Skip to main content
    • Aa
    • Aa

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


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.

Corresponding author
Address for correspondence: Laura M. Gonnerman, School of Communication Sciences and Disorders, McGill University, 1266 Pine Avenue West, Montreal, QC, CanadaH3G
Hide All

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.

Linked references
Hide All

This list contains references from the content that can be linked to their source. For a full set of references and notes please see the PDF or HTML where available.

B. Abel (2003). English idioms in the first language and second language lexicon: A dual representation approach. Second Language Research, 19, 329358.

H. Behrens (1998). How difficult are complex verbs? Evidence from German, Dutch and English. Linguistics, 36, 679712.

E. Bialystok (1979). Explicit and implicit judgements of L2 grammaticality. Language Learning, 29, 81103.

S. A. Bobrow , & S. M. Bell (1973). On catching on to idiomatic expressions. Memory & Cognition, 1, 343346.

F. Boers (2000). Metaphor awareness and vocabulary retention. Applied Linguistics, 21, 553571.

C. Cacciari , & P. Tabossi (1988). The comprehension of idioms. Journal of Memory and Language, 27, 668683.

B. Cappelle , Y. Shtyrov , & F. Pulvermüller (2009). Heating up or cooling up the brain? MEG evidence that phrasal verbs are lexical units. Brain & Language, 115, 189201.

A. B. Cieslicka (2006). Literal salience in on-line processing of idiomatic expressions by second-language learners. Second Language Research, 22, 115144.

A. B. Cieslicka , & R. R. Heredia (2011). Hemispheric asymmetries in processing L1 and L2 idioms: Effects of salience and context. Brain & Language, 116, 136150.

J. D. Cohen , B. MacWhinney , M. Flatt , & J. Provost (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, 257271.

J. T. Devlin , H. L. Jamison , P. M. Matthews , & L. M. Gonnerman (2004). Morphology and the internal structure of words. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 101, 1498414988.

R. M. W. Dixon (1982). The grammar of English phrasal verbs. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 2, 142.

R. Ellis (2005). Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge of a second language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 141172.

R. W. Gibbs Jr., N. P. Nayak , & [J.] C. Cutting (1989). How to kick the bucket and not decompose: Analyzability and idiom processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 28, 576593.

R. Giora (2002). Literal vs. figurative language: Different or equal? Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 487506.

L. M. Gonnerman , M. S. Seidenberg , & E. S. Andersen (2007). Graded semantic and phonological similarity effects in priming: Evidence for a distributed connectionist approach to morphology. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 136, 323345.

J. A. Hawkins (2004). Efficiency and complexity in grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

A. E. Konopka , & K. Bock (2009). Lexical or syntactic control of sentence formulation? Structural generalizations from idiom production. Cognitive Psychology, 58, 68101.

M. R. Libben , & D. A. Titone (2008). The multidetermined nature of idiom processing. Memory & Cognition, 36, 11031121.

B. Lohse , J. A. Hawkins , & T. Wasow (2004). Domain minimization in English verb–particle constructions. Language, 80, 238261.

T. Matlock , & R. R. Heredia (2002). Understanding phrasal verbs in monolinguals and bilinguals. In R. R. Heredia & J. Altarriba (eds.), Bilingual sentence processing, pp. 251274. Amsterdam: North-Holland/Elsevier.

H. Ringbom (1992). On L1 transfer in L2 comprehension and L2 production. Language Learning, 42, 85112.

B. Rudzka-Ostyn (2003). Word power. Phrasal verbs and compounds: A cognitive approach. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

A. Siyanova , & N. Schmitt (2007). Native and non-native use of multi-word vs. one-word verbs. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 45, 119139.

A. Siyanova-Chanturia , K. Conklin , & N. Schmitt (2011). Adding more fuel to the fire: An eye-tracking study of idiom processing by native and non-native speakers. Second Language Research, 27, 251272.

A. Spencer (2005). Word-formation and syntax. In P. Štekauer & R. Lieber (eds.), Handbook of word-formation, pp. 7397. Dordrecht: Springer.

D. A. Titone , & C. M. Connine (1999). On the compositional and non-compositional nature of idiomatic expressions. Journal of Pragmatics, 31, 16551674.

A. Wray , & H. R. Perkins (2000). The function of formulaic language: An integrated model. Language and Communication, 20, 128.

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Bilingualism: Language and Cognition
  • ISSN: 1366-7289
  • EISSN: 1469-1841
  • URL: /core/journals/bilingualism-language-and-cognition
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *



Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 2
Total number of PDF views: 31 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 163 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 27th May 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.