What is the Preposition Phrase and the Object in the sentence?

Question

They have thrown back their heads and called out with low, moaning howls in hopes of communicating with the wolves.I am not sure which part is the object and which part is the prepositional phrase.Thanks in Advance!

Fivejedjon · Accepted Answer

If you consider 'threw back' to be a phrasal verb, then 'their heads' is the direct object of that phrasal verb.

If you consider 'back' to be functioning as an adverb, then 'their heads' is the direct object of the verb 'threw'.

Prepositional phrases are introduced by prepositions such as 'with' and 'in'.

BillJ · Answer

The preposition directly related to an object is "back". It's called a particle (specifically a prepositional particle) and it functions as a complement of the verb "thrown". It's one of a few complements that can be freely positioned between the verb and its object. Particles are easy to recognise because generally the 'particle + NP' order can be reversed: "They have thrown their heads back".

There are five other PPs in you example. Three of them (2, 4, 5) are embedded in larger ones (1, 3, 4 respectively):

1. "out with low moaning howls. ("called out" is a verbal idiom)
2. "with low moaning howls".

3. "in hope of communicating with the wolves".
4. "of communicating with the wolves".
5. "with the wolves".

I've underlined the head of each PP.

BillJ

RandomGuy · Answer

Ah, yes, there is a total of five prepositions in the sentence. Skimming it, I counted only two. Tsk-tsk!

BillJThe preposition directly related to an object is "back". It's called a particle (specifically a prepositional particle)… There are five other PPs in you example.

No, just five altogether, I'd say. I'm not sure how you confused back with a prepositional particle, considering the word isn't functioning as a preposition, nor can it be one at all.

Fivejedjon · Answer

BillJThe preposition directly related to an object is "back". It's called a particle (specifically a prepositional particle) and it functions as a complement of the verb "thrown".

I agree that many would call this a 'particle' today; nobody, in my opinion, would call it a preposition. If you want to use traditional terminology, it is functioning as an adverb here.

RandomGuy · Answer

fivejedjonI agree that many would call this a 'particle' today; nobody, in my opinion, would call it a preposition. If you want to use traditional terminology, it is functioning as an adverb here.

Yes. In the sentence We ran up Booster Hill the word up may be classified as a prepositional particle, I suppose. But I really don't see the point in analyzing particles so closely. Just particle works for me.

Fivejedjon · Answer

Aspara GusWe ran up Booster Hill the word up may be classified as a prepositional particle, I suppose.

For me, 'up' in that sentence is clearly a preposition

I use 'particle' on its own as a useful word for talking about the adverb/preposition that forms part of a multi-word verb,/phrasal verb. There is a problem with labelling here, as no two dictionaries or grammars agree completely on what verbs should be included in lists of phrasal verbs.

I’ll give just one example:

ask for is listed as:
verb + preposition in OALD, TGB,
prepositional verb in CGOE,
phrasal verb in CCEG

OALD:Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary, (6^th Edn) Sally Wehmeier (ed), Oxford: OUP, 2000
CCEG: Collins Cobuild English Grammar, John Sinclair (ed), London, HarperCollins: 1990
CGOE: Cambridge Grammar of English, R Carter & M McCarthy, Cambridge, CUP: 2006
TGB: The Grammar Book, (2^nd Edn.) M Celce-Murcia & D Larsen-Freeman, Cambridge (Mass): Newbury

BillJ · Answer

Aspara GusNo, just five altogether, I'd say. I'm not sure how you confused back with a prepositional particle, considering the word isn't functioning as a preposition, nor can it be one at all.

I didn't confuse anything. And I didn't say it was functioning as a preposition; I said it was functioning as a complement. Complements which can precede a direct object in this way are called particles, a general term, not a function (like subject, complement etc) or a category (like noun, adjective etc.)

There are good reasons for seeing it as a prep (not an adverb as many consider it to be); for example, it can hardly be replaced by another adverb, particularly an -ly one. And adverbs are usually adjuncts, thus optional, but back is mandatory here and must therefore be a complement. Further, back suggests movement in a particular direction, and so behaves just like an indisputable directional prep ("to", "from", etc). "Back" is an intransitive preposition (one that never takes an NP complement).

BillJ

Fivejedjon · Answer

BillJ I didn't say it was functioning as a preposition

You wrote, 'The preposition directly related to an object is "back"". That appears to me to be saying that 'back' is (functioning as) a preposition.

BillJThere are good reasons for seeing it as a prep (not an adverb as many consider it to be); for example, it can hardly be replaced by another adverb, particularly an -ly one.

And it can't be replaced by many other prepositions. Remember that words ending in -ly are only one group of words in the adverb class, a class that has sometimes been referred to as 'the dustbin class' (If you can't throw it in any other labelled bin, throw it in the adverb bin).

BillJ"Back" is an intransitive preposition (one that never takes an NP complement).

There are sound reasons, in my opinion, for labelling it thus, but at present, most dictionaries and student-level grammars appear to label 'back' in such expressions as 'adverb' or 'particle', not 'preposition'.

BillJ · Answer

fivejedjonI agree that many would call this a 'particle' today; If you want to use traditional terminology, it is functioning as an adverb here.

I'm not into centuries-old analysis and terminology. So much of it has been proved wrong, and modern approaches not only make far more sense but are easier to understand, which can only be a good thing for students. By the way, I see "particle" as just a general term for this kind of construction. Its category is preposition and its function is complement. See my last post for my reasons for taking it as a preposition.

fivejedjonNobody, in my opinion, would call it a preposition

I'm looking at a modern grammar right now that supports that analysis.

BillJ

Fivejedjon · Answer

BillJI'm looking at a modern grammar right now that supports that analysis.

What exactly does it say that supports that analysis?

What is the Preposition Phrase and the Object in the sentence?

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions