Multi-word Verbs in English Language Teaching

As a group, multi-word verbs (i.e., verb-particle and verb-preposition constructions that function as a semantic-syntactic unit) can be a problematic language feature. The linguistic literature holds no clear consensus on how they should be defined, but they are well-established as a frequent and productive element of English as a first language (Biber, Johansson, Leech, Conrad, & Finegan, 1999; Bolinger, 1971; Claridge, 2000; Rodríguez-Puente, 2019). They are an essential subject of study for learners of English as a second or foreign language (EFL), yet semantic and syntactic complexities can hinder approaches to pedagogy in formal instructional settings. Given this predicament, a thorough discussion on the language feature in relation to English language teaching practice (ELT) is pertinent. It is in this spirit that this book explores two questions, namely, ‘What can linguistic research offer multi-word pedagogy?’ and ‘Which current practices exist in mainstream ELT with respect to multi-word verb pedagogy?’. First, in this introduction, we will consider some of the challenges associated with multi-word verb (herein, MWV) learning and teaching.

Numerous second language acquisition studies have explored EFL speakers’ receptive and productive knowledge of MWVs only to uncover a complex variety of factors that influence learning. These include first language (L1) influence (Alejo-González, 2010a, 2010b; Gilquin, 2015; Hulstijn & Marchena, 1989; Nacey & Graedler, 2019), frequency of exposure to English, degree of idiomaticity (Garnier & Schmitt, 2016; Sonbul, Salam El-Dakhs, & Al-Otaibi, 2020; Zhang & Wen, 2019), and EFL proficiency (Liao & Fukuya, 2004; Siyanova-Chanturia & Schmitt, 2007; Zhang & Wen, 2019).

The question of L1 influence is tied to whether EFL speakers have similar constructions in their own language. Those from the Germanic languages seem to have this advantage and, in some studies, have shown tendencies to use MWVs quite freely in their written and spoken production, albeit less frequently and consistently than L1 English speakers (Alejo-González, 2010a; Hulstijn & Marchena, 1989; Nacey & Graedler, 2019). In contrast, those from the Romance languages have the disadvantage of a greater distance between the English language and their L1, and as such, they may find MWVs more challenging (Alejo-González, 2010a; Gilquin, 2015; Siyanova-Chanturia & Schmitt, 2007). For example, Alejo-González (2010a) reported that Spanish-speaking EFL learners showed a strong tendency to underuse constructions with the adverb particle out when compared not only with L1 English speakers but also with learners from Germanic satellite-framed languages (e.g., Swedish, Dutch) and non-Germanic satellite-framed languages (e.g., Russian, Bulgarian). Similarly, Gilquin (2015) found that, compared with English language natives, French-speaking EFL learners significantly underused verb-particle constructions and showed a non-native-like stylistic tendency to produce more of these units in writing than in speaking. These findings suggest that while L1 influence may affect everyone, some language families appear more likely than others to grapple with MWVs.

Besides L1 influence, several studies have shown how frequency of language exposure affects MWV acquisition (Garnier & Schmitt, 2016; Schmitt & Redwood, 2011; Sonbul et al., 2020; Zhang & Wen, 2019). Above all, raw sense-based frequency appears to be the strongest predictor of receptive and productive MWV knowledge. That is, learners are most likely to acquire the most frequent meanings of the most frequent MWV tokens that occur in discourse. However, entrenchment effects related to prepositions may negatively influence receptive knowledge among lower-proficiency learners. In a study by Sonbul et al. (2020), it was found that a strong familiarity with the most frequent senses of common prepositions led learners to miss the polysemous nature of these forms and thus misinterpret them when they function within MWVs. Such findings might lead us to question the assumption that EFL class time is best spent focusing primarily on high-frequency language (Schmitt, 2008), and as Sonbul et al. (2020) suggest, it may be wise to address both high and low-frequency MWV senses and their constituents from the outset of instruction.

Related to frequency, semantic transparency is another critical sense-based factor that appears to influence EFL learners’ MWV knowledge. Zhang and Wen (2019) and Sonbul et al. (2020) both reported that learners find idiomatic senses harder to understand than literal ones. In contrast, Garnier and Schmitt (2016) found that idiomaticity did not affect learners’ receptive knowledge. However, differences in outcomes between these studies may be due to the fact that in the test development stage, the latter researchers used a binary classification (i.e., literal versus figurative) to measure this variable, while Zhang and Wen (2019) and Sonbul et al. (2020) opted for a scale. Interestingly, the participants in all three studies were L1 speakers of non-Germanic languages (Chinese, Arabic, and Spanish, respectively). It is possible that the findings of Zhang and Wen (2019) and Sonbul et al. (2020) would have been different had the participants been L1 speakers of Germanic satellite-framed languages. For such groups, idiomaticity in MWV formation might not be as problematic, thanks to the similarities between the English language and their L1. For example, when Nacey and Graedler (2019) analysed a corpus of Norwegian EFL learners’ written and spoken production, they found that participants were able to create new MWV constructions in much the same way as L1 English speakers by using ‘established metaphorical extensions’ (p. 19) of adverb particles to create novel semantic units.

This brings us to the question of proficiency. Contrary to what one might expect, it seems that increased EFL proficiency does not necessarily equate to advanced MWV knowledge. Liao and Fukuya (2004) have pointed to the existence of a developmental sequence in productive MWV knowledge, in which learners progress from underuse at the intermediate level to increased use at the advanced level. However, in comparison with English language natives, EFL learners have been shown to consistently underuse MWVs at all proficiency levels or to use them in ways that may seem ‘unnatural’ in L1 English. Another interesting finding from the Liao and Fukuya (2004) study is that both the intermediate and advanced-level participants showed a similar tendency to underuse idiomatic senses. This trend appears to be upheld in subsequent studies (Siyanova-Chanturia & Schmitt, 2007; Zhang & Wen, 2019).

Essentially, these second language acquisition research findings indicate that arriving at a ‘native-like’ degree of receptive and productive MWV knowledge is a challenge for many EFL learners, particularly those with an L1 that differs markedly from English. As they progress in their language learning journey, learners will ‘pick up’ the most frequent meanings of the most frequent constructions they encounter, including those with semantically opaque meanings. However, this does not necessarily mean they will always grasp unfamiliar figurative constructions further on. On the contrary, less frequent combinations and more opaque meanings are much more likely to be overlooked in communicative contexts. It seems that many learners acquire only a superficial knowledge of the phenomenon as if they were arbitrary semantic units. If this is the case, then this knowledge can only take them so far.

Arguably, formal EFL instruction holds answers to both the problem and solution for the issue described above. It has a vital role to play in learner acquisition because it can provide opportunities for learners to deepen their knowledge of the verb group’s characteristics. However, it has been noted that some teachers experience problems with MWV pedagogy. Armstrong (2004) argues that ‘insufficient conscious awareness of a language structure in teachers of English may impair the teaching and learning of that structure, even when considerable classroom time is invested in it’ (p. 213). Arguably, this can be partially attributed to the fact that for a very long time, mainstream ELT has been based on a ‘traditional view of language’ (Tyler, 2012, p. 3) as an autonomous system separate from the human conceptual system and general cognitive processes (Kövecses & Szabó, 2004; Tyler, 2012). Conventional pedagogical approaches based on this view offer very little to help learners deepen their understanding of MWVs (Kovács, 2011; Kurtyka, 2001; Side, 1990). For example, a didactic treatment might involve selecting MWVs related to a particular topic and presenting them in clauses alongside their corresponding definitions. Such an intervention might help learners acquire those items as individual lexical units, but it will not help them become familiar with the polysemous patterns of the MWV. Conventional didactic approaches also tend to present the verb group’s structures as discrete rules, rendering them so that they end up far removed from a more helpful focus on meaning (Torres-Martínez, 2015).

There are, however, alternative didactic approaches based on findings from usage-based linguistics, a multi-disciplinary field that explores ‘the effects of interactive and cognitive processes on the emergence of linguistic structure and meaning’ (Diessel, 2017, p. 2). Among the usage-based disciplines, research in corpus linguistics and applied cognitive linguistics has uncovered a great deal of information on MWVs, much of which is highly relevant to ELT. Corpus linguistic research has helped to uncover patterns of MWV production in discourse, thus creating better conditions for selecting and presenting the target language. Cognitive linguistic principles have given rise to a better understanding of the conceptual frameworks that underlie MWV formation (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980, 2003; Langacker, 2008; Tyler & Evans, 2003). Encouraged by such progress, classroom-based second language acquisition researchers have endeavoured to develop didactic techniques that are more effective and efficient than existing mainstream approaches (Boers, De Rycker, & De Knop, 2010; Martín-Gilete, 2022, 2024; Tyler, 2012). Thus, while this may not be an entirely straightforward ELT topic, there are many linguistic research findings that can be applied to MWV pedagogy. One fundamental question is whether these insights reach mainstream ELT practice.