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

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
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

Hanoi, October 2010

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL
STUDIES
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



iv


ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS
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.

v


TABLE OF CONTENT
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



vi


2.2. Methodology…………………………………………………………
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

18
19
19
22
22
22
23
24
25
25
26
27
27
28
29
31
32

32
33
34
36
36
37
38
39





1

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



2

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, 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



3

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.

4

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



5

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

6

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
in language (Evans, 2006).
The third principle that semantic structure is encyclopaedic means that lexical
concepts do not represent neatly packaged bundles of meaning. Rather, they serve as „point
of access‟ to vast repositories of knowledge relating to a particular concept or conceptual
domain (Langacker, 1987). To claim that lexical concepts are „points of access‟ to
encyclopaedic meaning is not to deny that words have conventional meaning associated
with them. However, cognitive semanticists argue that conventional meaning associated
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



7

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



8

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.



9

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



10

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.



11

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

12

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



13

(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
1.3.1. Phrasal verbs
Phrasal verbs are believed to be a difficult part of the lexicon. This seems to be true
especially for learners who lack phrasal verbs in their mother tongue. These learners tend
to use fewer phrasal verbs and more single word verbs than native speakers performing
similar tasks. However, phrasal verbs are extremely common and used more informally
than their Latinate synonyms, e.g. use up vs. consume; gather together vs. assemble; put
out vs. extinguish. Many phrasal verbs can be replaced, with little change of meaning, by
single word verbs, for example, give in by yield, look after by tend, carry on by continue,
put up with by tolerate. In most cases the phrasal verb is less formal, more colloquial and

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



14

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



15

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.
1.3.2. Particles

Prepositions are highly polysemous words. The traditional view considered that all
the senses of a preposition were highly arbitrary and were not related to one another.
Consequently, both dictionaries and grammars used to provide long lists of unrelated
senses for each preposition and its possible uses in different contexts. The problem grew
even worse when it came to the study of verb-particle constructions, where the contribution
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),



16

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.



17

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.















18

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
particles?
- Are constituents of phrasal verbs used in metaphorical way?
2.2.Methodology
The paper is conducted basing on reference books in the field of cognitive
linguistics. These materials were thoroughly studied to set a firm theoretical background
and to find out suitable framework for data analysis.
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



19

up. Based on the findings, the author has made further discussion, attempting to draw out

some conclusions in understanding phrasal verbs in the context studied and in general
context as well.
2.3. Data
The study focuses on two sets of data from books and Internet. They are 46 up-
phrasal verbs and 42 out-phrasal verbs taken from books specialized in business, namely,
Intelligent Business (Intermediate, Upper Intermediate) by Trappe, T. & Tullis, G., Market
Leader (Pre-intermediate) by Cotton, D., Falvey, D. & Kent, S., Management and
Marketing by Mackenzie, I The data are also taken from online lessons in website,
namely, The data are chosen from the
above books for the fact that they are used in the curricula for the second and third year
Business English majors at the AOF. The website is a regular source that the author often
assigns task for students at AOF as a part of requirement for their learning. Phrasal verbs
constituted from up and out but not other particles are chosen for analysis because they are
so commonly used and have a wide range of meanings which proves to be obstacles for
learners in comprehending business texts.
2.4. Analytical Framework
The framework of analysis is based on the notions in cognitive semantics. For the
first research question, image schemas and metaphorical mappings are used to identify
major meanings of the phrasal verbs. First, the conceptual image schema for up and
schema for out proposed by Johnson (1987), Lakoff (1987), Langacker (1987) will be
employed to analyse meaning of phrasal verbs with up and out, respectively. The schemas
define the most basic meanings for the phrasal verbs from which more abstract senses are
motivated by metaphorical extensions from spatial domains onto other domains related to
human experience. Key terms for image schema framework are:
Schema: An abstract conceptualization of an experience. Here we focus on schemas
depicting a TR, LM and their relationship in both the initial configuration and the final
configuration communicated by some expression.
Trajector (TR): The object which is conceptually foregrounded. TR is the profiled or
highlighted entity. It is generally smaller, flexible and moving.

20

Landmark (LM): The LM acts as a reference point for the TR. It usually happen that
the LM is bigger in size and gets a relative fixity of location.
TR may be an object (The plane took off), a person (I’m going out tonight) but also a
feeling (Your real feelings are finally getting through me). In fact, it can be any entity on
which our attention focuses. In many cases, TR can be a non-spatial or an abstract concept
such as the truth (dig out the truth), a comment (squeeze out a comment), a solution (find
out a solution), an answer (work out an answer) the news (The news leaked out).
LM can be a clearly defined area (John went out of the room; Mary got out of the
car; The plane flew over the mountain; The children ran up the hill to attack the enemy).
Sometimes, the landmark is implied and not defined at all. It can be an implicit physical
ground the balloon is moving away from (The balloon floated up) or implicit station the
train moving away (The train started out for Chicago) or abstract field of cognition
expressing knowledge, accessibility (figure out a solution, think over problem).
Also, metaphors projected from Container schema and Path schema are used to
explain meaning extensions of phrasal verbs with out and up, respectively. These two basic
and primarily spatial image schemas lend their logic to non-spatial abstract situations.
Johnson (1987:21-22) notes that “container schema is an image schema that involves a
physical or metaphorical boundary, enclosed area or volume, or excluded area or volume”.
Lakoff (1987) also points out structural elements a CONTAINER consists as illustrated in
Figure 2 - INTERIOR, BOUNDARY and EXTERIOR. These are the minimum
requirements for a CONTAINER.

Figure 1: Container embodied schema (Lakoff 1987).
Containers can be a physical bounded objects (I think John is in his room / I took the
mug out of the box) or abstract concepts people can get into or get out of (He is in love /
She finally got out of that trouble).