Download Mastering English Prepositions in Phrasal Verbs

© 2009 The Linguistic Association of Canada and the United States (lacus).
The content of this article is from lacus Forum 26 (published 2000). This article and
others from this volume may be found on the Internet at http://www.lacus.org/volumes/26.
YOUR RIGHTS
This electronic copy is provided free of charge with no implied warranty. It is made available
to you under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial license
version 3.0
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/)
Under this license you are free:
•
•
to Share — to copy, distribute and transmit the work
to Remix — to adapt the work
Under the following conditions:
•
•
Attribution — You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author
or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the
work).
Noncommercial — You may not use this work for commercial purposes.
With the understanding that:
•
•
Waiver — Any of the above conditions can be waived if you get permission from the
copyright holder.
Other Rights — In no way are any of the following rights affected by the license:
• Your fair dealing or fair use rights;
• The author's moral rights;
• Rights other persons may have either in the work itself or in how the work is
used, such as publicity or privacy rights.
Notice: For any reuse or distribution, you must make clear to others the license terms of
this work. The best way to do this is with a link to the web page cited above.
For inquiries concerning commercial use of this work, please visit
http://www.lacus.org/volumes/republication
Cover: The front cover of this document is licensed under the Creative Commons
Attribution-No Derivative Works 3.0 license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/bynd/3.0/) and may not be altered in any fashion. The lacus “lakes” logo and University
of Alberta logo on the cover are trademarks of lacus and the University of Alberta
respectively. The University of Alberta logo is used here with permission from the
trademark holder. No license for use of these trademarks outside of redistribution of this
exact file is granted. These trademarks may not be included in any adaptation of this work.
MASTERING ENGLISH PREPOSITIONS IN PHRASAL VERBS
Thully Thibeau
Mississippi State University
This paper concerns combinations of verbs and prepositions in English. Verbs
and prepositions combine both as separate parts of speech and as members of a
single grammatical construction, often referred to as phrasal verb. The term phrasal
verb follows the grammatical traditions of last century because it distinguishes a
verb-preposition combination from collocations including multiple parts of
speech, as with verb+noun+preposition in set fire to or find fault with (Potter 1965).
This study adheres to traditional grammar in so much as it is limited to combinations of one verb and one preposition in phrasal verbs, differing from the more
common verb-preposition combinations containing two separate parts of speech.
Commonly, English prepositions function primarily to denote a spatial configuration as in (1)a (Quirk et. al. 1985). When functioning spatially like (1)a, a preposition acts as head of its own prepositional phrase and associates syntactically with its
object, unlike cases (1)b or (1)c and (1)d. The combination in (1)a incorporates two
individual grammatical constituents while (1)b–c comprise the single grammatical
constituent phrasal verb, which in (1)c–d enjoys nonfixed syntax.
(1)
a.
b.
c.
d.
Max sat on the books.
Max decided on the books.
Max sent on the books.
Max sent the books on.
In the instances of nonfixed syntax, a preposition does not head a prepositional
phrase but associates with the verb as one of its internal arguments and thus fulflls
an aspectual semantic role. More basically, as with instances in (1)a, prepositions
fulfill a spatial semantic role and demonstrate fixed syntax because they are phrasal
heads that come to the left of their objects. Oddly, instances in (1)b exhibit a nonspatial semantic role that also demonstrate fixed syntax like spatially functioning
phrasal heads. I call such instances idiomatically functioning prepositions because
semantic function cannot be deduced from spatial meanings.
This study analyzes the semantic function and syntactic usage of aspectual
prepositions and reports on instructional treatments for this grammatical construction with speakers of English as a Second Language (ESL). Learning the
function (meaning) and usage (clausal position) of English prepositions is one of
the most difficult problems facing ESL students (Heaton 1965, Takahashi 1969,
Meyer 1975). Yet the problems that prepositions present to adults learning English
202
thully thibeau
also exacerbate teaching prepositions (Cornell 1985). In fact, difficulties that students encounter may be directly related to instructional methods since teachers do
not ‘offer a logical explanation for the occurrences of prepositions or a conceptual
guide for their usage’ (Takahashi 1969:217). Instruction, therefore, can deter mastery
of phrasal verb prepositions if students are not helped to follow some form of logic
in their function and usage.
I approach the problem of logical function and usage from a theory of mapping,
linking lexical meaning and grammatical form, and I use an instructional treatment
on phrasal verbs for assisting form-meaning mapping. This study thus concerns an
intersection of pedagogical grammar and linguistic theory. I begin with the theoretical analysis and then move to instruction.
2. the meaning of phrasal verb prepositions. Tenny’s (1994) analysis of phrasal
verb prepositions views them as introducing a temporal end-point that ‘measures
out’ an action predicated by a verb. These prepositions specify that actions ‘travel
through’ a phrasal verb object completely (see Bolinger 1971). The semantic function of such prepositions does not denote ‘space’ but acts aspectually as a ‘telicizer’
(Carlson 1997). Telic events possess a temporal bound indicating the completion of
a predicated action. Tenny’s analysis is augmented by Dowty’s (1979:118) interpretation of a semantic operator do that denotes a ‘state under the unmediated control
of the agent’ and also by Kratzer’s (1994) critique of a light-verb ‘do’ that operates
as a functional head introducing a semantic argument agent for verbs in a generative phrase structure marker.
Tenny (1994:2) proposes a theory that links semantics and syntax, two modular
systems ‘visible to each other through a narrow common vocabulary’. Linking a lexicon to phrase structure is achieved through telicity. Telicity is not a property of the
verb but realized by the constituents internal to the verb phrase. An example of
Tenny’s (ibid:11) is Tom ate an apple up, where the aspectual role of direct object
apple measures out the event. Measuring-out acts as a constraint included in a
vocabulary shared by semantics (aspectual terminus) and syntax (internal argument). The measure-out system lacks a parameter for the subparts of the verb
phrase’s event structure (spatial extent of affected object and distance/time of performing an action to be unified with the object’s change-of-state). A verb phrase
headed by eat has only degrees of a temporal bound, as in eat an apple halfway. The
preposition up supplies the verb phrase with an end-point for its measuring argument object (one cannot eat an apple up halfway): The spatial extent of an object
is totally affected and completely changed as an upshot to action. Tenny borrows
Bolinger’s (1971) features ‘motion-through-location’ and ‘result/terminus’1.
The phrasal verb receives a similar interpretation in Dowty (1979). It is subsumed under factitive/instrumental construction (as in hammer the metal flat)
because it denotes a causal activity and a resulting state (Dowty 1979:91–99).
Following Fraser’s (1976) analysis, that phrasal verb prepositions either hold an
activity constant and vary the resultant state or vice versa, Dowty argues against
mastering english prepositions in phrasal verbs
203
phrasal verbs that are single lexical items of compound verb-preposition and for
‘compositional accomplishment constructions of activity verb and particle that
express a state’ (1979:94). His analysis leads him to infer semantic operators cause
and do (Ross 1967). The latter operator suggests the transitivity of controllability—
that is, if an activity is controllable, then the causation of another event by that activity is also controllable. Though not a direct translation of a ‘transitive-controllable’
operator, Kratzer’s (1994) semantic analysis of external arguments touches on agency
interjected by functor verb ‘do’. As a functional verb node, ‘do’ is presumably empty
yet contains a lexical element that selects an agent and fulfills the functional application needed to fit an external argument to the aspectual properties of verb phrases.
I claim a similar function application for internal arguments is what phrasal
verb prepositions in English accomplish, and perhaps in other languages. Salish
preposition ‘particles’ mark degrees of control of agent-over-action as in kwis ‘to
fall’ (out-of-control), kwis (t)s ‘to drop’ (neutral-control), and kwis in ‘to throw
down’ (full-control) (Davis & Demirdache 1997). In ‘throw down’, the particle carries the full-control as well as a ‘path’ reading related to phrasal verb prepositions.
A path from initiator agent to affected object is encoded by these prepositions that
locate source/origin of action and determine an end-point, a dynamic situation
involving change from ‘an initial state to a terminal state’ (Binnick 1991:188).
Aspectual prepositions mark ‘path’, but they also heighten volitionality/agency such
that the more volitional/agentive an action is, the more dynamic it is (Binnick 1991).
The feature of volitionality/agency is related to control of cause. James Huang (personal communication) attributes control to the ba construction of Chinese and
interprets ba not as a preposition but as a light-verb (the Chinese progressive
marker zai is preposition ‘at’, which Huang also interprets as a light-verb). I accept
the control semantics for phrasal verb prepositions but not light-verb syntax;
instead, I favor Brinton’s (1998) analysis of these prepositions as retaining a remnant of their spatial function (i.e., an iconic path-goal)2.
3. instruction in phrasal verb syntax. The experimental treatment for this
study is Input Processing (IP) instruction (VanPatten 1996, Lee & VanPatten 1995).
This pedagogical method directs students’ attention to a grammatical construction
without making them aware it is being instructed. Such form-focused exercises have
been employed by second language acquisition (SLA) researchers in classrooms
where grammar is taught implicitly through exposure to natural input that is mostly
understood. Natural input prompts development of second language knowledge by
involving students in the use of understanding new meanings (Krashen 1985,
Krashen & Terrell 1983)3. IP instruction adheres to the assumption that input manipulated for comprehensibility will push second language development forward, so it
is more effective than explicit grammar instruction explaining rules.
IP provides a way to describe for ESL learners the varying roles that prepositions
play in phrasal verbs. The procedure of this instruction follows three steps
(VanPatten 1996, Lee & VanPatten 1995):
204
thully thibeau
1. The first step is to explain a mapping relation between a grammatical form
and its meaning.
2. The second step is to inform learners of language processes interrupting the
correct mapping relation
3. The third step is to implement structured input activities so that students
have the opportunity to focus on form in the input. These activities draw
students’ attention to second language grammar by altering the input. Input
containing the grammatical form being taught is presented to students, and
then they are asked to make decisions based on the form’s meaning (picture
matching, agree/disagree, select alternative, etc.). When input is presented in
this way and students attend to the meaning of the form in order to make a
decision, input becomes intake, a portion of input understood and subsequently processed beyond short-term memory to the developing grammatical system. The term ‘structured input’ describes how the activities work:
They require students to only process a target form, not produce it (hence
input), and students focus on a manipulated form highlighted in various
ways (hence structured).
This research includes data collected from ESL students residing in the U.S. for an
average of less than 9 months4. I used pretests and posttests to examine comprehension and production of phrasal verb prepositions. Yes-No question/answer tasks
are useful data-elicitation instruments in experiments on phrasal verb comprehension (Van Hout 1997a, 1997b). These tasks present short narratives accompanied by
a sequence of illustrations. Subjects listen to the narratives and view three illustrations before being asked in phrasal verb form about the completion of the activity.
(2)
picture 1:
narrative:
Girl holds ice cream cone in hand.
‘Here is a hungry little girl with an ice cream cone’.
picture 2:
narrative:
Girl bites into ice cream cone.
‘She is not very hungry, so she only takes one bite’.
picture 3:
picture:
Girl holds remaining ice cream cone.
‘See, here is the ice cream cone. Some of it remains’.
test question: Did the little girl eat up the ice cream? yes or no
Sentence-completion tasks have been use in previous IP research (VanPatten &
Sanz 1995, VanPatten & Cadierno 1993) and proved effective in eliciting production
data. The task requires subjects to complete a second sentence that is part of a
compound sentence linked by a coordinating conjunction. The sentence to be completed includes a verb-preposition combination in which the preposition functioned spatially, idiomatically, or aspectually (seven of each in staggered order).
mastering english prepositions in phrasal verbs
Treatment
IP
Explanation
M
5.32
4.76
SD
1.20
1.14
SEM
0.21
0.19
205
N
34
37
p=.023
Table 1. Independent-samples T-test of posttest results.
(3)
the teacher needed a solution to the problem,
so he _______________________________.
(it - over - think)
Results show that ESL students given IP instruction in phrasal verbs perform significantly better at the comprehension task than those provided explicit explanations. Production data are not significant in terms of instruction, but the tasks
yielded significant results for the frequency of prepositions’ functions.
4. empirical results. I used an independent-samples t-test to determine whether
a treatment effect could be detected in the comprehension data. A one-tailed independent-samples t-test on posttest data produced a significant p value. The results
of that analysis are in Table 1.
The mean score (M) shows that the average posttest score was 5.32 out of 7 for
the IP group and 4.76 out of 7 for the Takahashi group. The standard deviation
(SD) shows the range of variance in scores for each group, and the standard error
of the mean (SEM) shows each mean’s theoretical distribution based on all possible samples taken from that population. The population number (N) shows how
many subject were in each group. I conclude from this test that a treatment effect
for IP was probably responsible for the difference between the two groups’ means.
To confirm this finding, I investigated the performance of each instructional
group. I used a paired-observations t-test to see if the IP group and the Explanation group showed significantly higher scores on their posttests in comparison to
their pretests. A paired-observations t-test is used to detect if the difference between
posttest and pretest scores is significant. Significant differences indicate a treatment
effect, and no significant differences indicate no treatment effect. The results from
the analysis are in Table 2 (overleaf).
The mean score (M) shows that the posttest score in the IP group increased by
an average of 1.059, a significant gain. The mean score (M) shows that the posttest
scores in the Explanation group increased by an average of .459, not a significant
gain. The subjects treated to IP instruction made significant gains in the posttest in
comparison to their pretest scores while the Explanation group did not. Again, I
conclude a treatment effect.
No significant values are related to instruction in the production data. However,
interesting phenomena are revealed by analyses of the test items. I used one-way
ANOVAs to analyze the items on the pretests and posttests (tests A and B) for spa-
206
thully thibeau
Treatment
IP
Explanation
M
1.059
0.459
SD
1.5
1.7
SEM
0.281
0.257
p
N
0.0002 34
0.11
37
Table 2. Paired-observations t-test of gains from pretest to posttest, based on
instructional treatment.
tial and aspectual preposition type. Subjects scored nearly perfectly for idiomatic
prepositions, so I analyzed no instances of that type. Two significant results of these
ANOVAs merit discussion.
A one-way ANOVA comparing the seven aspectual prepositions to each other
produced a significant p value (0.000) from pretests and posttests. The p values
reveal that at least one of the seven means measured from each item is significantly
different than the rest. In Tables 3a and 3b, the means for correct responses to each
item (a score of 1 being a correct response) are presented, with the verb-preposition
combination for which the mean is a measure.
The two items in test A with the lowest mean are over and on. The two items in
test B with the lowest mean are also over and on.
A one-way ANOVA comparing the seven spatial prepositions to each other produced a significant p value (0.000) from pretests and posttests. The p values reveal
that at least one of the seven means measured from each item is significantly different than the rest. In Tables 4a and 4b, the means for correct responses to each
item (a score of 1 being a correct response) are presented with the verb-preposition
combination for which the mean is a measure.
The three items in test A with the lowest mean are off, over, and in. The three
items in test B with the lowest means are off, over, and up.
5. interpretation and conclusion. Using IP instruction in a classroom facilitates
the mapping between a difficult-to-master form (phrasal verb syntax) and its
meaning (affected object/resultative semantics). IP instruction is unique in that
other form-focused instruction does not concentrate on fostering the mapping of
meaning and form (VanPatten 1996). IP purports that the manner of intake provided to adults is much like the input that children use to acquire language by using
the human language faculty, Universal Grammar (Chomsky 1995, Chomsky and
Lasnik 1993, Tenny 1994). The issue involves the relationship of IP to linguistic
knowledge; namely, intake given in structured input activities sustains grammatical
competence as natural linguistic input does in first language acquisition (VanPatten
1996). A prevalent theory on knowledge of language claims that language exists at
two levels: an external performance level where humans use language in communicative interactions, and an internal competence level where humans know language subconsciously by virtue of the faculty for language (Chomsky 1986, 1965).
Structured input activities putatively recreate first language acquisition processes.
mastering english prepositions in phrasal verbs
Item
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
M
.887
.606
.887
.845
.958
.972
.338
SD
.318
.492
.318
.364
.203
.166
.476
V-P Combo
point out
read over
show off
carry out
fill up
put away
cheer on
Item
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
207
M
.873
.507
.929
.634
.775
.958
.803
a.
SD
.335
.504
.257
.485
.421
.203
.401
V-P Combo
call off
talk over
write up
send on
pass out
give away
dress up
b.
Table 3. One-way ANOVA for each aspectual preposition. (Table 3a gives results
for Test A and Table 3b gives results for Test B. N=71 in all cases.)
Item
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
M
.916
.676
.944
.901
.451
.944
.578
SD
.280
.471
.232
.300
.501
.232
.498
a.
V-P Combo
sit on
look in
run through
walk to
jump off
hide behind
step over
Item
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
M
.956
.704
.901
.958
1.000
.761
.366
SD
.119
.460
.300
.203
.000
.430
.485
V-P Combo
look into
fall off
walk in
escape through
sleep on
fly over
climb up
b.
Table 4. One-way ANOVA for each spatial preposition. (Table 4a gives results for
Test A and Table 4b gives results for Test B. N=71 in all cases.)
Structured input activities develop a second language grammatical system by cueing internal competence as input does in first language acquisition.
Production-task results do not allow me to conclude treatment effects for IP
instruction. Yet some task items reveal that the performance of ESL users is influenced by prepositions’ functions. The preposition on proved difficult for subjects
when it functioned aspectually but not when it functioned spatially. A corpus study
of the frequency in using aspectual versus spatial functions of prepositions
(O’Dowd 1998) shows on is used aspectually 15% of combinations with verbs.
Spatial on is used 85% of combinations, so ESL students may have difficulty using
it aspectually due to infrequent uses.
Yet the aspectually functioning over also proved difficult to subjects while it
combines with verbs as an aspectual preposition 73% of combinations. If frequency
were the key factor for success rates on the tests, then over should be unproblematic
like other aspectual prepositions. Over is a problem because it is spatially complex
(Quirk et. al. 1985). The spatial preposition over can be classified as simple location
(The picture hung over the sofa), relative direction (She threw a blanket over the sofa),
or passage (The kitten climbed over the sofa). If differing classifications of spatial
208
thully thibeau
over cause poor performance in aspectual function, then we should also expect
problems with the spatial function.
And we do find the spatial function of over is indeed problematic for ESL speakers. The relative infrequent use of over as a spatial preposition in combination with
verbs, 24% (O’Dowd 1998), may be the source of the difficulty. This is the case for
spatial preposition up. Two-thirds of subjects treated up as an aspectual preposition, and spatial up is treated aspectually perhaps because the preposition up is used
98% of combinations with verbs in its aspectual function and 2% in its spatial function (O’Dowd 1998). With the preposition off, its aspectual function is used 79% in
combinations with verbs, and spatial off proved difficult. Interpreting production
results centers on the frequency of prepositions functioning aspectually or spatially.
ESL users seem affected by how often a preposition functions either one way or
another. For aspectual and spatial functions, frequency of combinations in
O’Dowd’s (1998) corpus study correspond to production results.
Results from comprehension and production tasks indicate different sources
of acquisition. The comprehension task results indicate that IP instruction influences acquisition by modifying input into intake. Intake induces the mapping of
grammatical form to meaning, so it is construed as sustenance for UG. Production
results indicate a different sustenance for language acquisition, frequency.
Classroom research that controlled frequency as a factor in second language acquisition shows that frequency in input is not a complete account (Doughty and
Williams 1998), plus instructional treatments based on frequency have shown gains
in production only. Studies like mine highlighting grammatical constructions without controlling for frequency found significant differences in comprehending
target constructions and producing target constructions accurately (Jourdenais,
Ota, Stauffer, Boyson & Doughty 1995, Leeman, Arteagoita, Fridman & Doughty
1995, Shook 1994). Thus, the need for classroom intervention to complement naturally occurring factors like frequency becomes more crucial. For errors that plague
second language learners who crave accuracy, instruction must involve some level
of detecting the grammatical construction (Carr & Curran 1994, Tomlin & Villa
1994, Schmidt 1990).
REFERENCES
Binnick, Robert I. 1991. Time and the verb: A guide to tense and aspect. London:
Oxford University Press.
Bolinger, Dwight. 1971. The phrasal verbs in English. Cambridge, ma: Harvard
University Press.
Brinton, Laurel J. 1988. The development of English aspectual systems:
Aspectualizers and post-verbal particles. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
mastering english prepositions in phrasal verbs
209
Carlson, Gregory. 1997. Events and thematic role assignments to affected
objects. Paper presented at Events as Grammatical Objects Conference, Ithaca,
ny, June 1997.
Carr, Thomas H., & Tim Curran. 1994. Cognitive factors in learning about
structured sequences: applications to syntax. Studies in second language acquisition 16:205–30.
Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, ma: The MIT
Press.
———. 1986. Knowledge of language: Its nature, origin, and use. Westport, cn:
Praeger.
——— & Lasnik, Howard. 1993. Principles and parameters. In Syntax: An international handbook of contemporary research, ed. by Joachim Jacobs, et al.,
506–69. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Cornell, Alan 1985. Realistic goals in teaching and learning phrasal verbs.
International review of applied linguistics in language teaching 23:269–80.
Davis, Henry, & Hamida Demirdache. 1997. On lexical verb meaning: Evidence
from Salish. Paper presented at Events as Grammatical Objects Conference,
Ithaca, ny, June 1997.
Doughty, Catherine & Jessica Williams. 1998. Issues and terminology. In
Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition, ed. by Catherine
Doughty & Jessica Williams, 1–11. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
——— & ———. 1998. Pedagogical choices in focus on form. In Focus on form in
classroom second language acquisition, ed. by Catherine Doughty & Jessica
Williams, 197–261. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dowty, David R. 1979. Word meaning and Montague grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer
Academic Publishers.
Fraser, Bruce. 1976. The verb-particle combination in English. New York:
Academic Press.
Heaton, J. B. 1965. Prepositions and adverbial particles. London: Longman.
Hopper, Paul J. & Sandra A. Thompson. 1980. Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 562:251–99.
Jourdenais, Renee, Mitsuhiko Ota, Stephanie Stauffer, Beverly Boyson &
Catherine Doughty. 1995. Does textual enhancement promote noticing? A
think-aloud protocol analysis. In Attention and awareness in foreign language
learning, ed. by Richard Schmidt, 183–216. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i
Press.
Krashen, Stephen D. 1985. The input hypothesis. London: Longman.
——— & Tracy D. Terrell. 1983. The natural approach. San Francisco: Alemany
Press.
Kratzer, Angelika 1994. On external arguments. In Functional projections, ed. by
E. Benedicto & J. Runner, 103–27. Amherst, ma: GLSA.
Lee, James F., & Bill VanPatten. 1995. Making communicative language teaching
happen. New York: McGraw-Hill.
210
thully thibeau
Leeman, Jennifer, Igone Artegoitia, Boris Fridman & Catherine Doughty.
1995. Integrating attention to form with meaning: Focus on form contentbased Spanish instruction. In Attention and awareness in foreign language learning, ed. by Richard Schmidt, 217–58. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press.
Meyer, George A. 1975. The two-word verb: A dictionary of the verb-preposition
phrases in American English. The Hague: Mouton.
O’Dowd, Elizabeth M. 1998. Prepositions and particles in English. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Potter, Simeon. 1965. English phrasal verbs. Philologica Pragensia 8:285–89.
Quirk, Randolph, et al. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of contemporary English.
London: Longman.
Ross, John R. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Massachusettes Institute of Technology.
Schmidt, Richard. 1990. The role of consciousness in second language learning.
Applied linguistics 11:129–58.
Shook, David. 1994. FL/L2 reading, grammatical information and the input-tointake phenomenon. Applied language learning 52:57–93.
Takahashi, George 1969. Perception of space and the function of certain English
prepositions. Language learning 19:217–34.
Tenny, Carol L. 1994. Aspectual roles and the syntax-semantics interface.
Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Tomlin, Russell, & Victor Villa. 1994. Attention in cognitive science and second language acquisition. Studies in second language acquisition 16:183–204.
Van Hout, Anelgiek. 1997a. Event semantics of verb frame alternations in
Dutch. Paper presented at Events as Grammatical Objects Conference, Ithaca,
NY, June 1997.
———. 1997b. Learning telicity: Acquiring argument structure and the syntaxsemantics of direct objects in Dutch. Proceedings of BUCLD 21:678–88.
Van Patten, Bill. 1996. Input processing and grammar instruction. Norwood, NJ:
Ablex Publishing Corporation.
——— & Teresa Cadierno. 1993. Explicit instruction and input processing.
Studies in second language acquisition 15:225–43.
——— & Christina Sanz. 1995. From input to output: Processing instruction
and communicative tasks. In Second language acquisition theory and pedagogy,
ed. by Fred R. Eckman, 169–85. Mahwah, nj: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Williams, Jessica & Jacqueline Evans. 1998. What kind of focus and on which
forms? In Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition, ed. by
Catherine Doughty & Jessica Williams, 139–55. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.