Avoidance of Phrasal Verbs in Learner English: A Study of Iranian Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigated the avoidance of English phrasal verbs by Iranian learners. It also investigated the role of phrasal verb types, types of measurement and level of English proficiency in any possible avoidance of phrasal verbs performed by Iranian learners of English. Two groups of Iranian learners (intermediate and advanced, a total of 85) took part in this study. The advanced learners were 35 MA students and Intermediate learners were 50 BA students of English at the Ferdowsi University of Mashhad. Both advanced and intermediate learners were randomly divided into three groups and three types of tests (multiple-choice, translation and recall) were taken to them which included phrasal verbs in two types (figurative and literal). Findings showed that test type and phrasal verb type had an effect on learners’ avoidance of phrasal verbs, but proficiency level did not affect learners’ performance. Therefore, it was concluded that the difference between L1 and L2 structure and semantic complexity of phrasal verbs might cause the learners’ avoidance.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".