Hostname: page-component-54dcc4c588-dbm8p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-09-26T17:27:00.277Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Explicit and implicit semantic processing of verb–particle constructions by French–English bilinguals*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 February 2013

MARY-JANE BLAIS  and
LAURA M. GONNERMAN
MARY-JANE BLAIS
Affiliation:
McGill University
LAURA M. GONNERMAN*
Affiliation:
McGill University
*
Address for correspondence: Laura M. Gonnerman, School of Communication Sciences and Disorders, McGill University, 1266 Pine Avenue West, Montreal, QC, CanadaH3G 1A8laura.gonnerman@mcgill.ca
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Verb–particle constructions are a notoriously difficult aspect of English to acquire for second-language (L2) learners. The present study investigated whether L2 English speakers are sensitive to gradations in semantic transparency of verb–particle constructions (e.g., finish up vs. chew out). French–English bilingual participants (first language: French, second language: English) completed an off-line similarity ratings survey, as well as an on-line masked priming task. Results of the survey showed that bilinguals’ similarity ratings became more native-like as their English proficiency levels increased. Results from the masked priming task showed that response latencies from high, but not low-proficiency bilinguals were similar to those of monolinguals, with mid- and high-similarity verb–particle/verb pairs (e.g., finish up/finish) producing greater priming than low-similarity pairs (e.g., chew out/chew). Taken together, the results suggest that L2 English speakers develop both explicit and implicit understanding of the semantic properties of verb–particle constructions, which approximates the sensitivity of native speakers as English proficiency increases.

Keywords

bilingualismphrasal verbsprimingsentence processingword order

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition , Volume 16 , Issue 4 , October 2013 , pp. 829 - 846
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

*

This research was supported by two graduate research awards to the first author, from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC), and from the Fonds québécois de recherche sur la nature et les technologies (FQRNT), respectively. We would like to thank three anonymous reviewers for helpful comments on earlier drafts of the paper. We would also like to thank Dr. Debra Titone and Dr. Karsten Steinhauer for their feedback and editorial help, and the participants for their time and efforts.

References

Abel, B. (2003). English idioms in the first language and second language lexicon: A dual representation approach. Second Language Research, 19, 329–358.Google Scholar
Behrens, H. (1998). How difficult are complex verbs? Evidence from German, Dutch and English. Linguistics, 36, 679–712.Google Scholar
Benedict, H. (1977). Early lexical development: Comprehension and production. Journal of Child Language, 6, 183–200.Google Scholar
Bialystok, E. (1979). Explicit and implicit judgements of L2 grammaticality. Language Learning, 29, 81–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bobrow, S. A., & Bell, S. M. (1973). On catching on to idiomatic expressions. Memory & Cognition, 1, 343–346.Google Scholar
Boers, F. (2000). Metaphor awareness and vocabulary retention. Applied Linguistics, 21, 553–571.Google Scholar
Bulut, T., & Çelik-Yazici, I. (2004). Idiom processing in L2: Through rose-colored glasses. The Reading Matrix, 4, 105–116.Google Scholar
Cacciari, C., & Tabossi, P. (1988). The comprehension of idioms. Journal of Memory and Language, 27, 668–683.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cappelle, B., Shtyrov, Y., & Pulvermüller, F. (2009). Heating up or cooling up the brain? MEG evidence that phrasal verbs are lexical units. Brain & Language, 115, 189–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cieslicka, A. B. (2006). Literal salience in on-line processing of idiomatic expressions by second-language learners. Second Language Research, 22, 115–144.Google Scholar
Cieslicka, A. B., & Heredia, R. R. (2011). Hemispheric asymmetries in processing L1 and L2 idioms: Effects of salience and context. Brain & Language, 116, 136–150.Google Scholar
Chen, J. (2007). On how to solve the problem of the avoidance of phrasal verbs in the Chinese context. International Education Journal, 8, 348–353.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1970). Remarks on nominalization. In Jacobs, R. A. & Rosenbaum, P. S. (eds.), Readings in English transformational grammar, pp. 184–221. Waltham, MA.: Ginn.Google Scholar
Cohen, J. D., MacWhinney, B., Flatt, M., & Provost, J. (1993). PsyScope: An interactive graphic system for designing and controlling experiments in the psychology laboratory using Macintosh computers. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 25, 257–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Condon, N. (2008). How cognitive linguistic motivations influence the learning of phrasal verbs. In Boers, F. & Lindstromberg, S. (eds.), Cognitive linguistic approaches to teaching vocabulary and phraseology, pp. 133–157. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Dagut, M., & Laufer, B. (1985). Avoidance of phrasal verbs: A case for contrastive analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 7, 73–79.Google Scholar
Devlin, J. T., Jamison, H. L., Matthews, P. M., & Gonnerman, L. M. (2004). Morphology and the internal structure of words. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 101, 14984–14988.Google Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. (1982). The grammar of English phrasal verbs. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 2, 1–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. (2005). Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge of a second language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 141–172.Google Scholar
Farrell, P. (2005). English verb–preposition constructions: Constituency and order. Language, 80, 96–137.Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. W. Jr., Nayak, N. P., & Cutting, [J.] C. (1989). How to kick the bucket and not decompose: Analyzability and idiom processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 28, 576–593.Google Scholar
Giora, R. (2002). Literal vs. figurative language: Different or equal? Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 487–506.Google Scholar
Gonnerman, L. M., & Hayes, C. R. (2005). The professor chewed the students. . . out: Effects of dependency, length, and adjacency on word order preferences in sentences with verb particle constructions. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Seventh Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, pp. 785–790. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Gonnerman, L. M., Seidenberg, M. S., & Andersen, E. S. (2007). Graded semantic and phonological similarity effects in priming: Evidence for a distributed connectionist approach to morphology. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 136, 323–345.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
González, R. A. (2010a). L2 Spanish acquisition of English phrasal verbs: A cognitive linguistic analysis of L1 influence. In Campoy-Cubillow, M. C., Bellés-Fortuño, B. & Gea-Valor, M. L. (eds.), Corpus-based approaches to English language teaching, pp. 149–166. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
González, R. A. (2010b). Making sense of phrasal verbs: A cognitive linguistic account of L2 learning. AILA Review, 23, 50–71.Google Scholar
Hawkins, J. A. (2004). Efficiency and complexity in grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hulstijn, J. H., & Marchena, E. (1989). Avoidance: Grammatical or semantic causes? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11, 241–255.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (1995). The boundaries of the lexicon. In Everaert, M., van der Linden, E., Schenk, A. & Schreuder, R. (eds.), Idioms: Structural and psychological perspectives, pp. 133–165. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Kellerman, E. (1977). Towards a characterization of the strategy of transfer in second language learning. Interlanguage Studies Bulletin, 2, 58–145.Google Scholar
Konopka, A. E., & Bock, K. (2009). Lexical or syntactic control of sentence formulation? Structural generalizations from idiom production. Cognitive Psychology, 58, 68–101.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kucera, H., & Francis, W. N. (1967). Computational analysis of present-day American English. Providence, RI: Brown University Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Laufer, B. (1997). The lexical plight in second language reading. In Coady, J. & Huckin, T. (eds.), Second language vocabulary acquisition: A rationale for pedagogy, pp. 20–34. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Laufer, B., & Eliasson, S. (1993). What causes avoidance in L2 learning: L1–L2 difference, L1–L2 similarity, or L2 complexity? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 35–48.Google Scholar
Liao, Y., & Fukuya, Y. J. (2004). Avoidance of phrasal verbs: The case of Chinese learners of English. Language Learning, 52, 193–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Libben, M. R., & Titone, D. A. (2008). The multidetermined nature of idiom processing. Memory & Cognition, 36, 1103–1121.Google Scholar
Lohse, B., Hawkins, J. A., & Wasow, T. (2004). Domain minimization in English verb–particle constructions. Language, 80, 238–261.Google Scholar
Matlock, T., & Heredia, R. R. (2002). Understanding phrasal verbs in monolinguals and bilinguals. In Heredia, R. R. & Altarriba, J. (eds.), Bilingual sentence processing, pp. 251–274. Amsterdam: North-Holland/Elsevier.Google Scholar
Neagu, M. (2007). English verb particles and their acquisition: A cognitive approach. Revista Espanola de Linguista Aplicada, 20, 121–138.Google Scholar
Ringbom, H. (1992). On L1 transfer in L2 comprehension and L2 production. Language Learning, 42, 85–112.Google Scholar
Rudzka-Ostyn, B. (2003). Word power. Phrasal verbs and compounds: A cognitive approach. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Self-assessment Reading Test. (2010). http://www.socialsciences.uottawa.ca/psy/fra/prog2_adm-test.pdf (retrieved July 10, 2010).Google Scholar
Siyanova, A., & Schmitt, N. (2007). Native and non-native use of multi-word vs. one-word verbs. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 45, 119–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siyanova-Chanturia, A., Conklin, K., & Schmitt, N. (2011). Adding more fuel to the fire: An eye-tracking study of idiom processing by native and non-native speakers. Second Language Research, 27, 251–272.Google Scholar
Spencer, A. (2005). Word-formation and syntax. In Štekauer, P. & Lieber, R. (eds.), Handbook of word-formation, pp. 73–97. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Titone, D. A., & Connine, C. M. (1999). On the compositional and non-compositional nature of idiomatic expressions. Journal of Pragmatics, 31, 1655–1674.Google Scholar
Wray, A., & Perkins, H. R. (2000). The function of formulaic language: An integrated model. Language and Communication, 20, 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar