Differ between a preposition and an adverb in a phrasal verb.

Question

fuskerExpand On : say more about     (Phrasal verb consisting of a verb followed by an a preposition)Catch On : be widely accepted    (Phrasal verb consisting of a verb followed by an an adverb)How do we identify that wheather the word following the verb in a phrasal verb is an adverb or a preposition?GB

Inchoateknowledge · Accepted Answer

"The practice of taking cold showers is unlikely to catch on in Britain."

What is unlikely in Britain to catch? On taking cold showers. No.
What is unlikely in Britain to catch on? The practice of ... . Yes.

If you need the adverbial particle for the sentence to make sense, you hae a phrasal verb there.

He mentioned one or two ideas that he'd had but he didn't expand on them. What is it he mentioned but he did not expand? On one or two ideas. No.
What is it that he mentioned but he did not expand on? It is one or two ideas. Yes, it is a pv.

CalifJim · Answer

What you call a "phrasal verb with a preposition" doesn't seem correct.
A verb-plus-preposition structure like expand on is usually called a prepositional verb.
Only a verb-plus-adverb structure like catch on is usually called a phrasal verb.
These are the terms I'll use below.

In the case of an intransitive like catch on, nothing resembling an object follows on, so it can't be a prepositional verb. It's a phrasal verb, not a prepositional verb.

It didn't take long for the hula-hoop craze to catch on in the 1950's.

The more difficult cases are when the phrasal verb (if it is one) has an object.

How do we identify ~~that~~ whether the word following the verb in a phrasal verb is an adverb or a preposition?

Let's use the example found in Radford's book Transformational Grammar.

The drunks would get off the bus. (prepositional verb)
The drunks would put off the customers. (phrasal verb)

Here are some tests:

1. If you can substitute other PPs (prepositional phrases) and get a parallel meaning, it's a prepositional verb. If you get nonsense or a new idiomatic meaning, it's a phrasal verb.
If the verb component of the phrase has a more-or-less constant meaning no matter what follows, it's a prepositional verb. If the meaning changes unpredictably, it's a phrasal verb.

The drunks would get off the bus. The drunks would get on the bus.
The drunks would put off the customers. ???The drunks would put on the customers. The drunks would put on dirty clothes.

2. If the range of complements that go with the verb phrase are similar with different prepositions, it's a prepositional verb. If the complements that make sense with the verb phrase change when you change the particle, it's a phrasal verb.

The drunks would get off the bus, off the train, off the plane.
The drunks would get on the bus, on the train, on the plane.

The drunks would put off the customers, put off the shoppers, put off the people nearby.
The drunks would put on dirty clothes, strange hats, wild-looking ties.

3. If you can move the whole structure that looks like a PP to another part of the sentence, it's a prepositional verb. If you can't move the PP, then it's not really a PP, and you have a phrasal verb.

Off the bus the drunks would get.
*Off the customers the drunks would put.

4. If you can use the PP as a fragment in the answer to a question, it's a prepositional verb; else, it's a phrasal verb.

-- Did they get off the train?
-- No, off the bus.

-- Did they put off the waitresses?
-- *No, off the customers.

5. If you can insert a verb-phrase adverb like quickly, slowly, or completely between the verb and the particle, then it's a prepositional verb; else, it's a phrasal verb.

The drunks got slowly off the bus.
*The drunks put completely off the customers.

6. If you can use and to combine the PP with another PP just like it, it's a prepositional verb; else it's a phrasal verb.

They got off the bus and off the train.
*They put off the waitresses and off the customers.

7. If you can omit the verb, keeping the particle, in an elliptical construction, it's a prepositional verb; else it's a phrasal verb.

Drunks would get off the bus, and junkies off the train.
*Drunks would put off the customers, and junkies off the waitresses.

8. If you can use a pronomial object in the PP without placing the pronoun before the particle, it's a prepositional verb; else it's a phrasal verb.

The trouble with the bus was that drunks would want to get off it every few miles.
*What worries us about the customers is whether drunks would put off them.

(The reverse works as well. When you place the pronoun before the particle, only the phrasal verb will be correct in the intended reading.)

*The trouble with the bus was that drunks would want to get it off every few miles.
What worries us about the customers is whether drunks would put them off.

CJ

Maple · Answer

The overall impressions of reading it are: The prepositions are more intimate with the objects than the adverbs. Those methods are to judge this intimateness. And it must be an adverb, when one can put the object in front of the unidentified particle.

Could I ask a basic question?

Is it always the case that the non-pronoun object could be either before or afterthe particle in a phrasal verb?

like, say, put on the jacket, put the jacket on

CalifJim · Answer

I don't think it is always the case, no.
I'll think about it. Maybe I can think of an example where the noun has to be on one side of the particle or the other all the time.

CJ

Maple · Answer

Thank you for your time and attention.

Maple

Inchoateknowledge · Answer

Separable phrasal verbs must be separated when there is a pronoun.
Pick me up and not pick up me.
I Picked up a leaflet from the floor.

"Is it always the case that the non-pronoun object could be either before or after the particle in a phrasal verb"
Only if, but not if and only if, the pv is separable.
He gave his money away.
He gave away his money.
'Set off' is an inseparable pv:
They set off riot. They set riot off is not correct

Maple · Answer

'set of" is an inseparable pv

Thank you for your response.

I found these in Oxford Dict.

set sth<=>off; take sth <=>on; put sth <=> down, give sth <=> away

The double-direction arrows indicate the places of sth and the particle are interchangeable, Am I wrong?

.

CalifJim · Answer

They set a riot off seems acceptable, even though our preference seems to be for They set off a riot. (Note the article.) Here it is the selectional criteria that may be interfering. Substitute bomb for riot, and both They set off a bomb and They set a bomb off are fine, neither seeming to be necessarily much preferred over the other. In many cases, however, there is a preferred word order even when two different possibilities are present.

It is almost the mark of a truly phrasal verb (transitive) that it is separable.
It is almost the mark of a truly prepositional verb that it is inseparable.

Yet, there are indeterminate, shadowy cases - cases where the verb seems more phrasal (and idiomatic) than prepositional and yet is inseparable and acts in some ways like a prepositional verb.

How did he come by that fortune? How did he come by it? *How did he come it by?

There are a number of particles (up, down, in, out, on, off, away, back) which should make us very suspicious that we are dealing with a separable phrasal verb, and a number of them (with, without, by, for, at, across, of, from, to, into) which almost certainly indicate a prepositional verb. But there are some strange cases!

CJ

CalifJim · Answer

They set a riot off seems acceptable, even though our preference seems to be for They set off a riot. (Note the article.) Here it is the selectional criteria that may be interfering. Substitute bomb for riot, and both They set off a bomb and They set a bomb off are fine, neither seeming to be necessarily much preferred over the other. In many cases, however, there is a preferred word order even when two different possibilities are present.

It is almost the mark of a truly phrasal verb (transitive) that it is separable.
It is almost the mark of a truly prepositional verb that it is inseparable.

Yet, there are indeterminate, shadowy cases - cases where the verb seems more phrasal (and idiomatic) than prepositional and yet is inseparable and acts in some ways like a prepositional verb.

How did he come by that fortune? How did he come by it? *How did he come it by?

There are a number of particles (up, down, in, out, on, off, away, back) which should make us very suspicious that we are dealing with a separable phrasal verb, and a number of them (with, without, by, for, at, across, of, from, to, into) which almost certainly indicate a prepositional verb. But there are some strange cases!

CJ

KickingCat · Answer

would you like to write the whole sentence please so I can see what you mean?

Differ between a preposition and an adverb in a phrasal verb.

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions