



258 TESOL QUARTERLY











RESULTS






TABLE 1



Group Mean SD N




260 TESOL QUARTERLY







TABLE 2



Measure 1




groupLinear 50258 1 50258 15104 0000 0118

Error(Exposure)

Linear 376002 113 3327

262 TESOL QUARTERLY

TABLE 5


Univariate tests

Measure 1






TABLE 3



Measure 1


SourceType III sum



TABLE 4



Measure 1


Meandifference



Lowerbound

Upperbound






DISCUSSION




264 TESOL QUARTERLY









266 TESOL QUARTERLY




THE AUTHOR



REFERENCES





















268 TESOL QUARTERLY





































270 TESOL QUARTERLY




272 TESOL QUARTERLY

























THE PRESENT STUDY


256 TESOL QUARTERLY


Participants


Phrasal Verbs








Treatment



Task



258 TESOL QUARTERLY











RESULTS






TABLE 1



Group Mean SD N




260 TESOL QUARTERLY







TABLE 2



Measure 1




groupLinear 50258 1 50258 15104 0000 0118

Error(Exposure)

Linear 376002 113 3327

262 TESOL QUARTERLY

TABLE 5


Univariate tests

Measure 1






TABLE 3



Measure 1


SourceType III sum



TABLE 4



Measure 1


Meandifference



Lowerbound

Upperbound






DISCUSSION




264 TESOL QUARTERLY









266 TESOL QUARTERLY




THE AUTHOR



REFERENCES





















268 TESOL QUARTERLY





































270 TESOL QUARTERLY




272 TESOL QUARTERLY









Participants


Phrasal Verbs








Treatment



Task



258 TESOL QUARTERLY











RESULTS






TABLE 1



Group Mean SD N




260 TESOL QUARTERLY







TABLE 2



Measure 1




groupLinear 50258 1 50258 15104 0000 0118

Error(Exposure)

Linear 376002 113 3327

262 TESOL QUARTERLY

TABLE 5


Univariate tests

Measure 1






TABLE 3



Measure 1


SourceType III sum



TABLE 4



Measure 1


Meandifference



Lowerbound

Upperbound






DISCUSSION




264 TESOL QUARTERLY









266 TESOL QUARTERLY




THE AUTHOR



REFERENCES





















268 TESOL QUARTERLY





































270 TESOL QUARTERLY




272 TESOL QUARTERLY








Treatment



Task



258 TESOL QUARTERLY











RESULTS






TABLE 1



Group Mean SD N




260 TESOL QUARTERLY







TABLE 2



Measure 1




groupLinear 50258 1 50258 15104 0000 0118

Error(Exposure)

Linear 376002 113 3327

262 TESOL QUARTERLY

TABLE 5


Univariate tests

Measure 1






TABLE 3



Measure 1


SourceType III sum



TABLE 4



Measure 1


Meandifference



Lowerbound

Upperbound






DISCUSSION




264 TESOL QUARTERLY









266 TESOL QUARTERLY




THE AUTHOR



REFERENCES





















268 TESOL QUARTERLY





































270 TESOL QUARTERLY




272 TESOL QUARTERLY


















RESULTS






TABLE 1



Group Mean SD N




260 TESOL QUARTERLY







TABLE 2



Measure 1




groupLinear 50258 1 50258 15104 0000 0118

Error(Exposure)

Linear 376002 113 3327

262 TESOL QUARTERLY

TABLE 5


Univariate tests

Measure 1






TABLE 3



Measure 1


SourceType III sum



TABLE 4



Measure 1


Meandifference



Lowerbound

Upperbound






DISCUSSION




264 TESOL QUARTERLY









266 TESOL QUARTERLY




THE AUTHOR



REFERENCES





















268 TESOL QUARTERLY





































270 TESOL QUARTERLY




272 TESOL QUARTERLY














TABLE 2



Measure 1




groupLinear 50258 1 50258 15104 0000 0118

Error(Exposure)

Linear 376002 113 3327

262 TESOL QUARTERLY

TABLE 5


Univariate tests

Measure 1






TABLE 3



Measure 1


SourceType III sum



TABLE 4



Measure 1


Meandifference



Lowerbound

Upperbound






DISCUSSION




264 TESOL QUARTERLY









266 TESOL QUARTERLY




THE AUTHOR



REFERENCES





















268 TESOL QUARTERLY





































270 TESOL QUARTERLY




272 TESOL QUARTERLY








TABLE 5


Univariate tests

Measure 1






TABLE 3



Measure 1


SourceType III sum



TABLE 4



Measure 1


Meandifference



Lowerbound

Upperbound






DISCUSSION




264 TESOL QUARTERLY









266 TESOL QUARTERLY




THE AUTHOR



REFERENCES





















268 TESOL QUARTERLY





































270 TESOL QUARTERLY




272 TESOL QUARTERLY









DISCUSSION




264 TESOL QUARTERLY









266 TESOL QUARTERLY




THE AUTHOR



REFERENCES





















268 TESOL QUARTERLY





































270 TESOL QUARTERLY




272 TESOL QUARTERLY
















266 TESOL QUARTERLY




THE AUTHOR



REFERENCES





















268 TESOL QUARTERLY





































270 TESOL QUARTERLY




272 TESOL QUARTERLY











THE AUTHOR



REFERENCES





















268 TESOL QUARTERLY





































270 TESOL QUARTERLY




272 TESOL QUARTERLY








REFERENCES





















268 TESOL QUARTERLY





































270 TESOL QUARTERLY




272 TESOL QUARTERLY












































270 TESOL QUARTERLY




272 TESOL QUARTERLY











272 TESOL QUARTERLY








learning phrasal verbs through conceptual...

Documents