Cover not available

Article published In: International Journal of Learner Corpus Research
Vol. 2:1 (2016) ► pp.1–30

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required

Inside phrasal verb constructions

A co-varying collexeme analysis of verb-particle combinations in EFL and their semantic associations

 | New Mexico State University
Published online: 19 July 2016
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/ijlcr.2.1.01des
This study investigates 2,909 phrasal verbs [PVs] in (in)transitive constructions across native English and French- and German-English interlanguages (ILs). Recent work by Gilquin (2014) shows that, as verb-particle combinations, PVs associate more or less strongly with particular syntactic constructions. Further, those association patterns vary across native and learner Englishes. Building on Gilquin (2014), the present study digs deeper into PV constructions by assessing degrees of mutual attraction between verbs and particles as well as between PVs and their semantic uses. Degrees of association are measured using a co-varying collexeme analysis approach (Stefanowitsch & Gries 2005). Generally, it emerges that within given syntactic constructions (e.g. verb-particle-object constructions), different verbs and particles (i.e. bring and up in the case of build up or bring and about for bring about) combine in different degrees, suggesting that, as cognitive routines, those combinations are not equally entrenched. In addition, French and German English learners seem to operate at different levels of semantic complexity when using PVs in their L2. Ultimately, the study bears important pedagogical implications, namely the need (i) to focus on phrasal verbs’ aspectual uses to help learners develop a more confident use of PVs in completive, inceptive and continuative semantic contexts and (ii) to develop resources that help learners improve their uses of PVs in verb-object-particle constructions.
References (34)
Akbari, O. 2009. A Corpus-Based Study of Malaysian ESL Learners’ Use of Phrasal Verbs in Narrative Compositions. Serdang: Universiti Putra Malaysia.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Alejo Gonzáles, R. 2010. “Making sense of phrasal verbs: A cognitive linguistic account of L2 learning”, AILA Review 231, 51–71.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Armstrong, K. 2004. “Sexing up the dossier: A semantic analysis of phrasal verbs for language teachers”, Language Awareness 131, 213–224. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S. & Finegan, E. 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow, Essex: Pearson Education Ltd.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bybee, J. 1998. “The emergent lexicon”, CLS 34: The Panels. University of Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society, 421–435.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cappelle, B. 2006. “Particle placement and the case for allostructions”. In D. Schönefeld (Ed.), Constructions all Over: Case Studies and Theoretical Implications. [Special issue]. Constructions SV1-7/2006. 1–28. Available at: [URL] (accessed 24 June 2015).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cappelle, B., Yury, S. & Pulvermüller, F. 2010. “Heating up or cooling up the brain? MEG evidence that phrasal verbs are lexical units”, Brain and Langage 115(3), 189–201. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Celce-Murcia, M. & Larsen-Freeman, D. 1999. The Grammar Book: An ESL/EFL Teacher’s Course (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Heinle and Heinle.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Courtney, R. 1983. Longman Dictionary of Phrasal Verbs. London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ellis, N.C. & Ferreira-Junior, F. 2009. “Constructions and their acquisitions”, Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 71, 187–220. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fischer, S.D. 1971. The Acquisition of Verb-particle and Dative Constructions. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Massachussetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gilquin, G. 2012. “Lexical infelicity in English causative constructions. Comparing native and learner collostructions”. In J. Leino & R. von Waldenfels (Eds.), Analytical Causatives. From ‘give’ and ‘come’ to ‘let’ and ‘make’. München: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2014. “The use of phrasal verbs by French-speaking EFL learners. A constructional and collostructional corpus-based approach”, Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 10(2). ISSN (Online) 1613-7035, ISSN (Print) 1613-7027. .Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. 2006. Constructions at Work. The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Götz, S. & Schilk, M. 2011. “Formulaic sequences in spoken ENL, ESL and EFL: Focus on British English, Indian English and learner English”. In J. Mukherjee & M. Hundt (Eds.), Exploring Second-Language Varieties of English and Learner Englishes: Bridging the Paradigm Gap. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 79–100. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Granger, S., Dagneaux, E., Meunier, F. & Pacquot, M. 2002. The International Corpus of Learner English. Handbook and CD-ROM. Louvain-la-Neuve: Presses universitaires de Louvain. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gries, S.T. 1999. “Particle movement: A cognitive and functional approach”, Cognitive Linguistics 101, 105–146. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2003. Multifactorial Analysis in Corpus Linguistics. A Study of Particle Placement. London and New York: Continuum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2007. Coll.analysis 3.2a. A program for R for Windows 2.x.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gries, S.T. & Stefanowitsch, A. 2004a. “Extending collostructional analysis. A corpus-based perspective on ‘alternations’”, International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 9(1), 97–129. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2004b. “Covarying collexemes in the into-causative”. In M. Achard & S. Kemmer (Eds.), Language, Culture, and Mind. Stanford, CA: CSLI, 225–236.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. 1997. “Twistin’ the night away”, Language 73(3), 534–559. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2002. “English particle constructions, the lexicon, and the autonomy of syntax”. In N. Dehé, R. Jackendoff, A. McIntyre, & S. Urban (Eds.), Verb-Particle Explorations. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 67–94. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Martinez-Garcia, T. & Wulff, S. 2012. “Not wrong, yet not quite right: Spanish ESL students’ use of gerundial and infinitival complementation”, International Journal of Applied Linguistics 22(2), 225–244. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Peters, J. 2001. “Given vs. new information influencing constituent ordering in the verb-particle construction”. In R.M. Brend, A.K. Melby, & A.R. Lommel (Eds.), LACUS Forum XXVII: Speaking and Comprehending. Fullerton, CA: LACUS, 133–140.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. & Svartvik, J. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
R Development Core Team. 2013. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. Available at: [URL]Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A. 2006. “Distinctive collexeme analysis and diachrony: A comment”, Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 2(2), 257–262. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A. & Gries, S.T. 2005. “Covarying collexemes”, Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 1(1), 1–43. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Waibel, B. 2007. Phrasal Verbs in Learner English: A Corpus-Based Study of German and Italian Students. Freiburg: Albert-Ludwigs-Universität.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wierszycka, J. 2013. “Phrasal verbs in learner English: A semantic approach. A study based on POS tagged spoken corpus of learner English”, Research in Corpus Linguistics 11, 81–93.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zarifi, A. 2013. A Corpus-Based Study of Phrasal Verbs in Malaysian ESL Textbooks. Slangor: UPM.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (15)

Cited by 15 other publications

Gilquin, Gaëtanelle
2025. Second and foreign language learners: The effect of language exposure on the use of English phrasal verbs. International Journal of Bilingualism 29:2 ► pp. 456 ff. DOI logo
Wiesinger, Evelyn
2024. Semantics and Pragmatics of Spanish Verb-Particle Constructions formed with para atrás ‘back(wards)’. CogniTextes Volume 25 DOI logo
Hsu, Chan-Chia
2020. Exploring recurrent frames in written Chinese. Corpora 15:3 ► pp. 291 ff. DOI logo
Liu, Dilin & Daniel Myers
2020. The most-common phrasal verbs with their key meanings for spoken and academic written English: A corpus analysis. Language Teaching Research 24:3 ► pp. 403 ff. DOI logo
Röthlisberger, Melanie & Sali A. Tagliamonte
2020. The social embedding of a syntactic alternation: Variable particle placement in Ontario English. Language Variation and Change 32:3 ► pp. 317 ff. DOI logo
Sung, Min-Chang
2020. Underuse of English verb–particle constructions in an L2 learner corpus: Focus on structural patterns and one-word preference. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 16:1 ► pp. 189 ff. DOI logo
Hendrikx, Isa, Kristel Van Goethem & Stefanie Wulff
2019. Intensifying constructions in French-speaking L2 learners of English and Dutch. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research 5:1 ► pp. 63 ff. DOI logo
Wulff, Stefanie & Stefan Th. Gries
2019. Particle Placement in Learner Language. Language Learning 69:4 ► pp. 873 ff. DOI logo
Liu, Dilin
2018. A corpus study of Chinese EFL learners’ use of circumstance, demand, and significant . Journal of Second Language Studies 1:2 ► pp. 310 ff. DOI logo
McAndrews, Mark M.
2018. Nick C. Ellis, Ute Römer and Matthew Brook O’Donnell, Usage-based Approaches to Language Acquisition and Processing: Cognitive and Corpus Investigations of Construction Grammar . International Journal of Learner Corpus Research 4:1 ► pp. 133 ff. DOI logo
Deshors, Sandra C.
2017. Zooming in on Verbs in the Progressive: A Collostructional and Correspondence Analysis Approach. Journal of English Linguistics 45:3 ► pp. 260 ff. DOI logo
Deshors, Sandra C.
2020. English as a Lingua Franca: A random forests approach to particle placement in multi‐speaker interactions. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 30:2 ► pp. 214 ff. DOI logo
Deshors, Sandra C.
2025. Grammatical Variation and World Englishes. In The Wiley Blackwell Encyclopedia of World Englishes, ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Deshors, Sandra C., Sandra Götz & Samantha Laporte
2016. Linguistic innovations in EFL and ESL. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research 2:2 ► pp. 131 ff. DOI logo
Schneider, Gerold & Gaëtanelle Gilquin
2016. Detecting innovations in a parsed corpus of learner English. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research 2:2 ► pp. 177 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 12 december 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue