Luận văn thạc sĩ VNU ULIS a study on some phrasal verbs in business texts in english from cognitive semantic perspective

NGÔ THỊ VIỆT ANH A STUDY ON SOME PHRASAL VERBS IN BUSINESS TEXTS IN ENGLISH FROM COGNITIVE SEMANTIC PERSPECTIVE NGHIÊN CỨU NGHĨA CỦA MỘT SỐ CỤM ĐỘNG TỪ TIẾNG ANH TRONG NGỮ CẢNH TIẾNG A

NGÔ THỊ VIỆT ANH

A STUDY ON SOME PHRASAL VERBS IN BUSINESS TEXTS IN ENGLISH FROM COGNITIVE SEMANTIC

PERSPECTIVE

(NGHIÊN CỨU NGHĨA CỦA MỘT SỐ CỤM ĐỘNG TỪ TIẾNG ANH TRONG NGỮ CẢNH TIẾNG ANH KINH TẾ DƯỚI GÓC ĐỘ

NGỮ NGHĨA TRI NHẬN) M.A Minor Thesis

Field : English Linguistics

Code: 602215

DEPARTMENT OF POSTGRADUATE STUDIES

NGÔ THỊ VIỆT ANH

A STUDY ON SOME PHRASAL VERBS IN BUSINESS TEXTS IN ENGLISH FROM COGNITIVE SEMANTIC

PERSPECTIVE

(NGHIÊN CỨU NGHĨA CỦA MỘT SỐ CỤM ĐỘNG TỪ TIẾNG ANH TRONG NGỮ CẢNH TIẾNG ANH KINH TẾ DƯỚI GÓC ĐỘ

NGỮ NGHĨA TRI NHẬN) M.A Minor Thesis

Field : English Linguistics

Code: 602215

Supervisor: Dr Hà Cẩm Tâm

Hanoi, October 2010

ESP: English for Specific Purposes VPC: Verb Particle Construction LM: Landmark

TR: Trajector V: Verb Adv: Adverb Obj: Object Prep: Preposition AOF: Academy of Finance

* : denote examples taken from online sources

Declaration ………

Acknowledgements………

Abstract ………

Abbreviations and Symbols………

Table of Contents………

INTRODUCTION………

I Rationale of the study………

II Aims of the study………

III Scope of the study………

IV Organization of the study………

DEVELOPMENT………

CHAPTER I: THEORETICAL BACKGROUND………

1.1 Background on Cognitive Linguistics………

1.2 Background on Cognitive Semantics………

1.2.1 Embodiment and conceptual structure ………

1.2.2 Metaphors and metonymy………

1.2.2.1 Metaphors……… ………

1.2.2.2 Mappings………

1.2.3.Image schemas………

1.2.4.Trajector and Landmark………

1.2.5.Perspective and Construal ………

1.3 An overview of English phrasal verbs and English particles…………

1.3.1 Phrasal verbs………

1.3.1.1.Definitions of phrasal verbs………

1.3.1.2.Some main types of phrasal verbs………

1.3.2 Particles ……… ………

1.4 Phrasal Verbs in terms of Cognitive Semantics……….………

CHAPTER II: THE STUDY… ………

2.1 Research Questions ……… ………

I

ii iii

iv

v d

1

1

2

2

2

4

4

4

5

7

7

8

10

11

12

12

13

13

13

14

15

16

18

18

2.3 Data………

2.4 Analytical Framework………

2.5.Data Analysis, Findings and Discussion………

2.5.1 Meanings of Phrasal Verbs with Up and Path Metaphor…………

2.5.1.1.Up as a Path moving vertically

2.5.1.2.Up as a PATH into visual/perceptual field

2.5.1.3.Up as a PATH into mental field

2.5.1.4.Up as a PATH into a state of activity

2.5.1.5.Up means aiming at a goal

2.5.1.6.Up means More

2.5.1.7.Up means completion

2.5.2 Phrasal Verbs with Out and Container Metaphor

2.5.2.1.Out means accessible

2.5.2.2.Out means inaccessible

2.5.2.3.Out means expansion

2.5.2.4.Out means abnormal

2.5.2.5.Out means activation

2.5.3 Meaning Transference in Phrasal Verbs with Up………

2.5.4 Meaning Transference in Phrasal Verbs with Out………

CONCLUSION

3.1 Major findings of the study

3.2 Pedagogical implications

3.3.Limitations of the study and suggestions for further research

REFERENCES

19

19

22

22

22

23

24

25

25

26

27

27

28

29

31

32

32

33

34

36

36

37

38

39

INTRODUCTION

I Rationale of the study

Phrasal verbs are widely acknowledged as being a notoriously difficult area of language for both teachers and learners of English The tendency in the past, even until present has been to regard phrasal verbs as items that could be learnt by heart only The reason for this is that particles often change the meaning of verb in such a way that it is not possible to connect it any more with the dictionary definition of the individual words

Moreover, the same combination of verb and particle seems to mean different things in different contexts, which supports the intuition that the final meaning is absolutely arbitrary Besides, as long as the expressions refer to spatial locations and movements, the meanings are quite transparent, but when they refer to more abstract concepts such as feelings or relations, the meanings are not so obvious (Rudzka-Ostyn, 2003)

In many cases, a teacher of English who attempts to explain the meaning of phrasal

verbs finds that s/he cannot give a reason why „turn up’ is translated to „happen‟ and the

same goes for thousands of other phrases Yet, it is undeniable that phrasal verbs are so expressive that they are very widely used in native speech, especially in spoken English

What is more, new phrasal verbs are constantly being created in many fields such as English for Computing, Medical English, etc Working as a lecturer of English at Faculty

of English for Finance and Accounting at Academy of Finance, I find that phrasal verbs make up a huge amount of verbs in business texts and course books that I am using and want to find out a reasonable explanation for the use of phrasal verbs which cause troubles

in comprehending for students and teachers as well Apparently, what makes phrasal verbs

so unpredictable is the meaning of the particles, since they seem to be quite arbitrary themselves, whereas the meaning of the verbs is usually less controversial

Over the past few years, a cognitive approach to meaning of English particles has produced good results in explaining numerous possible uses of English particles and how they are related to one another Also a lot of attempt has been made by many linguists to find out whether phrasal verbs are purely idiomatic, less idiomatic or newly metaphorised

or whether they consist related and transparent meaning so that they can be used in a logical way From the above facts, I want to apply some recent findings about the meaning

of particles up and out in Cognitive semantics perspective to the meaning of phrasal verbs with up and out in Business context

II Aims of the study

This study is aimed at

 classifying semantic description of the English phrasal verbs with up and out basing

on contribution of the particles‟ meaning in light of cognitive semantics,

 investigating meaning transference of phrasal verbs with up and out

 and drawing out pedagogical implications for teaching and learning English phrasal verbs

Hoping that this study may provide teachers and student of English for Special Purpose (ESP), namely English for Business with a better understanding of meaning of phrasal verbs

III Scope of the study

The study is limited to investigating senses of the English phrasal verbs formed

with up and out found in business texts within semantic theoretical framework Up and out

are chosen as they are highly frequent and have a wide range of meanings This analysis is

based on a manual collection of 46 up-phrasal verbs and 42 out-phrasal verbs, taken from

course books that I am using for my current teaching at the AOF, namely, Intelligent Business (Intermediate, Upper Intermediate), Market Leader (Pre-intermediate), Management and Marketing, and from a website that provides online business lessons I often use for teaching and suggest as a source of reference for my students at the Academy, namely, http://www.business-english.com/phrasalverbs/ Basing on the orientational Path

and spatial Container metaphors, 46 up-phrasal verbs and 42 out-phrasal verbs are

analysed and grouped in terms of meaning to explore their major senses, respectively

IV Organization of the study

To achieve the aims mentioned, the study consists of 3 main parts including introduction, development and conclusion The introduction presents rationale to the study, aims, scope and organization of the study The conclusion briefly summarizes the main findings of the study, draws out some pedagogical implications and suggests further study

in the field The development of the study is divided into 2 chapters Chapter 1 gives a brief theoretical background of the study with important concepts Chapter 2 first presents the method of the study, data collection, analytical framework, data analysis and discussion References and appendices of phrasal verbs taken for analysis are also included

DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER I: THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

This chapter gives some brief background on cognitive linguistics, its relation to particles‟ meaning, phrasal verbs‟ meaning and introduces important concepts for the study

1.1 Background on Cognitive Linguistics

Cognitive linguistics (CL) refers to the school of linguistics that is primarily concerned with investigating the relationship between human language, the mind and socio-physical experience (Croft & Cruse, 2004; Evans & Green, 2006; Langacker, 1978)

It understands language creation, learning, and usage as best explained by reference to human cognition in general It is characterized by adherence to three central hypotheses

identified in Cognitive Linguistics (2004: 1-4) by Croft & Cruse First, it denies that there

is an autonomous linguistic faculty in the mind; second, it understands grammar in terms

of conceptualization; and third, it claims that knowledge of language arises out of language use This section will clarify the three mentioned hypotheses that guide the cognitive approach to language

The first hypothesis argues that language is not an autonomous cognitive faculty It suggests that knowledge of language is not different from other knowledge in general To put it another way, process of language acquisition works in the same ways as other mental process Although cognitive linguists do not necessarily deny that part of the human linguistic ability is innate, they deny that it is separate from the rest of cognition Thus, knowledge of linguistic phenomena i.e., phonemes, morphemes, and syntax is essentially conceptual in nature Moreover, they argue that the storage and retrieval of linguistic data may processes in the same way as the storage and retrieval of other knowledge and use of language in understanding employs similar cognitive abilities as used in other non-linguistic tasks

The second hypothesis recognizes that it is not within the area of semantics that a cognitive approach to language is relevant Its main content is embodied in Langacker‟s slogan „grammar is conceptualization‟ This slogan refers to a more specific hypothesis

about conceptual structure, namely, that conceptual structure cannot be reduced to a simple truth-conditional correspondence with the world, all grammar is seen as symbolic

The third hypothesis of the cognitive linguistics approach assumes that knowledge

of language is derived from our conception of specific utterances, actual use That is, categories and structure in semantics, syntax, morphology and phonology are built up from our cognition of specific utterances on specific occasion of use Therefore, language is both embodied and situated in a specific environment As Croft & Cruse (2004:4) note:

“cognitive linguists argue that the detailed analysis of subtle variations in syntactic behaivor and semantic interpretation give rise to a different model of grammatical representation that accommodates idiosyncrasies as well as highly general patterns of linguistics behavior.”

1.2 Background on Cognitive Semantics

As part of the field of cognitive linguistics, cognitive semantics represents an approach to the study of mind and its relationship with embodied experience and culture It proceeds by employing language as a key tool for uncovering conceptual organization and structure As one of the original pioneers of cognitive linguistics, Leonard Talmy (2000: 4) describes cognitive semantics as “Research on cognitive semantics is research on conceptual content and its organization in language”

Cognitive semantics is not a single unified framework Different cognitive semanticists have a diverse set of foci and interest However, there are a number of principles that collectively characterizes a cognitive semantics approach According to Talmy (2000), Lakoff & Johnson (1980), and Geerearts (1999), cognitive semantics is characterized by four guiding principles These principles can be stated as follows: i) Conceptual structure is embodied; ii) Semantic structure is conceptual structure; iii) Meaning representation is encyclopedic; iv) Meaning construction is conceptualization

This part of the study is written to provide a preliminary overview of how these principles are reflected in the concerns addressed by cognitive semantics

The first guiding principle represents a fundamental concern of cognitive semantics It reveals the relationship between conceptual structure and the external experience of the world This idea holds that the nature of conceptual organization arises

from bodily experience Due to the nature of our bodies, we have a species-specific view

of the world (Geerearts, 1993; Talmy, 1985, 2000; Taylor, 1989) That is to say, our construal of reality is mediated by the nature of our embodiment Things that we can perceive and conceive derive from our embodied experience From this point of view, the human mind must bear the imprint of embodied experience This position holds that conceptual is a consequence of the nature of our embodiment and thus is embodied

The second principle that semantic structure is conceptual structure resides in that language refers to concepts in the mind of the speaker rather than directly, to objects in real external world Rosch (1973) asserts that semantic structure (the meanings conventionally associated with words and other linguistics units) can be equated with conceptual structure (concepts in the mind of the speaker) However, this claim does not mean that semantic structure and conceptual structure are identical Cognitive semanticists hold that the meanings associated with linguistic units such as words, for example, form only a subset of possible concepts in the mind of the speakers and hearers One typical example illustrating this principle is pointed out by Langacker (1987) He argues that we must have a concept for the place on our faces below our nose and above our mouth where moustaches go

However, there is no English word that conventionally encodes this concept at all

Therefore, we have more thoughts, ideas and feelings than we can conventionally encode

with a particular linguistic unit is simply a „prompt‟ for the process of meaning construction: the „selection‟ of an appropriate interpretation against the context of the

utterance

The fourth guiding principle is that language itself does not encode meaning

Instead, as we have seen, words (and other linguistic units) are only „prompts‟ for the construction of meaning as argued by Geeraerts, D (1999) Accordingly, meaning is

constructed at the conceptual level Meaning construction is equated with conceptualization, a process whereby linguistic units serve as prompts for an array of conceptual operations and the recruitment of background knowledge Meaning is a process rather than a discrete „thing‟ that can be „packaged‟ by language

1.2.1 Embodiment and conceptual structure

The thesis of embodiment is addressed through image schemas developed by Mark Johnson (1987) Image schemas are relatively abstract conceptual representations that arise directly from our everyday interaction with and observation of the world around us That

is, they are concepts arising from embodied experience

The conceptual structuring system approach developed by Leonard Talmy (2000) illustrates the way in which language reflects conceptual structure which in turn reflects embodied experience Talmy has argued that one of the ways that language encodes

conceptual representation is by providing structural meaning, also known as schematic meaning This kind of meaning relates to structural properties of referents (the entities that language describes such as objects, people and so on) and the scenes (the situation and

events that language describes) He also argues that schematic meaning is directly related

to fundamental aspects of embodied cognition, and can be divided into a number of distinct schematic systems, each of which provides a distinct type of meaning that is closely associated with a particular kind of embodied experience

1.2.2 Metaphors and metonymy

Two major types of figurative usage are metaphor and metonymy Metaphor and

metonymy both involve a vehicle and a target Metaphor involves an interaction between

two domains construed from two regions of purport, and the content of the vehicle domain

is an ingredient of the construed target through processes of correspondence and blending (Croft & Cruse, 2004: 193) Metonymy is a figure of speech in which one word or phrase

is substituted for another with which it is closely associated (such as "the White House" for

"US president and his administration") Metonymy is also the rhetorical strategy of describing something indirectly by referring to things around it, such as describing someone's clothing to characterize the individual In metonymy, the vehicle‟s function is merely to identify the target construal The meanings of phrasal verbs are often difficult to

remember, because they seem to have no connection with the words that they consist of (the verb and the particle) In fact many phrasal verbs are metaphorical, and if learners understand the metaphors they use, it will be easier to understand and remember their meanings Therefore, in this study, metaphor will be used to explain the meaning of phrasal verbs

1.2.2.1 Metaphors

Metaphors are seen in language in our everyday lives In human‟s cognition about the world, metaphor is considered as one of the most important process In language learning and using, it is one of the most common device Actually, there have been many definitions for metaphor Aristotle – the first builder of metaphor theory defines it as

“transfer of a name belonging elsewhere” (cited in Leezenberger, 2001:33) In his definition, metaphor is construed as a linguistic phenomenon that directly connects seemingly unrelated subjects Traditional approach (Halliday, 1985) also considers metaphor as a mere figure of speech, but not a concept of thought

More recent frameworks such as cognitive semantics (Lakoff and Johnson, 1980;

Lakoff, 1990, 1993) view metaphor as a cognitive mechanism In the book “Metaphor We Live By” (1980: 36), Lakoff and Johnson define metaphor as a conceptual process by

“which we conceive one thing in terms of another, and its primary function is understanding.” According to this perspective, metaphor is viewed as understanding one conceptual domain in terms of another conceptual domain

Sharing the same view, a definition given by Cambridge Advanced Learner‟s Dictionary considers metaphors as “an expression which describes a person or object in a literary way by referring to something that is considered to possess similar characteristics

to the person or object you are trying to describe.” Oxford Advanced Learners‟ Dictionary writes “metaphor is a word or phrase used in an imaginative way to describe somebody/something else, in order to show that the two things have the same qualities and

to make the description more powerful.”

Obviously in all definitions metaphor is viewed as the description or conception of one object, one action, and one process in terms of the others due to some of their similar qualities, which can be illustrated in the following pairs of sentences

Pair 1:

- The dog dug up an old bone

- We dug up some interesting facts

Pair 2:

- Burglars had broken into their house while they were away

- She broke into his conversation

In each pair, the first phrasal verb has a literal meaning and refers to a physical action, while the second is metaphorical and describes an action that is similar in some way

to the first For example, when someone digs up information, they discover it, and the

process seems similar to the way in which dogs find bones that have been buried in the ground

In cognitive linguistics, conceptual metaphor, or cognitive metaphor, refers to the understanding of one idea, or conceptual domain, in terms of another, for example, understanding quantity in terms of directionality (e.g "prices are rising") The regularity with which different languages employ the same metaphors, which often appear to be

perceptually based, has led to the hypothesis that the metaphorical relations or mappings between conceptual domains corresponds to neural mappings in the brain Conceptual

metaphors shape not just people‟s communication, but also shape the way they think and act

One of the most influential books to emerge from the cognitive linguistics is

Metaphors We Live By (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980) Lakoff and his colleagues use evidence

from everyday conventional linguistic expressions to infer the existence of mappings between conceptual domains in the human mind His goal in developing the conceptual theory of metaphor is to uncover these metaphorical mappings between domains and how they have guided human reasoning and behavior In the book, the writers show that everyday language is filled with metaphors people may not always notice

An example of the commonly used conceptual metaphors is argument as war that we can easily notice in a normal conversation is discussed in Metaphors We Live By (1980)

This metaphor shapes human‟s language in the way people view argument as war or as a

battle to be won It is not uncommon to hear someone say "He won that argument" or "I

attacked every weak point in his argument” Argument can be seen in many other ways other than a battle, but we use this concept to shape the way we think of argument and the

way we go about arguing Conceptual metaphors typically employ a more abstract concept

as target and a more concrete or physical concept as their source

1.2.2.2 Mappings

According to Lakoff (1993) a metaphor involves the mapping of a source domain, or some of its elements, to a target domain, which often follows the pattern TARGET-DOMAIN IS SOURCE-DOMAIN, or TARGET-DOMAIN AS SOURCE DOMAIN (1993:207) To make it clearer, an exemplary mapping of the metaphor „love is a journey‟

is provided, where the lovers represent passengers, their love is the means of transport, the welfare of the relationship equals the destination of the journey What is more, Lakoff suggests that “The metaphor is not just a matter of language, but of thought and reason”

Such metaphors and mappings of one domain onto another, as he goes on to say, are schematic and constitute a rigid component of our comprehension and perception of certain concepts, which explains why language users are able to make sense of various linguistic representations of one conceptual metaphor

A mapping (metaphorical relation) is the systematic set of correspondences that exist

between constituent elements of the source and the target domain Many elements of target concepts come from source domains and are not preexisting To know a conceptual metaphor is to know the set of mappings that applies to a given source-target pairing

According to Taylor (2002:439) a domain is configuration of knowledge important

to the characterization of the meaning of a semantic unit Moreover, as he points out, depending on their complexity domains might be simple or basic which refer to concepts such as colors, space and time Those are called basic as they cannot be reduced to any other simpler conceptions, while the complex domains include, for example, typical event scenarios, social practices or rules of a game

Source domain: the conceptual domain from which we draw metaphorical

expressions (e.g., love is a journey) To put it another way, a source domain is a concept

that is metaphorically used to provide the means of understanding another concept

Target domain: the conceptual domain that we try to understand (e.g., love is a

journey)

The mappings of a conceptual metaphor are themselves motivated by image schemas

concerning space, time, moving, controlling, and other core elements of embodied human experience

1.2.3 Image schemas

Another key notion necessary for this study is image schema Image schemas are

relatively abstract conceptual representations that arise directly from our everyday

interaction with and observation of the world around us According to Lakoff (1987), an

image schema is a recurring structure within human cognitive processes which establishes patterns of understanding and reasoning Johnson also defined an image schema as “a mental pattern that recurrently provides structured understanding of various experiences, and is available for use in metaphor as a source domain to provide an understanding of other experiences” (1987:29) Both scholars argue that meaningful structure from bodily experience gives rise to concrete concepts like the CONTAINER image schema, which in turn serves to structure more abstract conceptual domains like STATES Different scholars provides different list of image schemas In compliance with cognitive postulates, evidence has been provided that the CONTAINER and PATH schemas are very productive in the construction of many metaphors in English That is why the container and the path schemas provided by Johnson (1987) are chosen as tools for data analysis in this study

According to Johnson (1987:21-22), a container schema is an image schema that

involves a physical or metaphorical boundary, enclosed area or volume, or excluded area

or volume A containment schema can have additional optional properties, such as transitivity of enclosure, objects inside or outside the boundary, protection of an enclosed object, the restriction of forces inside the enclosure, and the relatively fixed position of an enclosed object

Johnson (1987:115) also described a path schema as an image schema that involves

physical or metaphorical movement from place to place, and consists of a starting point, a goal, and a series of intermediate points

1.2.4 Trajector and Landmark

Trajector and Landmark are two other cognitive notions that have been used in more recent approaches of prepositions and particles (Lindstromberg, 1997; Peña, 1998;

Rudzka-Ostyn, 2003) and they will be used in describing relational expression of the particle in this study

As described in Langacker (1987), Fillmore (1985), trajector (TR) is the element or entity that is located, evaluated or described with request to another element or entity called landmark and is the most prominent or the foregrounded element in a scene or

relational structure (conceptual domain) The trajector may be an object (The plane took off), a person (I’m going out tonight) but also a feeling or feelings (Your real feelings are

finally getting through me), in fact, it can be any entity on which our attention focuses It is generally smaller, flexible and moving

Landmark (LM) is the entity that acts or is construed as a reference point for the TR

It is the second prominent or foregrounded participant in a profiled relationship It usually happens that the LM is bigger in size and it gets a relative fixity or location, as opposed to

the TR For example, in the language of emotions, a specific emotion such as mourning in She is in mourning acts as the LM

1.2.5 Perspective and Construal

An important factor in some of the extended meanings of particles has to do with the cognitive notions „perspective‟ and „construal‟ From this point of view, the most relevant

case is that of out Huddlestone and Pullum (2002: 651) discuss the contrast between The sun is (came) out and The light is (went) out, showing that the former sentence means that

“the sun is visible” whereas the second sentence means that “the light is invisible” The opposing meaning is attributable to different perspectives The notion of perspective, one

of the dimensions of construal (Langacker, 1991) refers to the viewpoint adopted by the

conceptualizer of a referent or situation In the two examples deictic verbs come and go do corroborate the notion of viewpoint Come specifies a path toward the viewer and go

specifies a path away Sometimes it is the verb rather than the particle which mainly contributes to the meaning of the whole phrasal verbs

The only similarity with the two sentences above is that both imply an opposition

between an inner and an outer area The difference is that in the sun example the observer

(conceptualiser) is located in the outer area, so that any other entity in that area is within the observer‟s visual field By contrast, in the light example, conceptualiser is in the inner area Therefore, the first kind of situation is conceived of and portrayed in terms of

movement towards the observer (The sun came out) whereas the second kind of situation is construed as movement away from the observer (The light went out)

Also according to Langacker (1987), the term construal refers to our ability of construing or viewing the same conceptual content in alternate ways Linguistic meaning consists of both conceptual content and the construal imposed on that content The classical example of construal is the half-filled glass described either as „half-full‟or „half-empty‟ Therefore the notion of construal points to different ways of thinking about the same situation/activity reflected in a person‟s choice between various linguistic alternatives

1.3 An overview of English phrasal verbs and English particles

more image-and/or emotion-laden than the single word

1.3.1.1 Definitions of phrasal verbs

Tom McArthur in The Oxford Companion to the English Language (1992: 772)

notes that phrasal verbs are referred to by many other names such verb phrase, discontinuous verb, compound verb, verb-adverb combination, verb-particle construction

(VPC), AmE two-part verb and three-part verb David Crystal in The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language calls this linguistic phenomenon a "multi-word

verb" that is best described as a lexeme, a unit of meaning that may be greater than a single

word (1995:118) Cowie and Mackin (1993) also share a similar idea that a phrasal verb is essentially a verb and one or two additional particles As can be seen from the above examples, the phrasal verb consists of a verb, usually a monosyllabic verb of action or

movement such as go, put, take, and one or more particles The particle may be an adverb,

a preposition, or a word that can act as either adverb or preposition

In English, verbs are often put together with adverbs as in put the book down, run back, warm the coffee up Verbs are often combined with prepositions, too, as come into the hall, drop the glass on the floor All these combinations are easy to understand because

we can work out the meaning from those of the individual verbs and adverbs or

prepositions However, some combinations are much more difficult to understand as break out used in the following sentence:

The crisis broke out in some European countries

In this example, the verb „break‟ does not have the meaning it has in phrase like

break the ruler and out does not mean „outside in the open‟ The combination has to be

understood as one unit, meaning „start suddenly or violently‟ When a verb + particles (adverb/preposition) is a unit of meaning like this, it is a phrasal verb Sometimes, a verb,

an adverb and a preposition are combined to form one unit of meaning such as put up with, face up with They are also phrasal verbs

1.3.1.2 Some main types of phrasal verbs

According to Acklam (1992), there are four basic types of phrasal verbs These types appear very often in reading texts on Banking – Finance and Accounting These are as follows:

Type 1: verb (v) + adverb (adv) with no object (obj)

The verb and adverb cannot be separated in phrasal verbs of this category For

example, Our business is going well We are thinking of branching out into fashion for children Branch out means expand/do something new There is no passive form with type

1 phrasal verbs

Type 2: v + adv + obj/ v + obj + adv

The verb and adverb of this type can be separated If the object is a noun, the adverb

can come before or after the noun For instance, the phrasal verb bring down means

„reduce‟ in the sentence We must bring down the price of the concert tickets if we are going to be competitive

If the object is a pronoun, the object is always between the verb and adverb: We must bring it down if we are going to be competitive

Type 3: v + preposition (prep) + obj

The preposition cannot be separated from the verb, for example, come into a fortune (inherit)

Type 4: v + adv + prep + obj

Phrasal verbs in this type have two particles They cannot be separated from the verb

Face up to something means „confront/accept and deal with something unpleasant‟

Eg: You must face up to the fact that you are probably going to lose your job

of the particle to the meaning of the whole is crucial

The term „particle‟ (Latin particulla „small part‟) discussed by Hartmann (1999: 271) denotes elements of uninflected word classes frequently found in languages such as Classical Greek, German, Dutch, Norwegian, English In late twentieth century particle research, the term has been used with at least three meanings; first, in a very general sense, referring to all uninflected elements as particles, second, in a narrow sense, designating only modal and focus particles and third, considering particles as subsets of invariables such as adverbs, conjunctions and prepositions

It is in this third sense that the term is used in this paper More specifically, the researcher attaches the sense provided by Collins Cobuild English Usage (1992: XV),

namely “a particle is an adverb or preposition such as out or up which combines with verbs

to form phrasal verbs”

1.4 Phrasal Verbs in terms of Cognitive Semantics

A phrasal verb consists of a verb (dig, shoot, or break) and a particle (an adverb like down or up, or a preposition like into) When the verb part of a phrasal verb is used in

a metaphorical way, this is usually quite obvious But the particles may be used metaphorically, too According to the definition of phrasal verbs and the fact they are difficult to learn, it is necessary to show that phrasal verbs are difficult to understand only because of the meaning of the particles and foreign learners of English do not usually notice that their meanings clearly go from the concrete to the abstract from cognitive perspective

The cognitive approach considers that all the senses in a polysemous word are related and the meaning of a word can be seen as a big semantic network of related senses

Therefore, all the possible senses of a particle would make up a large network of related senses, some of them more central, some of other being less significant The core meaning

of a preposition is the one that refers to the cognitive domain of physical space, whereas other abstract senses “tend to be derived from concrete, spatial senses by means of generalization or specialization of meaning or by metonymic or metaphoric transfer”

(Cuyckens & Radden, 2002: xiii) According to Tyler and Evans (2003 & 2004), English prepositions encode an abstract mental idealization of a spatial relation, derived from more specific spatial scenes This can be seen clearly in the following example

(1) Some teenagers like to be in their own room

(2) Teenagers are more likely to fall in love

The spatial sense of the preposition “in” is quite obvious in sentences (1) Far more abstract is the meanings of sentences (2) in which more abstract concept LOVE, is also perceived as physical entities, as containers that people can get “into” or “out of” The relation between “teenagers” and “love” is considered a metaphorically spatial one and this

is the reason why the preposition “in” is used In this network of senses that constitute the meaning of a preposition, conceptual metaphors play a leading role

In the following examples, those particles that refer to physical motion are often used to designate abstract, invisible changes

(3) He ran up the hill

(4) Heavy buying ran the price of stocks up higher than expected

(5) To throw a person out of a club (6) To throw out old clothes

This is less easy to recognize, but in fact there is often a clear connection between the literal meanings of the particle and its metaphorical uses In English, like many other languages, the basic, literal meanings of adverbs and prepositions refer to direction,

position in space, distance, or extent Up literally describes movement towards a higher position; down literally describes movement towards a lower position The metaphorical uses of these particles develop from these literal ones Up has metaphorical meanings to do with increases in size, number, or strength (prices went up); down has metaphorical

meanings to do with decreases in size, number, or strength

CHAPTER II: THE STUDY

In this chapter, the hypotheses will be restated in 2.1, methods of the study will be highlighted in 2.2, the data will be described in 2.3, the framework for data analysis will be introduced in 2.4, data analysis and discussion will be presented in 2.5

2.1 Research Questions

Adopting a cognitive linguistic perspective, I assumes that particles out and up are

networks of related senses derived from a spatial meaning and they make some contribution to meaning of phrasal verbs A logical explanation for meanings of phrasal verbs is very important in teaching and learning English phrasal verbs Therefore, two research questions are raised:

- Are meanings of phrasal verbs with up and out motivated by the meaning of the

Then data were collected and carefully analyzed They are phrasal verbs in business contexts taken from course books for business students and business online lessons

Sentences containing phrasal verbs up and out are extracted manually and classified

according to groups of senses of phrasal verbs Then they are analyzed in the light of cognitive linguistic perspective with the use of image schemas and metaphorical extensions The aim of examination was to prove that there is a logical understanding of

senses conveyed by phrasal verbs with up and out

The analysis is conducted both deductively and inductively with assumption that

meanings of the English phrasal verbs are metaphorical extensions in which particle out

presupposes the prior existence of a container either metaphorically or literally and particle

up denotes the movement along a path in the same way Through the analysis of data, the paper has tried to find out main senses of phrasal verbs constituted from particle out and