Talk:English phrasal verbs/Archive 2

Compositionality of idioms (“Phrasal/Particle/Two-word [etc.] Verbs”)
fed up (with)


 * I may understand what you are getting at here. I think in the sense you desire, the meaning of phrasal verbs and indeed, of all idiosyncratic expressions in general is simply noncompositional. The verb/adjective fed in They are fed up with the proposal has close to no meaning at all; it certainly does NOT have the meaning that it has in a sentence such as The pig is fed. Only in combination with up (and with) does the entire expression gain solid meaning.

The meaning of all phrasal verbs, and indiosyncratic expressions made of words, including fed up (with) is compositional. Because structural linguistics (which includes catenae) becomes so focused on the structure/syntax, it can lose track of the words within the structure/syntax. There are various pieces of evidence that "fed up (with)" is compositional.


 * 1) the typical hand gestures that go with it, typically down-facing palm going up to or coming to the level of the top of the neck (or the like) - that is to say, the preposition (I prefer "preposition" to "particle", so please bear with me here) up clearly has its up meaning for native speakers.


 * 2) Semantically speaking, as with all idioms, fed up has a clear relationship to the concrete also in core use, which is: people feed animals (pigs, geese, ducks, turkeys, etc.) up for slaughter: We fed the pig up with all the kitchen scraps - and being a large family, there were lots of scraps. The witch was feeding up Hansel and Gretel with all sorts of delicious sweetmeats.


 * 3) feed and eat (and gobble and other "eating" words) have extended semantic uses which indicate an underlying meaning of give X to Y for consumption or Y takes X for consumption. Examples are:


 * feed : feed-line (for fuel etc.), feed information to the press (They fed enough information to the press to keep the story alive), feed a fire with sticks to keep it burning, the children were feeding on every word with excitement dancing in their eyes.


 * eat : The press ate up every piece of information, they were eating into their finances


 * gobble : The story was so well set up that the press gobbled it up.


 * 4) The preposition up [referring back to 1)] has its use of showing completion, as in the contrast between eat your dinner and eat your dinner up. The use of up as an adjunct (another loose term use here for convenience) with feed shows that the feeding is wholly completed, that the Y in give X to Y for consumption has reached that point of X no longer being necessary, needed, or wanted; that is to say, that Y has had enough and either can’t take anymore, or doesn’t want/need anymore. In other words, that Y has had enough.

This is the semantics of the idiomatic use of fed up (with), that Y has had enough. Essentially, a sentence like I am fed up with all this commotion is very close to I have had enough of all this commotion and I can’t take any more of this commotion. Fed (i.e. feed) has its normal meaning of give/take X for consumtion. In other words, fed up has an idiomatic use that is a clear extension of its core meaning.

Therefore, the catena cannot allow one to say that idiosyncratic meanings do in fact correspond to concrete units of syntax, as the idiosyncratic meaning (idiom) applies to the word, not the syntax. Catena simply show us in a different (and effective) way what linguistics, grammarians etc. have always known, however hazily or inelegantly, that words work together in phrases (NPs. VPs, etc.) in given linkings (hence catena/chain) to transfer a message from the giver to the receiver, both horizontally in strings as well as vertically/internally (depending on the theoreticaL background) within the phrase [whatever this might be], and that these undergo various transformations such as ellipsis, fronting, and so on.

Idiom, however, stems from the semantics of the words and their associations, not from the syntax.

Essentially (using a more old-fashioned break-up for lack of adequate software), the syntax of “phrasal verbs” is the same regardless of whether we are talking about concrete examples or idiomatic (idiosyncratic) examples:

Concrete use:
 * The pigs were fed up with corn


 * The pigs = subject NP


 * were = stative/identity (etc.) verb


 * fed = resultative adjective (the form of the verb that shows that we are now walking about the result of an action/activity) – here given X for consumption


 * up = an adjunct (in the form of a single-word prepositional phrase) that in this case shows that the activity came up to a certain point, i.e. completion.


 * with corn = a prepositional phrase that shows the instrument.

Abstract use:


 * I am fed up with all this.


 * I = subject NP


 * am = stative/identity (etc.) verb


 * fed = resultative adjective (the form of the verb that shows that we are now talking about the result of an action/activity) – here given X for consumption understood in an idiomatic way (i.e. semantic extension of the core meaning)


 * up = an adjunct (in the form of a single-word prepositional phrase) that in this case shows that the activity came up to a certain point, i.e. completion.


 * with this = a prepositional phrase that shows the instrument.

It is of central significance that the above two examples can be also used in the “opposite” sense; that is to say, The pigs were fed up with corn can be understood in the idiomatic sense as well, i.e. they had had enough of the corn and couldn’t take anymore, or didn’t want any more, just as I am fed up with this in the right context can be understood in its concrete meaning, i.e. referring to the food/fare that I am given for consumption so as to build up weight or the like.

The fact that such can be understood both idiomatically and concretely according to context is a fifth piece of evidence that the idiosyncratic use depends on the words and their contextual use, not the structure. Therefore, the concept of catenae is not applicable to explaining the special link between the verb and preposition/particle/adverb (etc.) if this analytical tool is only being applied to those cases where there is idiosyncratic use.

The word combinations that never form idiosyncratic expressions that mentioned do not present evidence of the catena-based analysis - because those combinations never form catenae [at least in the way put above]. What cannot be linked together in language cannot form meaning and therefore idiom cannot be derived from the meaning. Catenae are the elegant description of what can form linkages of communicative value in language, be this concrete or abstract.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Roidhrigh (talk • contribs) 11:43, 9 September 2012

PPs and “Phrasal Verbs”
The assumption that the “particle” in so-called “phrasal/prepositional/two-part (etc.) verbs” is an objectless-PP in its own right, and that adverbial nominals such as back and home are prepositional-less prepositional phrases, i.e. are adjuncts that show a positional relationship, allows an analysis where the status of the PP is an adjunct in the clause allows us to “jettison” terms such as “phrasal verb”, and therefore to avoid unnecessary complication, particularly for learners of English. It does raise the issue of what is a good term for PPs, of course, however for the moment PP is a useful short hand.


 * 1) the PP, like adverbs (slowly, quickly, etc.) and other  adjuncts (such as in a deliberate manner, etc.) to the S-V and S-V-O string, have positioning dependent on the importance to the core S-V unit. This necessitates a relook at what exactly an adverb or the like really is. In he walked slowly, slowly is thereby not an adverb that modifies the verb (the walking was slow), it is an adverb that shows that HIS walking was slow. Similarly in he looked up, up shows the direction he looked; it is not a particle or adverb to the verb, but a PP that adds specific positional information to he looked. In other words, the adverb/PP refers to the clause level, not the verb level, i.e. to the S-V.


 * 2) As with adjectives with regard to their noun, the order of adjuncts with regard to the S-V nexus is significant; in a broad sense those that are more important to the core S-V are closer, and those less important are further away.

The man walked quickly to the door at the front of the house.

Here, quickly is core to the man’s walking – how he did the activity, followed by the goal of the activity (the door), followed by the positioning of the goal (at the front of the house).

Where “phrasal verbs” are concerned, as the PP is more important to the S-V nexus, it is normally close to this:

''The man looked up at the fly on the ceiling”

Up shows the direction of the man’s looking (the S-V nexus), at the fly is the goal of the looking, followed by the positioning of the goal.

This is as valid for idioms as for non-idioms:

“I am fed up to the gills with all this”

Up shows the direction of the feeding (up to the point of not being able to take any more), to the gills is the goal of the feeding, followed by (in this case) the means used to get to that goal.

Again, the idiom is in the words, not the structure.

Where “phrasal verbs” are special – and only here – is the fact that the PP can come between the verb and its direct object, which is normally a pretty tight bond in English, and remains so in certain structures.

He looked the word up / He looked up the word

He looked it up / but not He looked up it

He took the book back to the shelf / He took back the book to the shelf

He took it back to the shelf / but not *He took back it to the shelf

Recognising that the link between the S and V is significant to the syntax of adjuncts allows the assumption of the link of the PP to the S-V nexus; that is to say, that it is a part of English syntax that the PP of “phrasal verbs” normally follows the S-V nexus in intransitive clauses, and can optionally do so in transitive clauses given certain criteria, which include the degree of “tightness” of the object to the verb in the V-O group, and further depends on context-dependent linking between the clause and preceding/following clauses or to the real-life context itself. The PP supplies core positional information to the subject’s action/activity/state, but remains a separate adjunct in its own right.


 * Hi Roidhrigh


 * I have not yet made it to the library to check out the source you cited further above. I still intend to do this.


 * As I stated above, I basically agree with your point that the term "phrasal verb" is not really a good match for the phenomenon that it is supposed to denote, but as I also stated above, I think trying to undo this fact by using another term is a fruitless endeavor. The term "phrasal verb" is so widespread that there is no hope of replacing it with something better. In this regard, I think we have to acknowledge that the terminology of linguistics arises over time, and it is therefore subject to inconsistencies and inaccuracies. That can't be changed, I believe. I think, rather, that we should accept the terminology as it is for the most part and try to make the best of it.

No - you misunderstand what I am saying - I am saying that no term is necessary, be this phrasal verb, prepositional verb, two-word verb, or whatever.


 * The word order facts associated with particle verbs are relatively easy to explain, I think, much easier than your discussion above suggests. Light constituents strive leftward, and heavy constituents rightward. The particle is comparatively light, so there is no surprise that it often precedes the heavier NP object. The trees in the article illustrate this analysis based on weight.

What I say is based on the semantics of the string and the significance of the order of the constituents. An emphasis on structural aspects ("light" and "heavy" constituents) does not adequately capture this, in that the tree shows this, but does not "explain" it as such. The sequencing of the constituents of the clause are significant, and "lightness" and "heaviness" is a result of this, not a cause. A better set of terms is needed to capture the importance of the constituents to the S-V core of the clause. Which of course also includes the description of how "mobile" a phrase can be where fronting and so on concern.


 * You continually produce examples of verb+adverb combinations that may or may not be viewed as phrasal verbs. To repeat my point from above, I think combinations such as look up and walk over need not be judged to be phrasal verb constructions. I think such examples can indeed be analyzed as simple verb-adverb combinations, whereby the meaning of the two together remains compositional. We probably do NOT disagree concerning such examples.

We do not disagree at all on such examples. However, my points are: (a) it is illogical to claim significance in a a syntactic sequencing/construction (such as a catena) which is exactly the same regardless of if the items are to be understood in a concrete way as opposed to an idiomatic way. The sequencing and semantic backgrounding of "The building blew up because of the explosion" and the "the papers blew up because of the wind" are exactly the same. (b) the link to the core meaning of items is open to native speakers, be this conscious or subconscious, and therefore the claim that the concept of "phrasal verb" only come into play when these are idioms (idiosyncratic) is both intuitively and demonstrably a lack of paying adequate descriptive attention to the role of metaphor, native speaker feeling, the additional items that can be used in conjunction with the "phrasal verb" - even the body language used to give the physical reinforcement of the phrasal verb - show that native speakers source the idiomatic meaning directly from the core meaning.


 * Examples like fed up with are, however, clearly non-compositional, and this is where we disagree. An observation that underlines the non-compositionalality of fed up wih concerns the extent to which the construction can be used productively. Fed is the past participle of feed. Based on your argument that all meaning is compositional, we would expect that fed up with should be freely combineable. It is, however, actually frozen; it cannot appear in another verb construction, e.g. *We fed them up with bullshit, *They are feeding me up with their drivel, etc. These sentences fail because fed up with is a frozen form; the idiomatic meaning is only available if fed is a participle/adjective. --Tjo3ya (talk) 18:53, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

What you are saying does not prove that "fed up with" and the like are non-compositional. All you are showing is that words and their interrelationships have restrictions. Neither does compositional entail "freely combineable"; compositional means combineable within the bounds of the semantics of the words and their logical relationships. An idiom being restricted to a subset of the basic string (here "fed" as an adjective derived from "feed" in "feed + up + with") is also perfectly normal, and still remains compositional. This is part of the world of meaning, be it concrete, abstract or idiomatic - and is part of the words, not of the structure. Idioms are also "special" in their restriction - their value of idioms would fail if they weren't by their semantic nature restricted.

"Fed up with" in itself is not a frozen form, it is restricted in focusing on the topic (subject) which is the underlying object of the metaphorical feeding tit the point of "no more", and on what is used to "metaphorically" feed the subject. A frozen form is like "in lieu of"(even though lieu can replaced : in stead of, in place of). That "fed up with" derives directly through metaphore from the core meanings of the individual words is not only suggested by the hand signs etc noted above, but also by the additional reinforcing phrases often found with it, such as:

I am fed up to the back teeth/to the teeth/to the gills/here (showing top of neck)/to overflowing with that.

These show that is native speaker feeling the meaning of metaphorical consumption of food (by this solid or liquid - such as milk) is very clear.

Using structural means to describe idiomatic meaning seems to be a little like using a blunt hammer approach. Catenae do show that "idiomatic phrasal verbs" operate in the same structural/syntactic ways as "literal phrasal verbs", but no more. Tree/Catenae/ etc. methodology deals with a subset of the language, namely structure; but should not be presented as a descriptive tool for whole language; whole language can only be described by using a variety of methods - and methods that are appropriate to each sub-part of language that is being described.


 * Hi Roidhrigh,


 * I concede your point about the extent to which fed up with is frozen or not. That is a weak argument at best for the noncompositionality argument.


 * The main point of disagreement between us remains, however: your claim is that all meaning is compositional. That claim seems far out to me. If it were true, we would not acknowledge phrasal verbs, idioms, or indeed, any sort idiosyncratic meaning at all. All meaning would be completely productive, i.e. freely combineable (within semantic restrictions), which it clearly is not. So if I may, please provide an answer to the following questions: How has it come to pass that phrasal verbs have come to be acknowledged in the first place? Why does this particular subcategory of verbs acknowledged by most anyone who has ever studied English grammar (and Germanic in general) exist? Why is it that object-less "prepositions" can appear with some verbs but not with others? Why does there seem to be a particularly close bond between certain verbs and these object-less "prepositions"?

1) first off, not all meaning is compositional. One such case are "monomorphemic" items, the meaning is part of the monomorphemic item, even when the monomorphemic item itself covers more than one semantic field, like a TAM suffix.

2) when words are used in sequence to convey meaning, then of course meaning is compositional.

3) it is not true that the term "phrasal verb" (and probably "separable verb") has existed for ever - as stated in the article, the term came into use in 1925. If you look at how the term is used, how EFL text books and so on introduce phrasal verbs, and so on, then one important reasoning for the use of such a term is "translation linguistics" (as in the article : many single-word English and Latinate words are translatable by a phrasal verb complex in English, therefore the logic is that the phrasal verb complex must be a complete semantic unit in itself). This is even more evident in the typical translation of "single verbs" from Latin or French. The concept of "separable verb" is an even stranger one (and I am no expert here admittedly). In the real-life use of German and Dutch, the preposition is not normally attached to the verb, except in those cases where by the syntax of both languages, the verb itself shifts after those words in its scope. In other words, the preposition doesn't attach itself to the verb, it is the other way around; and, also, strictly speaking, the preposition is in intonation not "attached" to the verb, but rather a separate PP from the verb.

4) "translation linguistics" has had an insidious impact on the description of European (and other) languages. The well-known ones are split-infinitive, prepositions not at the end of clauses, the misapplication of the term future to "will", and so on. The concept of "phrasal verbs" as being "single items" is another. Latin does have its class of verbs that are modified by prepositions - but literally as prepositions; these must go before the verb as prefixes (mirari > admirari, inmirari, etc.). For developers of dictionaries and the like who have no background in language analysis, but often a very strong backgrounding particularly in Latin, it is therefore logical to consider something like "ausgehen" as being a verb with a preposition as a prefix, recorded as such in the dictionary, which then leads to the "logical" conclusion that the prefix is then separable.

5) Why should this particular subcategory be acknowledged by most anyone who has ever studied English grammar (and Germanic in general)? One is because there is the special relationship between the preposition/particle and the S-V nexus which is similar to that of the S-V-adverb nexus (like "he walked slowly") but differs in being directional/positional. This is significant, of course - but as you say, it does not create a "single word"; it needs acknowledgement, but not "overkill", which is what happens in so many texts for EFL (and dictionaries) - like 3 or 4 pages of the meanings of "phrasal verbs" based on "get" - and smaller but similar treatment of "look", "set", and so on.

6) Why is it that object-less "prepositions" can appear with some verbs but not with others? This is part on the semantic properties of words - semanticists often say things like such characteristics [what it can combine with] need to be put marked as part of the verb meaning. It is logical for different words to have different semantic properties, even those that seem to be in the same general category, such as "suggest" and "tell" - one can't say "suggest me a solution" even though many a learner of English says this. "Suggest" is a "saying" word (the production of words), while "tell" is a "giving" word (the giving of information).

7) Why does there seem to be a particularly close bond between certain verbs and these object-less "prepositions"? The bond is not between the verb and the object-less preposition - it is between the subject-verb nexus and the objectless preposition. In "she climbed up" (not a "phrasal verb", of course), "up" refers both to the object being climbed (tree or whatever) and who is doing the action (she climbing). In "the plane took off" "off" has the same syntactic function of showing not only that the plane is departing from the starting point (as is the same in run off, walk off, drive off, swim off, fly off, set off, etc.), which can be overtly specified with a PP marked by "from", but also that it is the plane taking itself away. The PP is in this tight bond because it refers to the subject's action.


 * Concerning the catena, your point is partially correct. Above all, the catena helps one address the syntax of phrasal verbs; it does not necessarily help one understand the semantics of phrasal verbs. Consider, however, that it constitutes a significant step forward in our understanding of how meaning is matched to form. On a constituet-based theory of syntactic structure, it is very difficult to see how the verb and the particle together can be judged a unit of syntax to which meaning can be assigned, for the two often cannot be construed as forming a constituent (at least not in surface syntax). On a catena-based approach, in contrast, one sees immediately that the idiosyncratic meaning is being assigned to catenae. These catenae are stored as single structural units. We have a one-to-one correspondence that points from meaning to form (but not vice versa!). This one-to-one correspondece is really not available if the constituent is the only syntactic unit that the theory has at its disposal.

By your argument, one can say that all meaning made of words operating in syntactic relationships, not only idiomatic meaning, is assigned to catenae.


 * Let's put all this aside for a moment. How might the article be revised to help accommodate your stance? To the extent to which I can agree with your points, I think the section "Origin of phrasal verbs" says what needs to be said in the area. Perhaps this section can be expanded. --Tjo3ya (talk) 22:12, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Definitely.


 * One other point, the S-V nexus and V-O combination that you emphasize above are catenae. More often than not, however, they do not qualify as constituents. Hence the central semantic/syntactic units that you seem to want situate at the center of your account of the word order of phrasal verbs qualify as catenae but not as constituents. --Tjo3ya (talk) 22:27, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I thought this was a given in what I said.


 * Hi Roidhrigh,


 * I've just read through these materials again and would like to add two or three more thoughts. The first concerns your use of the term "idiomatic". You employ this term quite a bit, and when you do, you do not enclose the term in scare quotes. I interpret this to mean that you understand "idiomatic" to denote something real. I would expect, however, that someone who argues that all meaning is in fact compositional would avoid this term, or would always put it in scare quotes. This person might acknowledge metaphorical meaning, but he/she would not acknowledge idiomatic meaning, since "idiomatic" and "noncompositional" are largely synonymous.

Hi again - you have misunderstood - idiom does exist and must be acknowledged, and idiom is an important sub-category of metaphor. Idiomatic meaning, metaphorical meaning in general - is a real part of human communication. However, I maintain metaphor/idiom are compositional; that the claim that (full) idioms are unpredictable from their parts (= noncompositonal) is in itself a misapplication of the concept of "The figurative meaning is comprehended in regard to a common use of the expression that is separate from the literal meaning or definition of the words of which it is made". I maintain that the idiomatic use is not separate form the literal use.


 * My second comment concerns your choice to call particles "object-less PPs". You express a desire to make it easier for learners of English to learn phrasal verbs, and you want to remove the term "phrasal verb" entirely. Replacing the term particle with "object-less PP" would not, I think, make things easier for anyone. The term particle is more appropriate because it directly captures the fact that there is no object. One important trait of particles is that they are not the heads of phrases. In this regard, I think your approach confuses matters more than simplifies them.

You would be surprised about how "enlightening" it is for students and how much easier they find "my" concept than the concept of either "phrasal verb" and "particle". I and other teachers have been following "my" methodology in real-life classes with students from around the world for some years now, and so have been able to "prove the point", as have the teachers I have done professional development sessions with. The terms "phrasal verb" and "particle" as terms makes life (supposedly - but not in reality) easier for us - as teachers. It complicates things for students. Moreover, the term "particle" does not capture the fact that there is no object. It simply says that "I don't know what to call it, and "particle" is as good a term as any for something that is small and seemingly relatively insignificant". It dates from the days when prepositions/particles were more often than not assumed not have no meaning. Students understand very easily that verbs can have no object, or understood objects, that nouns can appear on their own, and that prepositions can also appear on their own (with understood objects). I talk not only from my experience but also the experience of others.


 * My third comment concerns one specific example. Your claim that take off is covertly reflexive is quite implausible for me. In fact take off is a solid example of noncompositional meaning. Perhaps one can make a case that etymologically, take off arose from a reflexive predicate, but from a synchronic point of view, there is nothing reflexive about it. I think anyone you ask would reject the notion that take off has a covert meaning akin to take oneself off. That strikes me as a desperate attempt to interpret meaning as compositional that really cannot be construed as compositional in any way.

I have to say that this is a case of "been there done that" with not only "take off" but others as well, not only with students, teachers, but also in discussion with teachers, linguistics, and so on - and learnt of this from doing university course work and so on in descriptive, historical, and so on linguistics with various lecturers/professors of that ilk, a well as reading various articles and so on of all complexions. In other words, what you are suggesting is not the case. Of course "take" is "take off" is a "reflexive" - only in the sense that the doer is doing the action to itself - the bird took off, the dog took off, etc., it is clear that the doer is "taking itself off". The structure is intransitive, as English does not have a morphemic class of intransitive-reflexive verbs - however does have verbs that can be inherently reflexive, such as "take", "hold".


 * One final statement. I can support an inclusion of some of the analysis you prefer if your points appear somewhere in good sources. If they do not, I will strive against allowing such an unconventional analysis to appear. I hope to make it to the library tomorrow. --Tjo3ya (talk) 01:55, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Huddleston and Pullum
Hi Roidhrigh,

I've now checked Huddleston and Pullum (2002:274). They dislike the term phrasal verb for the same reason that I dislike it: the word combinations that form phrasal verb constructions are not phrases.

But concerning the idiomatic character of phrasal verbs, Huddleston and Pullum state right there in the same section on page (p. 274) that these constructions have idiomatic interpretations. Their sentiment is widely accepted (I mean really widely!), as the other sources I'm looking at confirm. I feel supported in my stance.

For the analysis you prefer to have credence, one would have to assume that "idiomatic" and "metaphorical" are synonymous. But I doubt you are going to be able to find any good source that says such a thing. My understanding of these concepts is that idiom is lexicalized metaphor. That is a quite different from saying that idiom IS metaphor.

I may not respond to further messages unless a good concrete source or two is produced that state basically that idiom and metaphor are one and the same thing, or unless a third party steps in to shed some knew light on this matter. I will, however, defend the current content off the article in this area. --Tjo3ya (talk) 22:12, 17 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I like the changes to the article - the qualifications are much more inclusive of other opinions, as are the various issues dealing with "phrasal [etc] verbs". It is the type of thorny issue (like verb tense and so on, as you know) where people get hot under the collar, rightly or wrongly.


 * I have to say that you, I and Huddleston and others have always been in complete agreement about the dubious value of the terms "phrasal verb", "prepositional verb", "particle verb", etc. Huddleston and Pullum (I was one of their students, so I know there are many others who follow their reasoning) and I take the next logical step. Ideally, we should stop using such terms. But - as you rightly point out - the term is so useful in its way (everyone knows more or less what one means by it), that until something more accurate comes up, it is a very useful shorthand.


 * I also know you have not understood certain parts of what I say (leaving aside the thorny issue of what "particles" might really be) - I have been too rambling, which is a serious fault of mine. I maintain that idiom is a sub-category of metaphor, NOT that idiom and metaphor are synonymous.


 * Where my understanding differs from yours is that where idiom deals with individual words, then this is of course a subcategory of lexical metaphor, and that lexical idiom can also depend on more than word in the sequence, i.e. is compositional, if I dare use the word that way. As an idiom, take off [from X] is an example where only one word carries the idiom (take), while a "multi-lexical" is fed up with X, in depending on more than one of the words (fed < feed and up).


 * Perhaps what I am really trying to get out is that the article does not actually pay attention to semantic or other criteria (such as that of cognitive linguistics, etc.).


 * Roidhrigh 23 Set 2012

Should not we rename strange "particle verbs" to more grammatically correct "adverb verbs"?
"There are 41 particles (prepositions or adverbs) that combine with verbs to form phrasal verbs. "

But: "Phrasal verbs that include a preposition are known as prepositional verbs and phrasal verbs that include a particle are also known as particle verbs."

And: "In grammar, a particle is a function word that does not belong to any of the inflected grammatical word classes (such as nouns, pronouns, verbs, or articles). It is a catch-all term for a heterogeneous set of words and terms that lack a precise lexical definition. It is mostly used for words that help to encode grammatical categories (such as negation, mood or case), or fillers or discourse markers that facilitate discourse such as well, ah, anyway, etc. Particles are uninflected.[1] As examples, the English infinitive marker to and negator not are usually considered particles."

Should not we rename strange "particle verbs" to more grammatically correct "adverb verbs"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Constantinehuk (talk • contribs) 23:35, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Three sources are listed in note 4 that employ the term particle verb. I think it is the dominate term. I have never encountered the term adverb verb. If there are good sources that employ the term adverb verb, however, and those sources can be cited, then the article should be revised to accommodate that terminology as well. But if this literature cannot be produced, then the term particle verb should remain and there is no reason to revise the article in this area. --Tjo3ya (talk) 23:49, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree; and probably the "particle" article should be amended to point out that being a particle is not necessarily inconsistent with being an adverb (or at least, being called a particle by one describer is not necessarily inconsistent with being called an adverb by another). Victor Yus (talk) 07:17, 25 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The "particles" in particle verbs include words that, in other contexts, are neither adverbs or prepositions: put paid to, come clean (about), get rid of, etc. Particle may be a "catch-all, heterogeneous" set, but that is exactly what is needed here. CapnPrep (talk) 12:16, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Page move
The page was moved, and then moved back, but it looks like this page hasn't been moved properly. The page history is at English phrasal verb, the article which redirects to Phrasal verb with the page content. Moving_a_page seems to properly explain how to reverse a page move. Count Truthstein (talk) 13:28, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Also I would suggest that editors do not do any more work on this page until this is sorted out, otherwise it will get even more complicated. Count Truthstein (talk) 13:29, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I think it will need an admin to sort this out now. The same situation exists at Idiom/English idiom. Victor Yus (talk) 14:45, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I do not understand why someone would rename/move this article. The term "phrasal verb" is largely unique to English. In other languages, similar lexical items are called something different. For German, they are called "separable prefix verbs". Hence there is no good reason to move the article under a heading specific to English. Besides, this is English Wikipedia! --Tjo3ya (talk) 15:41, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think we all agree with that - it's just that you probably should have moved the article back using the "Move" function rather than copying and pasting text, since now the editing history has got detached from the article it applies to. Victor Yus (talk) 10:14, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

New organization
Roidhrigh, The new organization doesn't work. It doesn't work because the notes on terminology only make sense if one has first seen the examples. One will not understand the difference between particle verb and prepositional verb without knowing what these terms refer to. I will revert the article back after you have first had a chance to respond. --Tjo3ya (talk) 19:52, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Recent additions
Alborzagros, your recent editions do not improve the article. The additional verbiage is mostly redundant. The additional links smell of advertisements. The grammar and style of the additions is also problematic. I am going to undo your edits, but I will wait a bit first to give you a chance to respond. --Tjo3ya (talk) 14:12, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

The last words that I added is about being dialectal utterances of phrasal verbs. That also explain on intransitive and transitive of this kind of verbs. please encourage me to develop English Wikipedia and avoid putting me off. HAVE A NICE TIME. Alborzagros (talk) 06:53, 6 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't think encouraging you to improve your contribution is going to improve the article. The information you have added was mostly already present, which means the introduction has become redundant. The links you have added already appeared in the section "External links". Furthermore, some of the terminology you employ is unknown to me in the context of phrasal verbs, e.g. "dialectal utterances" and "making new captions". I am now going to undo your edits. If you intend to dispute the issue, we will have to get third party opinions to settle the matter. --Tjo3ya (talk) 18:04, 7 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Alborzagros, Before you go editing your additions back, please answer some questions for me. Why do you want to have the links in the notes? Shouldn't they appear in the section for links to outside sources? What does "making a new caption" mean? What is the new information that you have added? In other words, what is there in what you want to add that is not not already there? --Tjo3ya (talk) 07:11, 8 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree with Tjo3ya; the added text was not very coherent, is hard to understand, and doesn't appear to add any information that isn't already there. The article can certainly be improved, but not in this way. Victor Yus (talk) 07:27, 8 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I called off my idea of adding new text up. I would try to buck this article up later.Alborzagros (talk) 09:02, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Order of presentation
Roidhrigh, I think the examples should appear before the discussion of the terminology. To know what the terminology is referring to, one needs to see the illustrative examples first. You obviously disagree. Please back up your point of view here. And what do others think? Which section should appear before the other? Examples before terminology, or terminology before examples? --Tjo3ya (talk) 18:39, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * There should certainly be some examples first, perhaps in the introduction. I don't necessarily mind the terminology section (which is quite short) coming before the main "examples" section (which could perhaps be retitled), but readers ought to be shown some concrete examples of what we call phrasal verbs, both before and probably within the section on terminology. Victor Yus (talk) 07:22, 9 May 2013 (UTC)


 * There may be way to forge some sort of compromise here with Roidhrigh, but he/she is not responding. He/she has changed the article twice now and has ignored both of my attempts to generate a dialogue about the disagreement. I am now going to change the article back. (At least some) examples should proceed the section on terminology, so that one can understand the discussion of the terminology. --Tjo3ya (talk) 13:27, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Phrasal verbs and register in English
Hi guys this is my first time posting on a talk page so I apologize in advance if it breaks a rule. I read this: "They are commonly found in everyday, informal speech as opposed to more formal English and Latinate verbs, such as to get together rather than to congregate, to put off rather than to postpone (or to deter), or to do up rather than to fasten." on the article here, but there isn't a citation. I don't want to contest it, I'm just looking for a paper or book chapter so I can read about this for my own knowledge. Mordeaux (talk) 20:08, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The portion of the article you cite was already present before I revised the article last year. While I do not know where the insight came from, I agree with it and therefore did not remove/contest it during the revision. Sorry, since I know that doesn't help. --Tjo3ya (talk) 21:06, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks all the same! I agree with it as well, and I have found something that says that schoolkids were once taught not to use phrasal verbs, so it follows that the formal register uses them less. I wonder if I can find any hard data though.. Mordeaux (talk) 21:26, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Love story
I found these examples in the article, and added the line in brackets:
 * He walked across the square.
 * She opened the shutters and looked outside.
 * [The shutter shattered against the wall.]
 * When he heard the crash, he looked up.

This could be the beginning of a love story. I have no skill at that sort of thing, so feel free to use it. --71.178.95.236 (talk) 00:52, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Archiving
This talk page is getting a bit cluttered and difficult to follow. Any objections to setting up automatic archiving of threads that have been dormant for 90 days? --Boson (talk) 10:37, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Prepositional Phrases
Also, the above points are also part of the evidence that the term “phrasal verb” (or the others) is unnecessary (or, if you like, an unnecessary descriptive complication), and therefore does not need to be replaced, but rather “deposed”; that essentially, what we have are verbs that operate in conjunction with prepositional adjuncts (prepositional phrases/PPs) that act as any other adjunct in adding information to the clause as a whole or a certain part of the clause – but not to the verb itself.

To understand prepositions, we have to understand their function in organising and describing our world, which is an important part of their meaning – if not the most important part of their meaning. As Brala 2002:2 says, dictionaries or EFL materials don’t help :


 * ’... the portrayal of prepositional semantics in bilingual (but also monolingual) dictionaries (and, more generally, EFL materials) is mostly inadequate, inaccurate, misleading and with mismatched examples ... This fact additionally contributes to the general chaos linked to prepositional usage, and frequently discourages learners from attempting to master the prepositional system of a foreign language (after a while, they tire of looking up unhelpful or even confusing entries).”’
 * Prepositions in UK Monolingual  learner’s dictionaries:  Expanding  on  Lindstromberg’s  Problems  and  Solutions.  Applied  Linguistics 23/1. 134–140.

This includes their use in “phrasal verbs”.

Core to the understanding of the status of what are commonly called prepositions and particles is that of the prepositional phrase and the status of the preposition as the head word of its phrase. As such it has similarities to verbs (having a prepositional subject (the figure/trajectory) and a prepositional object (the ground/location/landmark)). The preposition is as important a type of word as a nominal and a verb, and anything else that can be a head word.

As can also happen with VPs and NPs, a PP can also be a single word phrase:


 * He walked across the square :


 * he is the prepositional subject (a single word NP), the square is the prepositional object, across is the head word; walked is the verb (and is a single word VP)


 * He walked across :


 * This differs in that the prepositional phrase is a single-word PP, with an understood object that is clear from the context.

Based on this analysis, all "particles" are single word PPs consisting of a preposition with an understood object, whether they are used in a concrete or abstract sense.


 * The plane took off.

Here off has its use of away from the reference point, as in he set off on a journey, Jenny walked off angrily, a splinter group split off from the main party, run off, walk off, sprint off, etc. The reference point is the underlying prepositional object, the departure point (which itself can be a PP with the head word from).

In took off, it is the verb take that is used idiomatically, not the two words together as a “phrasal verb”. Take is irregular in being a reflexive verb. Essentially, the plane took off is the plane took itself off the ground.

Referring back to the need to step back from English so as to reanalyse the language “anew” and the issue to do with the Latin-based background of grammatical analysis. Prepositions in Latin have a somewhat different function than in English, as they either modify the semantics of the core case form, or the core verb in prefix form. Therefore, the application of the term "preposition" to the English words that are closest to these can create confusion as to what exactly is a preposition in English and what a preposition does (its role/function). In Latin, prepositions are “modifiers”, whereas in English, they are “specifiers”. Prepositions in English define concrete and abstract positional/etc. relationships, while in Latin they modify the concrete and abstract positional/etc. relationships established by the cases. It is this status of specifying/defining such relationships that give prepositions a much more important status in English – to the point of head word status, which also is why they can appear without their objects as single-word prepositional phrases.

Logically speaking, included in the scope of PP are those prepositions/adverbs such as inside, outside, upstream, and so on, which are by convention written together with no necessary reason for being so written - or for not being so written. There are also those certain constructions in English where the preposition does follow its object, and there should be termed "postpositions" – these are restricted, of course, though are much more common in Dutch and German. Namely, therefore, herewith, whereas, herein, wherein, etc. These latter are perhaps to be treated more as archaic retentions than active constructions.

Possibly also to included are the adjunct use of nominals such as back and home, historically speaking originally case-marked nominals (accusative, dative, etc.) which have lost their case maSeadowns (talk) 09:20, 19 July 2018 (UTC)rking through language change, but have not gained a preposition in compensation. Such could therefore be called preposition-less prepositional phrases. There are some postpositions in prose, such as "the whole winter through". Or in poetry, eg "the fields and hills among" (Tennyson), or "ramble the hilly brakes around" (Housman). Seadowns (talk) 17:55, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Etymology of phrasal verbs
Would it be possible to trace some notion similar to etymology for phrasal verbs? --Backinstadiums (talk) 18:07, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Get over it?
I have changed the illustrations in the Distinguishing phrasal verb types section to use 'definite objects' rather than pronouns, because the old 3b was grammatically correct (if not analysed as using a phrasal verb).
 * He is getting it over.

This could refer to Jim getting the luggage over the fence, or Bill getting his leg over a hurdle, and so on. Of course, it was still technically correct as an example, but just more likely to cause confusion. Whereas
 * * He is getting the situation over.

is unlikely to be used in any situation I can think of. I can think of "He is getting the ball over the line." as correct English, but that now has an extra element at the end (following the preposition). —DIV (120.17.69.147 (talk) 00:51, 24 March 2019 (UTC))

can not (or no longer)
The article states: "When the element is a particle, it can not (or no longer) be construed as a preposition". Surely there's a clearer way of saying this — especially in an article on grammar. —DIV (1.144.108.86 (talk) 01:16, 31 March 2019 (UTC))

Phrasal verb?
I do not know if I am here at the right address. There are words which are "composed" of a sampling of words. For instance the word "mad" can be a composition of the words "mean, angry and dangerous". Am I fantasying or does this process exist? How is it called? Regards. 85.149.24.135 (talk) 13:10, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Queries
Vicki, I am on your side, you know. There is such a thing as ironing out what one has just written but you didn't give me much of a chance. I really am not trying to foist something on to the reader that I haven't thoroughly looked into and researched, as you can see in the Talk section of Compound verb, which really is a bit of a misnomer for what it actually contains, apart from the the verbs containing two or more components, etc.-- Dieter Simon 00:15, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)
 * Okay. Next time, do me a favor and put something like "intermediate save" in the summary line, so I'll know you're not done yet. Vicki Rosenzweig 00:20, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Sorry about that. Yeh, Mav and others seem to warn that if it is a new article that that is precisely what can happen. Are you going to leave that last para in there? Should I add a summing up of sorts?Dieter Simon 00:49, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Anyway, it's resolved itself now, seeminglyDieter Simon

Oops. Hope I didn't step on any toes with my addition. Or confuse the issue too thoroughly... Thirdreel 00:53, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Wait, Thirdreel, what has all this to do with phrasal verbs? Neither "she walked out of the door" nor "she took out the garbage " are phrasal verb constructions. They both have a literal meaning, there is nothing figurative or idiomatic about either of these two sentences, which is really the yardstick of a phrasal verb. There is nothing idiomatic about "she took out the garbage", it is a statement of fact, whatever it may consist of. Please take a look at the Talk page of compound verbDieter Simon 01:10, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I see that I've entered this carelessly. I'd read the article and thought I knew what I was talking about, but it seems I'm off from the accepted definition. I wanted to raise the distinction between the two formulas: verb plus prepositional phrase, and verb phrase plus object. "to turn on someone" and "to turn someone on." But if my addition was way off-base, feel free to delete it, or to use only what parts are relevant. Thirdreel 01:26, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Don't feel bad, we all do it at times. :) I'll clean it up a bit tomorrow. Tonight is already morning. Dieter Simon

After all this, please accept my apologies, Vicki and Thirdreel, I don't know what came over me, a brainstorm I believe. I have now changed the gist of the article thoroughly and of course you can do so if there are other things you want to include or change. I have also sent apologies to IHCOYC. --Dieter Simon 23:21, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I agree that this article is confusing the issues. (Part of this of course is how much confusion there is in the literature about what "phrasal verb" and "particle verb" etc mean.) I think, however, that "particle verb" and "verb-particle construction" refer exclusively to constructions that permit the particle placement alternation (aka particle movement). I have seen phrasal verb used for other things, but I don't think it's used for phrases where the particle is a true transitive preposition. --Serapio 19:24, 2004 Aug 23 (UTC)

Could someone give an example of a linguist who would call this a phrasal verb?
 * He came across the garden to speak to me (literal)

What I've seen called phrasal verbs and partical verb phrases are cases where the particle is intransitive, whether an adverb or a directional particle. I can understand the tendency to call MWEs like "turn on someone" or "come across something" (to find) phrasal verbs, but if "come across the garden" is a phrasal verb, then every verb with oblique arguments is a phrasal verb. What would you do with "come across the garden to the flowerbed for me"? -Serapio 09:35, 2004 Dec 22 (UTC)

Description of meaning.
The first paragraph of the article states that 'These semantic units cannot be understood based upon the meanings of the individual parts alone, but must be taken as a whole.' This is commonly the case for phrasal verbs e.g. 'Sit up', but not always. 'I'd like to meet Christopher' carries the same meaning as the traditionally US English (but increasingly widespread in other English language dialects) 'I'd like to meet with Christopher'.

There are also some contexts (especially conversational ones) where phrasal verbs can omit the verb and employ the particle or preposition as an informal adjective. e.g. Saying "Get up" and "Up!" might carry the same meaning in certain circumstances. This is more context-dependent than the above since unlike the example above, it would only be meaningful if the listener was capable of getting up. Using "Up!" as a very would be meaningless to an astronaut in deep space, but quite clear to a fitness class sat on the floor. However, I don't think it's fair (on the basis of these two) to state absolutely that the "...semantic units cannot be understood based upon the meanings of the individual parts alone." These cases may be in a minority of phrasal verbs but they aren't especially unusual.


 * Hi, according to OED, the verb to meet with is different than to meet. It says that to meet with means to be received or treated by somebody in a particular way. Regards Denisarona (talk) 09:27, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for checking. Having lived much of my life in the UK and North America, my impression is that as far as common usage goes they tend to mean the same thing. If this were the case generally I'd be inclined to say that near-universal use trumps the OED definition, but I'm no linguist and haven't looked into any actual research on the topic, so I'm less confident of my claim. Part of me would like to add a comment to that effect, but I realise that adding too many caveats to a definition can make it slightly more accurate at the same time as rendering it much less intelligible. 13:28, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Poorly written article contradicts itself
The article implies (correctly) that prepositions are (examples of) participles. But it then goes on to imply that prepositions and particles are mutually exclusive categories and that prepositions aren't particles. Hence: "A phrasal verb is ... a verb and a particle, such as an adverb or a preposition" - but then: "Phrasal verbs that include a preposition are known as prepositional verbs and phrasal verbs that include a particle are also known as particle verbs" (so does this mean that prepositional verbs are a subset of particle verbs, or not?). And then: "There are at least three main types of phrasal verb constructions depending on whether the verb combines with a preposition, a particle, or both" (clearly implying that prepositions aren't particles, even though the first sentence started that they ARE particles!). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.202.244 (talk) 15:14, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Two types
I personally don't find it particularly helpful that two different linguistic phenomena are discussed here together, though I understand why it has happened: in the EFL classroom it is helpful to treat these together. However, linguists treat them separately, and use the term phrasal verb to mean what is here called the particle verb, specifically in contrast to prepositional constructions: e.g. http://homes.chass.utoronto.ca/~cpercy/courses/6361lamont.html. I would be happier to see this article divided into two articles, or at least to have a far clearer distinction between the two phenomena, which should be discussed in clearly separated sections. Incidentally, the third type listed here is really not a third type at all: it is simply a verb which shows both phenomena at once. --Doric Loon (talk) 18:23, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * If you intend to edit so that a phrasal verb is defined as having a verb and particle as constituents versus a verb phrase defined as having various prepositional or nominal collocations, we're a consensus of two against hundreds. Now you know why I seldom bother to edit articles like this, P-Stranding, Split infinitive, Reduced relative clause, etc. Easier just to shake my head and eyeroll. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 20:07, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The definition from the source I gave above is: "A phrasal verb in Present-Day English is a verb that takes a complementary particle, in other words, an adverb resembling a preposition, necessary to complete a sentence." The complimentary particle / adverb is part of the verb, as is seen by the fact that historically it developed out of a prefix which became separated (and in German became half-separated, which shows the point brilliantly). But this can also be called a particle verb, and I am comfortable enough to have linguistics distinguish particle verb from verb+preposition and let EFL teachers lump the two together under "phrasal verb". Thompson and Martinet write "The student need not decide whether the combination is veb + preposition or verb + adverb, but should consider the expression as a whole" (A Practical English Grammar 1993 edition p.315). Horses for courses, but we need to be clearer about when we mean what. At the moment this article has different definitions in different sections without explaining why. --Doric Loon (talk) 11:46, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * But the article already tries to address these issues further down, so I am not saying something new here - we just need to be more consistent. I would suggest having a section on EFL usage further down the article and only discussing verb+preposition there. It won't involve such a big rewrite as my first comments might have made it sound. --Doric Loon (talk) 12:00, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * A confession: I neglected to read much of this article. You can probably guess why the thrust of the lead paragraph disheartened me from reading further. As much as the topic interests me, I don't have a taste for dealing with all the acrimony that proper edits would invite. The article's on my watch list, and I'd be happy to assist anyone else who wants the headache. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 20:32, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2019 and 10 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): AnnieWang1.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:38, 16 January 2022 (UTC)