RECINTO PARA RADIO

interest in linguistics. Much has been said and written about ELF, the

discussions about ELF have been heated and controversial, and ELF has even

been discussed on BBC Radio 4 (Word of Mouth 2012). Although ELF might

have been one of the ‘hot topics’ in linguistics for the past few years, “[t]here is much about ELF still to discover and describe” (Seidlhofer 2010: 158).

It has been claimed by many linguists before that a systematic description of this “new kind of English” (Hülmbauer 2010: 27) is necessary, and even more importantly, this description should be done by the actual ELF users themselves, i.e. ‘endonormatively’ (Hülmbauer 2010: 27). It is convenient and considered good practice for a linguistic description to be based on an empirical foundation, e.g. a corpus. VOICE, the Vienna-Oxford International Corpus of English, which is the empirical basis for this study, makes an important contribution in response to this need, especially because it was created “with the purpose of furthering empirical research on and the linguistic description of (spoken) ELF”

(Breiteneder et al. 2009: 25). VOICE, which “comprises transcripts of naturally occurring, non-scripted face-to-face interactions in English as a lingua franca (ELF)” (VOICE-Homepage 2012e), is a one million-word corpus of spoken conversations in ELF. The corpus was compiled by a team of ELF researchers at the English Department of the University of Vienna and is currently in the final stages of being annotated with part-of-speech tags.

¹

In terms of ELF research, there still is a “need for significantly more qualitative studies to be conducted” (Seidlhofer et al. 2006: 21), which is where it is hoped that this study can make a contribution.

2.2. English as an international language

“Never before has a language been used as a lingua franca by so many people in so many parts of the world. English [...] [has] more non-native than native speakers […].” (Trudgill 2002: 150)

Native speakers of English really are the minority of all users of the English language. Generally, the importance of the English language as a global means of communication seems evident; one could say that English is the “default

1

For a more detailed description of the corpus consider section 4.6. VOICE, which provides a

language of international communication” (Seargeant 2012: 88). It is the language of the media, of international business, of technology and sciences, of tourism, of international politics and of practically every other area of life that involves international communication. What is important to note at this stage is the fact that not only do “those at the top” use English as a means of international communication, but especially also “ordinary people” in their daily lives (Mauranen 2005: 270).

The terms English as an international language (EIL) and English as a Lingua Franca (ELF) are sometimes used interchangeably. As far as this paper is concerned, for both terms I will follow the definition that is used in Seidlhofer (2011: 3ff).

Simply put, EIL is defined as all “uses of English within and across Kachru’s

‘Circles’, for intranational as well as international communication” (Seidlhofer 2011: 3). This means that with relation to Kachru’s ‘Circles’ (1992: 356f) by EIL we understand the use of English in the ‘Inner Circle’, i.e. in countries in which English is the L1 for most people, as well as the use of English in the ‘Outer Circle’, i.e. in countries in which English is not the native language but the second language and it is used as an ‘additional’ language in order for the people to communicate with each other, and also the use of English in the

‘Expanding Circle’, i.e. the use of the English language in countries in which it is usually a foreign language for most people. According to this definition, EIL involves native speakers of English as well as non-native speakers of English in a variety of communicative situations as well as in various countries.

2.3. English as a Lingua Franca

As opposed to EIL, English as a Lingua Franca in this paper is referred to interactions the participants of which are usually not to be found in Kachru’s

‘Inner Circle’. Or, as Hülmbauer (2010: 20) puts it,

[t]he purpose of ELF is communication around the globe which is neither aimed at ENL proficiency nor dependent on inner circle norms.

The interlocutors of ELF interactions usually do not share the same L1, which is why they use English as their ‘lingua franca’ (Seidlhofer 2011: 7). Of course, some ELF interactions may also include native speakers, i.e. ELF does not

“preclude the participation of English native speakers” (Seidlhofer 2005a: 339), but it is mainly seen as a contact language between people who do not share the same L1. The fact that native speakers of English might also take part in ELF interactions is taken into account in VOICE, which also includes interactions in which ENL speakers take part, however, their number is relatively small.

2.1.1. English as a Lingua Franca vs. English as a foreign language

Generally, one might assume that due to the fact that both, ELF and EFL speakers are no native speakers of English, their way of communicating might be similar. However, there seems to be an essential difference between the use of ELF and EFL (Hülmbauer 2007: 6, emphases in the original):

What differentiates ELF from EFL […] so substantially is that its users neither aim at communicating with or like [native speakers] of the language, or only to a very limited extent.

In other words, one can say that unlike EFL speakers, the interlocutors in lingua franca conversations usually are other ELF speakers (and English is the

‘contact language’ of the interlocutors), whereas EFL speakers usually communicate with native speakers of English. Moreover, as mentioned before, the overall aim of ELF speakers usually is to use the language in a way that is appropriate in the very communicative (ELF) situation they are in, which may in some cases be different to what might be considered ‘correct’ in terms of ENL standards (c.f. section 5.2.2.1. Phrasal verbs and grammatical ‘correctness’).

EFL speakers, however, usually tend to strive for using English according to

ENL standards and for achieving native-like proficiency in their conversations, their language use is based on “native-speaker models” (Seargeant 2012: 167).

Furthermore, what distinguishes ELF speakers from EFL speakers is the fact that ELF users are generally seen as “EFL learners putting into practice what they have learnt” (Seidlhofer 2012: 81, my emphasis). Thus, ELF speakers are generally seen as users of a language that employ the language in a way that is suitable for their needs.

To sum up, one can say that the importance of the global use of English as a

Lingua Franca seems evident, regarding the large number of interactions in

which English is used as the lingua franca of the interlocutors. In terms of a

description of the way ELF speakers use the language, empirical research plays

a crucial role. This is where this thesis seeks to make a modest contribution.

3. PHRASAL VERBS

In this chapter I will describe the most important characteristics of phrasal verbs by focusing on their syntactic, lexical and semantic features. I will also discuss the idiomaticity of phrasal verbs. Moreover, I will focus on their frequency in English by referring to a frequency analysis carried out by Dee Gardner and Mark Davies in 2007. One of the main references for the discussion of phrasal verbs is A comprehensive grammar of the English language by Quirk et al.

(1985: 1152ff), which is a very well known and widely used grammar book for the English language. I chose Quirk et al. as one of the main references because it was used as a basis for other papers on phrasal verbs (e.g. Darwin

& Gray 1999) as well, and is claimed to be “the most clearly delineated” (Darwin

& Gray 1999: 68) source of a definition of the phrasal verb, which further supports the relevance of this grammar.

3.1. Defining the indefinable

“Is there a more enigmatic lexical item in the English language than the multiword (phrasal) verb?”

(Wyss 2003: 27)

Linguists have defined, described and classified phrasal verbs differently in the course of time: “[d]ifferent people have different definitions of ‘phrasal verb”

(Sinclair 1989: v), or, as Gardner & Davies (2007: 341) put it: “[i]t is rare to read

an article about phrasal verbs without some discussion of definitions”. It seems

that there is no common agreement about what to include in the category of

phrasal verbs and what to exclude from the category, or in other words: how to

define them.

Comprehensive grammar books that are often used by different language users, for instance language learners, teachers, students, etc., like A comprehensive grammar of the English language by Quirk et al. (1985) or Collins Cobuild English Grammar, edited by John Sinclair (2006) usually give a relatively detailed and comprehensive description of phrasal verbs. The main focus is usually on how phrasal verbs are formed, how they behave syntactically and semantically, etc. Also other ‘guides to the English language’, like Michael Swan’s foreign language learner-centered Practical English Usage (2005) deal with phrasal verbs and explain how to use them. There are countless articles in linguistic journals, some of which are used as sources for this paper, that deal with different aspects of phrasal verb use. This seems to show the significance phrasal verbs have in the English language, although (or rather: because?) it is not commonly agreed upon what phrasal verbs actually are.

3.2. General characteristics of phrasal verbs

3.2.1. Importance and Productivity

Generally, what linguists usually agree upon is the fact that phrasal verbs are very important in the English language: “no one can speak or understand English […] without a knowledge of phrasal verbs” (Celce-Murcia & Larsen-Freeman 1999: 425). They are “crucial to English, and they add a definite richness to the language” (Gardner & Davies 2007: 339). The importance of phrasal verbs is underpinned by the fact that they are so productive and used very frequently, as e.g. Celce-Murcia & Larsen-Freeman (1999: 431) state:

“Phrasal verbs are a highly productive lexical category in English”. In general,

phrasal verbs are said to be used more often in spoken than in written language

and to be more frequent in informal than in formal registers. However, they are

also found in more formal registers (Darwin & Gray 1999: 66).

3.2.2. Semantics

With regard to the semantics of phrasal verbs, the meaning of the verb + particle combination is often very different from the meanings of its two (or three) individual components. Or, as Darwin & Gray (1999: 65) put it:

The phrasal verb is generally defined as a verb + particle combination that functions as a single verb, both parts giving up meaning in order to form a new lexical item.

The meaning of the phrasal verb can therefore not always be guessed from the meaning of the lexical verb or the meaning of the particle. In other words, when the verb and the particle are put together, “a unique meaning is derived” (Celce-Murcia & Larsen-Freeman 1999: 425). Consider for instance the phrasal verb to turn up: if somebody turns up at a party, they appear at the party. However, unlike the meaning of the individual components of the phrasal verb might suggest, they do not reverse (turn), and there is no upward (up) movement indicated. Thus, one can clearly see that the meaning of the individual components is different from the meaning of the combination of the verb and the particle. The meaning of the individual components is changed, or one could argue it is extended. Another example would be the phrasal verb to put up with.

People who put up with somebody or something usually tolerate a situation or a person. Similar to the previous example, the meaning of the phrasal verb cannot be deduced from the meaning of its individual components. As can be seen from the examples just mentioned, the semantic aspect of phrasal verbs seems notable and important. Thus, it will be dealt with in a more detailed way later in this chapter.

3.2.3. The difficulty of phrasal verbs for language learners

From a language learning / language teaching point of view, it is often argued

that, for various different reasons, phrasal verbs are very difficult for language

learners. Nevertheless, being able to actively use phrasal verbs is generally

seen as an important step towards a more fluent use of the English language

(Gardner & Davies 2007; Wyss 2003 or Side 1990). The importance of phrasal verbs in language learning seems to be emphasized by the large number of articles on phrasal verbs in journals related to language learning / language teaching and the fact that there are even specific dictionaries dedicated to phrasal verbs only (e.g. Sinclair 1989: Collins Cobuild Dictionary of Phrasal Verbs; Courtney 1991: Longman Dictionary of Phrasal Verbs; Cowie & Mackin 1995: Oxford Dictionary of Phrasal Verbs; etc.)

3.3. Syntactic criteria of phrasal verbs

In grammar books, large parts of the sections about phrasal verbs are usually devoted to the syntactic characteristics and syntactic behavior of phrasal verbs.

In most cases there are lists of phrasal verbs and various examples of their use.

Generally speaking, phrasal verbs belong to the group of multi-word verbs.

They consist of two or three units: a verb followed by one particle or a verb followed by two particles. These particles can be adverbial (sit down), prepositional (put off), or, in the case of phrasal verbs that consist of three units, a combination of both (look forward to). What is important is the fact that it is a characteristic of phrasal verbs to syntactically and lexically behave as a single unit, although they are never written as a single word or with a hyphen (Sinclair 2006: 162).

3.3.1. Transitive and intransitive phrasal verbs

Phrasal verbs can be grouped into intransitive and transitive phrasal verbs.

Intransitive phrasal verbs consist of a verb and a particle. Examples of this

group of phrasal verbs are e.g. play around, take off, give in, turn up. The

particle is either a preposition or an adverb that usually cannot be separated

from the lexical verb.

Examples of transitive phrasal verbs are e.g. set something up, hand something in, turn something on. Transitive phrasal verbs are followed by a direct object. It is worth mentioning that some phrasal verbs (e.g. turn on, give in) can either be used transitively or intransitively (Quirk et al. 1985: 1152ff).

3.4. Lexical criteria

It is an important feature of phrasal verbs to function as a single lexical unit.

This is manifested by the fact that, as already mentioned earlier in this chapter, the meanings of the individual components are usually different from the meaning of the combination of the lexical verb and the particle or particles, in the case of phrasal verbs that consist of more than two units. The combination of verb proper + particle constitutes a new lexical entity that carries new meaning. This shows the lexical unity of the individual components of the phrasal verb. The example Darwin & Gray (1999: 68) give in this respect is the phrasal verb touch down: a plane touches down after a flight does not carry the same meaning as a plane touches or a plane touches downward (although one could argue that down and downward can be used synonymously). This shows that touch + down constitute a new lexical item with new meaning.

3.5. The semantics of phrasal verbs

In the case of many phrasal verbs, as Celce-Murcia & Larsen-Freeman (1999:

431) suggest,

[The] meanings are different from what combining the meaning of the verb with the meaning of the particle would lead you to expect.

Researchers in the field of phrasal verbs generally agree upon the fact that on

the one hand, the meaning of some phrasal verbs can be deduced from the

meaning of its individual components rather easily (consider for example go out, or come back), and on the other hand, the meaning of some phrasal verbs is quite radically different from the meanings of its individual components (consider for example the phrasal verb let somebody down, whose meaning is different from what one might assume regarding the individual meanings of the verb and the particle).

3.5.1. Semantic classification of phrasal verbs

This section describes the attempts by different researchers to classify phrasal verbs according to their semantics. The main focus is on the classifications by Quirk et al. (1985: 1162ff), Dagut & Laufer (1985: 74) and Celce-Murcia &

Larsen-Freeman (1999: 432ff). Interestingly, it can be observed that there does not seem to be an agreement on which terms the researchers use for the classifications. Although different terms and categories are used, all classifications range from phrasal verbs with a rather ‘transparent’ (or ‘literal’, if one uses Dagut & Laufer’s (1985: 74) term) meaning to phrasal verbs with a rather ‘opaque’ (or, as Dagut & Laufer (1985: 74) would say ‘figurative’) meaning.

In his extensive description of the phrasal verb in English, which is still used as a reference in recent articles, Bolinger (1971: 16ff) only distinguishes between two categories: phrasal verbs with ‘literal’ meaning (i.e. phrasal verbs whose meaning can be deduced from their individual parts) and phrasal verbs with

‘figurative’ meaning (i.e. phrasal verbs whose meaning cannot be deduced from their individual parts). It can be observed, however, that in more recent studies and descriptions, researchers usually use three different categories (the titles of which differ according to the studies), ranging from ‘very transparent in meaning’

to ‘very idiomatic’.

3.5.1.1. Semantic classification by Quirk et al.

Quirk et al. (1985: 1162:ff) define three main idiomatic categories of multi-words:

1) ‘Free, nonidiomatic constructions’: In these constructions, the meanings of the individual components are apparent from their consistency in possible substitutions. Examples are bring in / bring out, take out / take in, etc. In the case of these phrasal verbs, the meanings of the lexical verbs remain relatively the same even if the particles are changed. One could therefore argue that to a certain extent, the meaning of the individual parts of the phrasal verbs remains the same, and thus these phrasal verbs are less idiomatic than other phrasal verbs.

2) ‘Semi-idiomatic constructions’: Quirk et al. argue that in the case of

‘semi-idiomatic constructions’, the lexical verb usually keeps its individual, original meaning, whereas the meaning of the particle is rather idiomatic.

Examples are find out, or cut up. One could argue that the meaning of the verb + particle combination can be deduced from the meaning of the lexical verb rather than the meaning of the particle.

3) ‘Highly idiomatic constructions’: Quirk et al. argue that there are phrasal verbs that are highly idiomatic. The examples that are given are turn up, turn down, bring up, etc.

What is interesting about this classification is that Quirk et al. base their

idiomatic categories mainly on possible substitutions of one of the parts of the

multi-words. It is remarkable that other researchers do not refer to this

classification. A possible reason might be the fact that not only phrasal verbs,

but also multi-word verbs in general are listed in this categorization. Moreover,

the classification does not include phrasal verbs with more than two

constituents.

3.5.1.2. Semantic classification by Dagut & Laufer

In their study about the avoidance of phrasal verbs by Hebrew-speaking learners of English, Dagut & Laufer (1985: 74) group phrasal verbs according to their semantic characteristics. Dagut & Laufer’s study is still referred to in more recent studies about phrasal verbs (Siyanova & Schmitt 2007). Moreover, in a rather recent study about phrasal verbs, Liao & Fukuya (2004) use Dagut &

Laufer’s semantic classification of phrasal verbs. The following categories are defined:

1) Phrasal verbs with ‘literal meaning’: Phrasal verbs of this kind have a

straightforward meaning that can be inferred from the meanings of their

1) Phrasal verbs with ‘literal meaning’: Phrasal verbs of this kind have a

straightforward meaning that can be inferred from the meanings of their

In document Propuesta acústica y de equipamiento de audio para el estudio de televisión del departamento de audiovisuales de la Escuela Naval de Cadetes Almirante Padilla (página 95-102)