Phrasal verbs in academic lectures. Some semantic and pragmatic insights from a corpus-assisted analysis


Abstract


Phrasal verbs are notoriously challenging for L2 learners of English, especially when such composite structures are not present in their native languages. Features of phrasal verbs that can create considerable comprehension issues include varying degrees of semantic opaqueness and high levels of polysemy, as well as the dynamic nature through which new forms and meanings frequently emerge. This paper provides an in-depth analysis of phrasal verbs in academic lectures as a spoken genre that requires listeners to process complex and abstract content in real time. The transcripts of 15 multi-disciplinary lectures collected from the OpenCourseWare web sites of Yale University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology were analysed with corpus methods, including part-of-speech tagging, in order to shed light on the use of phrasal verbs in terms of forms, meanings, and patterns of usage, with a view to those that may be problematic for L2 listeners. Results showed that phrasal verbs were quite frequent, while also displaying substantial variation in form and with roughly half having figurative meanings. Further contextual analysis of figurative phrasal verbs revealed instances of pragmatic strengthening to both expand on core meanings and communicate speaker attitude. The article concludes with a discussion of the pedagogical implications of the analysis, with attention to strategies for helping L2 learners more effectively cope with the difficulties of phrasal verbs.

DOI Code: 10.1285/i22390359v54p53

Keywords: lectures; phrasal verbs; corpus analysis; academic discourse; part-of-speech tagging

References


Armstrong K. 2004, Sexing up the dossier: A semantic analysis of phrasal verbs for language teachers, in “Language Awareness” 13 [4], pp. 213-224.

Bamford J. 2005, Interactivity in academic lectures: the role of questions and answers, in Bamford J. and Bondi M. (eds.), Dialogue Within Discourse Communities: Metadiscursive Perspectives on Academic Genres, Max Niemeyer, Tubingen, pp. 123-145.

Biber D., Johansson S., Leech G., Conrad S. and Finegan E. 1999, Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English, Longman, Essex.

Bolinger D.L.M. 1971, The Phrasal Verb in English, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.

Buttery P., McCarthy M.J. and Carter R. 2015, Chatting in the academy: informality in spoken academic discourse, in Charles M., Groom, N. and John S.P. (eds.), Corpora, Grammar and Discourse, John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 183-210.

Celce-Murcia M. and Larsen-Freeman D. 1999, The Grammar Book: An ESL/EFL Teacher’s Course (2nd ed.), Heinle & Heinle, Boston.

Cornell A. 1985, Realistic goals in teaching and learning phrasal verbs, in “IRAL” 23, pp. 269-280.

Crawford Camiciottoli B. 2004, Interactive discourse structuring in L2 guest lectures: Some insights from a comparative corpus-based study, in “Journal of English for Academic Purposes”, 3 [1], pp. 39-54.

Crawford Camiciottoli B. 2005, Adjusting a business lecture for an international audience: A case study, in “English for Specific Purposes”, 24 [2], pp. 183-199.

Crawford Camiciottoli B. 2007, The Language of Business Studies Lectures: A Corpus-assisted Analysis, John Benjamins, Amsterdam.

Crawford Camiciottoli B. 2018, Representing culture in Opencourseware lectures: A Corpus-based semantic analysis, in “Lingue e Linguaggi”, 28, pp. 33-47.

Darwin C. M. and Gray L. S. 1999, Going after the phrasal verb: An alternative approach to classification, in “TESOL Quarterly, 33 [1], pp. 65-83.

Deroey K.L.B. and Taverniers M. 2012, ‘Just remember this’: Lexico-grammatical relevance markers in lectures, in “English for Specific Purposes” 31 [4], pp. 221-233.

Dudley-Evans T. 1994, Variations in the discourse patterns favoured by different disciplines and their pedagogical implications, in Flowerdew J. (ed.), Academic Listening. Research Perspectives, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 146-158.

Dyer J. and Keller-Cohen D. 2000, The discursive construction of professional self through narratives of personal experience, “Discourse Studies” 2 [3], pp. 283-304.

Flowerdew J. 1994, Research of relevance to L2 lecture comprehension, in Flowerdew J. (ed.), Academic Listening. Research Perspectives, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 7-29.

Flowerdew J. and Miller L. 1996, Lectures in a second language: Notes towards a cultural grammar, in “English for Specific Purposes” 15 [2], pp. 121-140.

Fortanet I. 2004, The use of ‘we’ in university lectures: Reference and function, in “English for Specific Purposes” 23, pp. 45-66.

Fraser B. 1976, The Verb-Particle Combination in English, Academic Press, New York.

Gardner D. and Davies M. 2007, Pointing out frequent phrasal verbs: A corpus‐based analysis, in “TESOL Quarterly” 41 [2], pp. 339-359.

Garnier M. and Schmitt N. 2016, Picking up polysemous phrasal verbs: How many do learners know and what facilitates this knowledge?, in “System” 59, pp. 29-44.

Glass J., Hazen T.J., Hetherington L. and Wang C. 2004 (May), Analysis and processing of lecture audio data: Preliminary investigations, in “Proceedings of the Workshop on Interdisciplinary Approaches to Speech Indexing and Retrieval at HLT-NAACL 2004”, Association for Computational Linguistics, Boston, pp. 9-12.

Halliday M.A.K 1985, An Introduction to Functional Grammar, Edward Arnold, London.

Laufer B. and Eliasson S. 1993, What causes avoidance in L2 learning: L1-L2 difference, L1-L2 similarity, or L2 complexity?, in “Studies in Second Language Acquisition” 15, pp. 35-48.

Liu D. 2003, The most frequently used spoken American English idioms: a corpus analysis and its implications, in “TESOL Quarterly” 37 [4], pp. 671-700.

Locher M.A. 2013, Relational work and interpersonal pragmatics, in “Journal of Pragmatics” 58, pp. 145-149.

Lynch T. 1994, Training lecturers for international audiences, in Flowerdew J. (ed.), Academic Listening. Research Perspectives, Cambridge University Press Cambridge, pp. 269-289.

Lynch T. 2011, Academic listening in the 21st century: Reviewing a decade of research, in “Journal of English for Academic Purposes” 10 [2], pp. 79-88.

Mahpeykar N. 2014, A Principled Cognitive Linguistics Account of English Phrasal Verbs, PhD Dissertation, Washington D.C., Georgetown University.

Mauranen A. 2004, ‘They’re a little bit different’. Observations on hedges in academic talk, in Aijmer K. and Stenström A-B. (eds.), Discourse Patterns in Spoken and Written Corpora, John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 173-198.

McArthur T. 1989, The long-neglected phrasal verb, in “English Today” 5 [2], pp. 38-44.

Miller L. 2002, Towards a model for lecturing in a second language, in “Journal of English for Academic Purposes” 1, pp. 145-162.

Morell T. 2004, Interactive lecture discourse for university EFL students, in “English for Specific Purposes” 23 [3], pp. 325-338.

Mulligan D. and Kirkpatrick A. 2000, How much do they understand? Lectures, students and comprehension, in “Higher Education Research” Development,19 [3], pp. 311-335.

Norris R.W. 1995, Teaching reduced forms: Putting the horse before the cart, in “English Teaching Forum” 33, pp. 47-50.

Oxford Phrasal Verbs Dictionary for English Learners 2001, Oxford University Press Oxford.

Pérez-Llantada C. 2005, Instruction and interaction in an American lecture class. Observations from a corpus, in “The ESPecialist” 26, pp. 205-227.

Quirk R., Greenbaum S., Leech G. and Svartvik J. 1985, A Comprehensive Grammar of The English Language, Longman, London.

Rayson P. 2008, From key words to key semantic domains, in “International Journal of Corpus Linguistics” 13 [4], pp. 519-549.

Rost M. 2002, Teaching and Research Listening, Longman, Harlow.

Schleef E. 2008, The ‘lecturer’s OK’ revisited: Changing discourse conventions and the influence of academic division, in “American Speech” 83 [1], pp. 62-84.

Scott M. 2008, WordSmith Tools Version 5, Liverpool, Lexical Analysis Software.

Simpson R. 2004, Stylistic features of spoken academic discourse: the role of formulaic expressions, in Connor U. and Upton T. (eds.), Discourse in the Professions: Perspectives from Corpus Linguistics, John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 37-64.

Simpson R. and Mendis D. 2003, A corpus‐based study of idioms in academic speech, in “TESOL Quarterly” 37 [3], pp. 419-441.

Sroka K.A. 1972, The Syntax of English Phrasal Verbs, Mouton de Gruyter, The Hague.

Swales J.M. 2004, Evaluation in academic speech: First forays, in Del Lungo Camiciotti G. and Tognini Bonelli E. (eds.), Academic Discourse. New Insights into Evaluation, Peter Lang, Bern, pp 31-53.

Swales J. and Feak C. 2004, Academic Writing for Graduate Students, The University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.

Swales J.M. and Malczewski B. 2001, Discourse management and new-episode flags in MICASE, in Simpson R.C. and Swales J.M. (eds.), Corpus linguistics in North America. Selections from the 1999 Symposium, The University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, pp. 145-164.

Thim S. 2012, Phrasal Verbs: The English Verb-Particle Construction and Its History, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin.

Traugott E.C. 1988, Pragmatic strengthening and grammaticalization, in Axmaker, S., Jaisser, A. and Singmaster, H. (eds.), Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, Berkeley Linguistics Society, Berkeley, pp. 406-416.

White B.J. 2012, A conceptual approach to the instruction of phrasal verbs, in “The Modern Language Journal” 96 [3], pp. 419-438.

Young L. 1994, University lectures – macro-structure and micro-features, in Flowerdew J. (ed.), Academic Listening. Research Perspectives, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 159-176.

Zhu W. and Flaitz J. 2005, Using focus group methodology to understand international students’ academic language needs: A comparison of perspectives, in “TESL-EJ” 8 [4], pp. A-3. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1068108.pdf


Full Text: PDF

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.
کاغذ a4

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribuzione - Non commerciale - Non opere derivate 3.0 Italia License.