Phrasal verbs pose a significant challenge to non-native English speakers due to their semantic complexity and structural differences from learners' first languages (L1) (e.g. Dagut and Laufer, 1985; Gries, 1999; Wulff and Gries, 2019). While phrasal verbs are well-researched in an L1 context, studies contrasting L1 and L2 usage are scarce. This research investigates how semantic complexity, structural differences between English and learners’ first languages (L1), and proficiency levels influence particle placement preferences in phrasal verbs.
The research addresses three central questions:
(1) Does semantic complexity (i.e., idiomaticity) influence construction preference (VOP vs. VPO)?
(2) Does L1 background affect particle placement preferences?
(3) Does proficiency level modulate these preferences?
To explore these questions, the study employs a survey-based experimental design, in which native speakers of English, German, and French complete sentence judgment tasks. Participants are presented with English phrasal verb constructions, and asked to rate which sentence they would be more likely to use, choosing between the options verb-particle-object (VPO) and verb-object-particle (VOP), on a 5-point Likert scale. The stimuli are systematically varied along three key linguistic dimensions: semantic transparency; object weight; and definiteness. This design allows for the investigation of how these variables, in combination with participants’ L1 backgrounds and proficiency levels, influence particle placement preferences in English.
Preliminary findings from a pilot study involving German and English native speakers, suggest that both groups show a bias toward the V-Prt-O (VPO) structure, with German speakers exhibiting a slightly stronger preference. This may be attributed to processing costs or to structural parallels between German and English. Interestingly, proficiency level did not significantly affect particle placement preferences in the pilot data, suggesting that L1 influence and structural similarity may play a more critical role than language proficiency in determining construction choice.
The anticipated outcome, based on the preliminary results, is that participants will show a preference for either the V-P-O or V-O-P construction based on the weight of the object, with heavier objects favoring the V-P-O order to reduce processing complexity. German speakers are expected to exhibit greater tolerance for particle movement than French speakers, reflecting the closer syntactic alignment between German and English phrasal verbs. Additionally, increased proficiency and exposure to English are expected to enhance acceptance of separable phrasal verb constructions, particularly those with transparent meanings and definite referents. It is also expected that idiomaticity and definiteness will interact with these factors to influence sentence preferences, highlighting the complex nature of phrasal verb processing.
By focusing on particle placement in phrasal verbs, this study contributes to a deeper understanding of how L1 syntactic structures, semantic factors, and language proficiency interact to shape second language learners’ syntactic preferences. The findings offer valuable pedagogical insights for addressing language-specific challenges in teaching English phrasal verbs, thereby supporting more effective language instruction tailored to learners’ native language backgrounds. Ultimately, this research aims to inform both theoretical models of second language syntax and practical approaches to language teaching.
Cappelle, B., Bergs, A., & Diewald, G. (2009). Contextual cues for particle placement. Context and construction, 145–192.
Dagut, Menachem & Batia Laufer. (1985). Avoidance of Phrasal Verbs—A Case for Contrastive Analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 7(1). 73-79. Explorations. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Deshors, S. 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), 214–231.
Hawkins, John A. (1994). A performance theory of order and constituency (No. 73). Cambridge University Press.
Neumann, Gabriele & Ingo Plag. (1995). Phrasal Verbs in Interlanguage: Implications for Teaching. Fremdsprachen lehren und lernen 24. 93-105.
Gries, Stefan T. (1999). Particle movement: A cognitive and functional approach. Cognitive Linguistics 10(2). 105-145.
Gries, S. T. (2011). Acquiring particle placement in English: A corpus-based perspective. Morphosyntactic Alternations in English: Functional and Cognitive Perspectives. London/Oakville, CT: Equinox, 235–263.
Haddican, B., & Johnson, D. E. (2014). Focus effects on particle placement in English. Proceedings of the North East Linguistics Society (NELS), 43, 143–153.
Liao, Yan & Yoshinori J. Fukuya. (2004). Avoidance of phrasal verbs: The case of Chinese learners of English. Language Learning 54(2). 193-226.
Moon, Rosamund. (1998). Frequencies and forms of phrasal lexemes in English. In Anthony P. Cowie (ed.), Phraseology: Theory, Analysis, and Applications, 79–100. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Paquot, M., Grafmiller, J., & Szmrecsanyi, B. (2019). Particle placement alternation in EFL learner vs. L1 speech: Assessing the similarity of probabilistic grammars. Widening the scope of learner corpus research: Selected papers from the fourth Learner Corpus Research Conference, 71–92.
Thim, Stefan. (2012). Phrasal verbs: The English verb-particle construction and its history. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Wulff, Stefanie & Stefan Gries. (2019). Particle Placement in Learner Language. Language Learning 69(4). 873-910.