Space Lexicalization in English Language Education Students’ Narrative Writing

This article discusses how Indonesian English Language Education Students (ELES) apply space lexicalization in narrative composition. This study also discusses how they understand the concept of space lexicalization. Fifteen master’s degree students in English Language Education are the subjects of this study. A convergent parallel mixed-method research design was utilized in this study. The data of this study are a set of tests on space lexicalization and a writing test. The test on space lexicalization is used to investigate the participants’ understanding of space lexicalization’s concept, while the writing test is utilized to investigate how they apply space lexicalization in narrative writing. The results show that the subjects understand the concept of space lexicalization and they can apply space lexicalization in narrative writing. This shows that Indonesian ELES has acquired space lexicalization in narrative writing, although some of them produce grammatical mistakes and incorrect combinations of spatial words.


INTRODUCTION
The term space is used to refer to a location, a direction, or a movement. It refers to the sense of "where" or location and motion events (Kadarisman, 2010;Levinson, 1996). All languages describe motion events, but they describe spatial dimension(s) differently from each other. Further, languages are divided into two categories, namely verb-framed languages and satellite-framed languages (Talmy, 2000). The Indonesian language is a verb-framed language in which it uses main verbs to express a location, a direction, or a movement. For example, the Indonesian language uses the words enter (masuk), exit (keluar), and ascend (naik) to express them. Meanwhile, English is a satellite-framed language because it describes a location, a direction, and a movement through prepositions, adverbial particles, and phrasal verbs or spatial words. For example, English uses a preposition in as in the phrase …in the classroom to describe a location. Further, the adverbial particle up in the sentence The kids go up to the third floor conveys a direction. Moreover, English uses phrasal verbs to describe motion events, such as go into, go down, etc.
Because of these differences, the way English speakers and Indonesian speakers express space lexicalization is different. English has phrasal verbs which have many words and different meanings. This is different from Indonesian language since it does not have any phrasal verbs to express motion events. This dichotomy makes many non-native English speakers do not feel comfortable in using phrasal verbs because they have different structures (White, 2012) and meanings (Junyu, 2007). Besides, advanced L2 learners never attain nativelike use of spatial words, particularly if the structures between their L1 are different from English (Alonso et al., 2015). Examine the following examples.
"Kok bisa jatuh dari pohon?" (Indonesian language) "What made you fall down from a tree?" (English) Notice that in the English version, there is an adverbial particle down to describe a movement of falling down from a tree. If we remove the adverbial particle down, making the sentence into "What made you fall from a tree?", the sentence might be grammatically correct, but it sounds less English. The adverbial particle down is needed since English uses prepositions, adverbial particles, or phrasal verbs to express motion events. However, if we directly translate the English version: "What made you fall down from a tree?" into Indonesian language, it would be: "Kok bisa jatuh ke bawah dari pohon?" It is obvious that this sentence sounds less Indonesian.
The difference in encoding motion events in the main verb in all languages is not a clear dichotomy but is rather quite nuanced (Song et al., 2016). In other words, it is important to acquire spatial words particularly for Indonesian ELES who are expected to be English teachers. By acquiring spatial words, they can communicate effectively and prevent a misunderstanding between the interlocutors or the readers. Thus, they can provide various materials and activities in the realm of space lexicalization. Further, vocabulary is an important level of L2 knowledge to develop (Saville-Troike, 2006). Therefore, acquiring the knowledge of English prepositions, adverbial particles, and phrasal verbs is important especially if a person intends to master English or becomes an English teacher. Further, understanding space lexicalization might improve the ELES' effectiveness in teaching grammar or vocabulary by providing more exposures to prepositions, adverbial particles, and phrasal verbs in the teaching and learning activity. By acquiring spatial words, the students can communicate effectively and prevent misunderstandings.
Even though the concept of motion events can be found in all languages, satelliteframed languages have a greater variety of motion verbs compared to verb-framed languages (Slobin, 1996). Because of these differences, several problems occur. Even though some Indonesian learners are sensitive enough to space lexicalization, they are not as sensitive as English native speakers (Kadarisman, 2011). It means that they still find problems in producing space lexicalization. For example, Spanish language is a verb-framed language, thus, several Spanish students still follow their Spanish lexicalization pattern in producing English space lexicalization (Alonso, 2011). Besides, some ESL learners produce unnatural forms and create new forms of phrasal verbs which cause misunderstanding for the interlocutors or readers (Zarifi & Mukundan, 2014). Further, to some EFL learners, English phrasal verbs are considered to be one of the most difficult English structures (Gardner & Davies, 2007;Garnier & Schmitt, 2015, 2016Liu, 2011;Schmitt & Redwood, 2011). The reasons are because English phrasal verbs are complex and some have fixed meanings while others have idiomatic meanings (Garnier & Schmitt, 2016;Martinez & Schmitt, 2012). Thus, acquiring English phrasal verbs are challenging for some EFL learners (Omidian et al., 2019).
In addition, several studies related to motion events focus on the learners' speech (Hohenstein et al., 2004;Johannes et al., 2016;Naigles & Terrazas, 1998;Özçalışkan & Slobin, 1999). Meanwhile, another studies (Alonso, 2011;Johannes et al., 2016;Kadarisman, 2010Kadarisman, , 2011Song et al., 2016) focus on the learners' written composition. Only the studies (Kadarisman, 2010(Kadarisman, , 2011 are in the Indonesian context. Therefore, this is the gap that the researchers intend to fill since the study about space lexicalization is rarely recognized in the Indonesian context. Further, the previous studies were conducted about ten years ago. Hence, the researchers intend to conduct this study in different settings and subjects. Drawn from the facts presented above, the researchers intend to investigate these problems: (1) To what extent are Indonesian ELES understand the space lexicalization's concept? (2) How do they encode English motion events in their narrative composition?
In short, the researchers intend to investigate Indonesian ELES' understanding of space lexicalization as well as how they apply space lexicalization in a narrative writing. The results will show how they understand the concept of space lexicalization and how they apply space lexicalization in a narrative writing. Further, it is prominent to investigate whether they have lexicalized space lexicalization because they are expected to be English educators. The understanding of space lexicalization might bring a good impact to their teaching of spatial words and to avoid misunderstandings in using spatial words between other speakers.

LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 Spatial Words in English Language
Dynamic, obligatory, and the use in phrasal verbs are the technical terms used to analyze the students' narrative composition (Kadarisman, 2011). Dynamic spatial words convey the sense of location, direction, and movement. The presence of this word makes the sentence sounds English. Meanwhile, the absence of this word does not make the sentence grammatically incorrect. As in the sentence: It is only two miles away from here.
If we remove the adverbial particle away, the sentence still looks grammatically correct, but it sounds less English.
The same as dynamic spatial words, it also conveys the sense of location, movement, and direction. However, obligatory spatial words are required by grammar rules since their absence make the sentence grammatically incorrect. For example, the preposition in is needed to describe a location as in the sentence:

I put the meal in the table.
If we remove the preposition in, the sentence is grammatically incorrect.
The last term is spatial words used in phrasal verbs. Phrasal verbs are the combination of a verb and a preposition or an adverbial particle. Each of them has different combination and different meaning.

Lexicalization Patterns
Lexicalization refers to how a certain lexical item is combined with a particular morpheme and how it creates a new meaning which has the equivalent interpretation to existed lexical items. The example of equivalent lexical items is as in "kill" and "make die" or as in "kill" and "poison" (Talmy, 2000).
The notion of space in English encodes the sense of location and direction by collaborating prepositions and adverbial particles (Kadarisman, 2010). Prepositions, adverbial particles, and phrasal verbs are English-specific expressions that could only be found in English language. They always present spatial dimensions, such as prepositions up and down that describe higher and lower positions. However, both prepositions up and down have more than one meaning. Taken from Oxford Advanced Learners' Dictionary (8 th Edition), the word up has many different meanings, such as to show that a person or an object is in a higher position, to suggest the place where a river starts, and to present a further along a street. The meaning would be broader when this preposition is combined with an adverbial particle, creating a phrasal verb. Using the preposition up, the words grow up, look up, and stand up created different meanings for each. As grow up means to get mature, look up means looking at a person in a careful way, while stand up means to be on your feet.
Looking at the principles of space in English above, English rules encode the notion of space through adverbial particles and prepositions. However, the meanings range from literal to idiomatic.

Cognitive Restructuring
The first stage of development is the cross-linguistic influence of learners' L1 into their L2 development (Ellis, 1997). The influence from the learners' L1 do not always mean it causes learners' errors, but their L1's knowledge facilitates their L2 acquisition. The learners re-conceptualize the knowledge of their L1 and L2 within their cognitive framework. Therefore, Ellis argued that a cross-linguistic influence is a part of a mental process which means L1 plays a role as a basic knowledge needed for acquiring the L2. Therefore, it is considered as a cognitive process.
When the learners develop their L2 acquisition, in this case: English, they also develop their cognitive restructuring. They do not replace their L1 knowledge with their L2 knowledge, but they rather construct the L2 knowledge to their cognitive system. In other words, it does not mean that the L1 knowledge is lost, but they might use the L1 knowledge when they acquire the L2. Hence, when learners successfully acquire the knowledge of L2, such as English spatial dimensions, their cognitive restructuring is successfully developed. It concludes that they could successfully perceive English in a way that they use English by means of thinking in English. The process of restructuring the cognitive system itself might be different for every learner. It depends on the learners' age of acquiring the L2 (Lai et al., 2013) or their L2 proficiency (Park, 2019).

RESEARCH METHODS
This section discusses the research subjects, the instruments, and the data analysis procedures of this study.

Research Subjects
This study was conducted in Universitas Negeri Malang (UM). The subjects were fifteen master's degree in English Language Education (ELE) academic year 2019/2020 and 2020/2021. The reason for selecting them as the subjects is to ensure that they had equal level of knowledge on English and equal number of courses at the university. Besides, they also came from the same L1 background (Indonesian). The same L1 background was useful because the focus of this study was Indonesian students.

Instruments
The first instruments used was the test on space lexicalization. The test consisted of twenty multiple-choice items and five translation tasks. Each translation task contained motion events that should be translated from Indonesian language to English. The result of the test divided the students into five categories of knowledge. There were very good (score 85-100), good (70-84), fair (55-69), poor (40-54), and very poor (0-39). The classification of the scores was adopted from (Fadilla, 2016).
The second instrument was the subjects' written composition which was in the form of a narrative paragraph. The subjects were given a series of pictures to stimulate their mind to write a narrative composition. The pictures were adopted from Bambang Suryanto (Kadarisman, 2011).

Picture 1. A Series of Pictures entitled A Tale of Two Monkeys by Bambang Suryanto
In analyzing the narratives, the researchers referred to a narrative composition written by an English native speaker as a benchmark which was adopted from the previous study (Kadarisman, 2011). Moreover, the writing was analyzed based on its use dynamically, obligatorily, and its use in phrasal verbs. The data collection was done using Google Form. The subjects were fifteen master's degree in English Language Education at Universitas Negeri Malang.
The benchmark from English native speaker: Two monkeys were sitting in the grass eating bananas when suddenly a tiger appeared. The monkeys quickly ran away and climbed a tree to try escape. The tiger came after them and started to climb the tree. Fortunately, the branches of the tree hung over a river so they were both able to dive into the water below. The tiger didn't follow them into the river. One monkey was able to swim to safety on the opposite side. The other was taken by a crocodile. (85 words)

Data Analysis
For the test on space lexicalization, the correct answers were provided with the answer keys. If the subjects' answers were different from the answer keys, the answers were grouped as inappropriate answers. Meanwhile, if the subjects had the same answers from the answer keys, the answers were classified as correct answers. To calculate the score, each correct answer had one point, while the incorrect answer had 0 point. For the analysis of the translation test, the translation was analyzed based on accuracy and appropriateness.
In analyzing the narrative composition, the researchers counted the total words written by each subject and the average of the total number of words written by all subjects. Next, the researchers counted the total number of spatial words. After that, the researchers classified the spatial words into dynamic spatial words, obligatory spatial words, and their use in phrasal verbs. Fourth, the researchers calculated the percentage of each type of spatial word. Further, the researchers calculated the average of the total words and the average of the three types of spatial words. Next, the researchers counted the percentage for each calculation. Further, the results of the calculation were compared to the result of the native speaker model. The data which was obtained from the comparison was discussed and related to the second research question. The analysis showed how the subjects encoded space lexicalization in narrative writing.

RESULTS
After collecting and analyzing the data, the result of the test on space lexicalization is shown in the table below. From the table above, it is found that there are four students (26.67%) having very good knowledge of space lexicalization, ten students (66.66%) belong to good category, and only one student (6.67%) is in the fair category. From the result of the data, there is an imbalance number of students who possess deep knowledge and shallow knowledge.

ELES' Understanding of Space Lexicalization
The results of the test on space lexicalization divide the students into three categories, namely students with very good knowledge, students with good knowledge, and students with fair knowledge on space lexicalization.

Students with very Good Knowledge
Students who are in the first category almost share the same English background experience. They mostly have learned English both in formal and informal education for more than a decade. The other similarity is that all students in this category have never been to an English-speaking country. Most of them use English outside the classroom.
In the first part of the tests, half of the students with very good knowledge of space lexicalization (50%) achieve eighteen correct answers out of 20 questions given. Meanwhile, the other two students achieve fourteen and fifteen correct answers respectively. In addition, three of them have an incorrect answer for question number 19 which deals with the difference between English and Indonesian language in conveying motion events. However, only Student 8 has a correct answer for this question.
For the translation tasks, these four students are considered to have the highest score among all the students. They translate the sentences well in terms of its accuracy (the precision of the source texts and the target texts) and appropriateness (correct grammar structure and the use of spatial words) of the translation.

Students with Good Knowledge
Students who are categorized as students who possess good knowledge of space lexicalization have a varied background of learning English as a foreign language. Student 1 has been to an English-speaking country for two years, meanwhile, the other nine students have never been there. Most of them have learned English for more than a decade. Further, half of them use English for communicative purposes outside the classroom while the other half of them rarely use it. For the first test, this category achieves almost half the correct answers for the test. Meanwhile, the other eight students achieve a various number of correct answers. Student 4 achieves 10 correct answers out of twenty questions given. Student 3 and 14 achieve eleven correct answers. Student 7 and 13 achieve twelve correct answers. Student 2 achieves thirteen correct answers. Two students that are Student 9 and 11 achieve fifteen correct answers. Student 10 achieves sixteen correct answers which is considered as the highest correct answers achieved by this category.
Surprisingly, the students who have the lowest score achieve a better score compared to the highest-score students in the translation test. In the translation test, this category achieves quite the same score compared to the previous category. The difference that makes the students considered to be in this category is the score for the multiple-choice test which is lower than the classification. In addition, the students in this category mostly have the same errors as the previous category. They mistakenly use the incorrect verb to describe an action in English. Furthermore, most of them make grammatical mistakes. Some of them miss adding articles before an object. In addition, some of them translate the sentences in Indonesian style instead of English. For instance, the use of 'enter', in question number 24, in translating the Indonesian word 'masuk' is not quite English way to express motion events. The use of the phrase 'come in' could be more appropriate to express motion events in English as a satelliteframed language.

Students with Fair Knowledge
There is only one student who belongs to this category based on the test given. This student achieves six correct answers out of twenty questions given on the multiple-choice test. Not only weak in the knowledge test, but this student also achieves the lowest score among all the other students for the translation task. There are some mistyped words, grammatical errors, and incorrect phrasal verb forms. However, this student successfully chooses the correct answer for a question that deals with the definition of a spatial concept.

ELES' Narrative Composition
The following table gives information about the analysis of the narrative compositions written by all the 15 students. From the table above, it is found that the total of spatial words that appear in the narratives is 115 words (7.6%). The biggest number of spatial words is found in Student 1's narrative which consists of fourteen spatial words or 7.4% out of 189 words written. The smallest number of spatial words is written by Student 2 which has only three spatial words out of 47 words written. Further, obligatory spatial words appear the most among all the three types of spatial words which is 114 words (99%). The result of ELES' narratives is different from the native speaker model. The comparison between the narrative from the native speaker model and the ELES is presented in the table below. In terms of the length of the text, ELES' narratives are longer than the native speaker model. In terms of the spatial words, the native speaker model has more spatial words (8.2%) compared to the ELES' narratives (6.6%). In terms of the dynamic use, the ELES' narratives achieve 61.9%, while the narrative model achieves 85.7%. For the obligatory use, the narrative model has 100% while the ELES' narratives have 99.3%. In terms of its use in phrasal verbs, it occurs 31.5% in the ELES' narratives and 28.6% in the narrative model. In other words, ELES' do less space lexicalization than the native speaker model.

Students with very Good Knowledge
Surprisingly, not all the students in this category apply the most space lexicalizations in their narrative writing. Among all the students in this category, Student 12's narrative has the most spatial words (8.1%) which is also the highest percentage of spatial words that occur among all the 15 students. To obtain a closer picture of the finding, I pick one narrative from this category to show how this student lexicalizes motion events by using spatial words.

The Narrative by Student 12
There were two monkeys sat on the ground and ate some bananas. Suddenly, a tiger came out of nowhere and made those monkeys run away from the tiger. On their run, the tiger kept chasing those monkeys and made them climbed on a tree. Unfortunately, the tiger somehow managed to climb on that tree. It made the tree got curved to the river next by. When the tiger nearly approached those monkey[s], they jumped into the river to get away from the tiger. They swam to the riverside across the tree to avoid the tiger. At [In] the end, those monkeys were successfully fled from the tiger and saved from the tiger. (111 words) In terms of organization of the text, the story is suitable for the sequence pictures. Besides, the story is complete and coherent. The total number of words written is also correct since I ask the students to write 100 to 150 words. In terms of spatial words, the student uses 1 preposition that is from (i.e: saved from the tiger). The student also uses an adverbial particle away to make a phrasal verb run away. The preposition on is also used to make a phrasal verb climb on. The writing is almost error-free. This student writes those monkey in the sixth line, while it should be written those monkeys since it is a plural form. However, I believed that it is a mistake because, in the third line, the student writes those monkeys correctly. Further, the use of the preposition at (at the end) in the eighth line is considered an error since the preposition at refers to a specific moment when the action starts or finishes. Therefore, the preposition in can replace at because in the end refers to a result or a conclusion of an action. Then, this student uses simple past tense which is suitable for the context of the story picture.

Students with Good Knowledge
One of the students in this category has the highest percentage of spatial words among all the 15 students (8.1%). The section below presents the analysis of Student 4's narrative. The space lexicalizations are bolded, while the errors are underlined.

The Narrative by Student 4
One day, there were two monkeys that ate bananas peacefully in the forest. Suddenly, a tiger appeared and chased them. The two monkeys were very afraid and they ran away from the tiger. They climbed up a tree to save themselves from the tiger. Unfortunately, the tiger could reach them out. The tiger climbed the tree up just like the monkeys did. When the tiger had reached out [to] the top of the tree, the monkeys jumped into the river below the tree. They swam across the river. Fortunately, the tiger could not swim and they were finally safe. (98 words) Even though Student 4's narrative has an error, the story is well-organized. Further, it is suitable for the story pictures given. The simple past tense is used correctly. Besides, the story is coherent and lively. In terms of space lexicalization, the adverbial particle up is used to convey motions as in the …climbed the tree up…. The preposition in was used statically and obligatorily since it shows a location and a requirement for the English grammar as in …in the forest. Then, the preposition in is used statically and obligatorily since it shows a location and a requirement for the English grammar as in …from the tiger and …jumped into the river…. This student writes a phrasal verb reach out, but do not manage to add a preposition to after the phrasal verb reach out. The preposition to should be added since it expresses a motion event.

Students with Fair Knowledge
This student produces 6.2% spatial words in the narrative writing. Even though this student belongs to the lowest category among all the students, this student can apply space lexicalization in the writing. It concludes that this student is sensitive enough to space lexicalization. The analysis of the writing is presented below.

The Narrative by Student 5
Two monkeys ate bananas while they were sitting on the ground. They ate the bananas greedily. All of a sudden, a tiger appeared. The tiger looked very hungry as it saw the monkeys. The monkeys knew that the tiger was going to eat them if they did not run, so they left all the delicious bananas and ran away from the hungry tiger. The tiger chased after them. The monkeys saw a tree and they decided to climb the tree up. The tiger also climbed the tree up, following its preys [prey]. Because they were really afraid of the tiger, they slipped out of the tree and fell down to the river. The two monkeys swam across the river. They were lucky because the tiger could not follow them. (128 words) In terms of space lexicalization, this narrative is well-written. The student uses preposition on and across to express location as in …on the ground and …swam across…. A phrasal verb ran away along with a preposition from are used to express a location and a direction. Next, a phrasal verb chased after is used to describe a motion or a location. Another phrasal verb is a phrasal verb fell down as in …fell down to the river. Moreover, the verb slipped followed by an adverbial particle out of as in …they slipped out of… making it a phrasal verb. These phrasal verbs are used dynamically to show directions and obligatorily or statically as their presences are required by English grammar rules. An adverbial particle appears in the narrative is up in …climbed the tree up which is used to show a direction. This student mistakenly writes preys in a plural form. However, the noun prey is an uncountable noun, so it should be written as prey. Then, the story is complete since it matches the story pictures. Lastly, the simple past tense is used properly in the story.

DISCUSSION
Based on the findings of the study, there are three categories of ELES' knowledge that reflect their understanding of space lexicalization. There are very good, good, and fair categories. The first and the second category are classified into ELES with deep knowledge of space lexicalization. Meanwhile, the third category belongs to ELES with a shallow knowledge of space lexicalization. However, the numbers of ELES who are in deep and shallow knowledge are imbalanced. There is only one student who belongs to shallow knowledge. Meanwhile, the rest fourteen students belong to a deep knowledge of space lexicalization. That one student is categorized as fair category (6.67%), ten students are categorized as good category (66.66%), and four students are categorized as very good category (26.67%).
The students with very good knowledge indicate that they have a strong knowledge of space lexicalization. They can answer almost all the questions correctly. However, the students in this category misunderstand some concepts, such as identifying the words used to express English motion events and the difference between English and Indonesian language in conveying motion events. However, it does not mean that they have the wrong concept on space lexicalization, they are considered as having the right concept of space lexicalization since they pick almost all the correct answers.
Students with good knowledge have a strong knowledge of space lexicalization. Most of them can identify English prepositions, adverbial particles, and phrasal verbs, but they are weak in identifying sentences that contain an adverbial particle. They also seem confused in distinguishing a preposition and an adverbial particle. They also have a problem in defining the role of spatial words. It is proven by only one out of ten students in this category chooses a correct answer. Thus, it indicates that they still have a problem in defining the spatial words' roles. However, most of the students can answer other questions correctly. It shows that their knowledge of space lexicalization is quite strong.
The student in the last category is weak in identifying the function of prepositions, adverbial particles, and phrasal verbs as well as identifying the combination of a phrasal verb. Besides, this student is weak in identifying the words to express English motion events and distinguishing how English and Indonesian language convey motion events.
In the translation task, all the students achieve good scores. Most of them use English motion events, went down, on, away, and rushed into to describe movements, locations, and directions. However, I find several students make grammatical errors. Besides, some students apply incorrect forms of phrasal verbs.
In terms of the overall understanding, I believe that the students understand the concept of space lexicalization. It is proven by their answers on the test and how they translated Indonesian language in which the sentences contain motion events to English language. However, it is undeniable that several students made grammatical errors and some of them apply L1 lexicalization patterns to express motion events. Similar to Alonso's study (Alonso, 2011) in which his subjects tended to use their L1 (Spanish) lexicalization pattern in expressing motion. It happens because the students are not familiar with English motion verbs. The unfamiliarity makes them unaware of the differences in lexicalization patterns between English and Spanish. It is in line with Slobin's statement (Slobin, 1996) which stated that satellite-framed language speakers produce more motion verbs than speakers of verb-framed language. In satellite-framed languages, there is a higher tendency to use motion events than in verb-framed languages. The mistakes made by the subjects might happen because the subjects are influenced by their native language (Indonesian language) in expressing spatial relationship (Wijaya & Ong, 2018). In addition, Indonesian preposition di is equivalent to English preposition in, on, and at (Sneddon, 2010). Because of this similarity, some Indonesian students choose inaccurate prepositions In the narrative composition, I compare the results of the students' writing to the model written by a native speaker. Compared to the ELE narrative model, the students' written compositions are less in producing space lexicalization than the model (See Table 4) since the total of their space lexicalization is 6.6%, while the narrative model is 8.2%. This result is in line with the previous study about space lexicalization in compositions conducted by (Kadarisman, 2011).
In lexicalizing space, there is no difference between students in each category. By this meant students with very good knowledge, students with good knowledge, and students with fair knowledge of space lexicalization apply the same concept of space lexicalization in their narrative compositions. It is not in line with the fact that they are categorized into three categories according to their performances in the space lexicalization test. In other words, the students probably know how to apply space lexicalization, but they have little idea about the theories. Even though the number of spatial words produced by the students is different from the narrative model, the percentage between the two is not too far away. Therefore, the students are considered sensitive enough to apply space lexicalization in a narrative writing.
Students who successfully acquire this notion are considered as having successful cognitive restructuring (Kadarisman, 2011). It is supported by a study which reported that L2 learners are capable to restructure their L1 lexicalization pattern when lexicalizing English motion events (Ji et al., 2011). In other words, the students are able to acquire English spatial words when they describe motion events. This result of the study against some previous studies which reported verb-framed language speakers tend to produce less motion events than satellite-framed language speakers do (Brown & Gullberg, 2008;Cadierno, 2010).
In addition, acquiring motion events is important as it is necessary to comprehend spatial language in order to avoid certain issues (Coventry et al., 2011) related to teaching English language structures, such as misunderstanding. As the subjects are expected to be English teachers, acquiring motion events is important especially when they teach English vocabulary or English language structure. Besides, vocabulary knowledge helps the students to improve their language used. It means vocabulary knowledge, in this case, space lexicalization, is important to learn if the students intend to improve their English language used. In other words, having a knowledge on this item is prominent for English teachers.
Besides, the richness of vocabulary items contributes to the students' capability to understand what they read or hear (Ouellette, 2006). In other words, the vocabulary knowledge helps the students to make a comprehensible communication. Therefore, the knowledge of space lexicalization would be beneficial for them when they communicate with others in English. The correct application of space lexicalization would avoid misunderstanding between the speakers or the writers and interlocutors or readers.

CONCLUSION
The results of the study show the students have acquired space lexicalization well in a narrative writing and understand the concept of space lexicalization. Surprisingly, there is no slight difference between the three categories in applying space lexicalization in narrative writing. It means that they could encode space lexicalization in narrative writing although some of them produce some grammatical mistakes, several mistyped words, as well as incorrect combinations of phrasal verbs. However, their writings are still understandable.
It is suggested that English teachers should provide more materials and activities related to the use of prepositions, adverbial particles, and phrasal verbs. The students need to know how to apply them and I believe that it took a lot of practice. One of the ways to apply space lexicalization in the classroom is by asking the students to create some expressions related to space lexicalization. The expression can be based on their surroundings. By doing so, the students can relate to the materials given. Further, more attention should be paid to the teaching and learning of different lexicalization patterns across languages, so that the students can understand how a language works in the realm of space lexicalization.
However, it should be kept in mind that this study was carried out with 15 subjects and the data collection was done online using a Google Form. A further study should be conducted with many subjects. Further, the future researcher can provide different discourse contexts to know how the subjects apply space lexicalization in a writing.