Job Discussion Forums

[dynow]

i find myself teaching phrasal verbs to my students.....a lot. they always ask for them, and they always struggle with them.

i recently had a conversation with an English teacher, non-native speaker, and we were discussing phrasal verbs we can split, and phrasal verbs we cannot. she insisted that there are no rules as to when you can split one and when you can't. my response was, "well, as a native speaker, I automatically know when i can or can't split it. how do i know? i don't have a super power, i'm just a native speaker." she said, "it's just because you're a native. you just know. there are no rules or patterns. you just know."

i can't accept this explanation. as a native, you know how to say things based on feel, but this feel has to develop from somewhere and the patterns must come from somewhere.

my question is this: does anyone know any rules/definite patterns that decide whether a phrasal verb can be split or not?

[Mike_2007]

Not quite a 'rule' but it often depends on the origin of the phrasal verb.

For example: to put on (a hat) can be split because the object (a hat) is the direct object of 'put'. The preposition 'on' would have been connected to the destination of the hat ('on my head'). The 'my head' part has been dropped over time.

Another example: to get over (an illness) cannot be split because the object here (an illness) is connected to the preposition. You are getting yourself over the illness. You are not getting the illness over something else. Therefore in this context it cannot be split.

Of course, this isn't how we learnt the rules as native speakers ,we just pick up the patterns over time. I imagine there are a lot of phrasal verbs whose original sense has been lost over time and can't be adequately explained.

[Richfilth]

Unlike Polish, English isn't a language governed by enforced rules and regulations (see Prescriptivist vs Descriptivist in Wiki, if you like.) The rules you see in Murphy are more retro-actively applied guidelines to explain what natives do instinctively, rather than being a forced framework that was decided by a load of beard-stroking grammarians a few centuries back.

Whether a phrasal splits or not is learned in exactly the same way as connotation is; e.g. there's no real reason why we think that the word 'slim' is generally positive whilst 'thin' is, at best, neutral, even if the dictionary definition is the same. We just pick this up from their usage within society.

Phrasals work in the same way. Because we don't see their incorrect forms printed in newspapers or books, we absorb (passively) the concept that any other form that what we're used to must be wrong, and therefore don't do it.

The only rule I can think of regarding split phrasals is to do with pronouns (if the object is a pronoun the phrasal is split, as in "pick it up" rather than "pick up it.")

I know this explanation hasn't helped, but it should excuse a myriad of inexplicable oddities with grammar. Just remember that no-one in the language world has the right to tell you what is or isn't right; only what is or isn't commonly used.

[hrvatski]

Yeah there are no rules with this one.

[scottie1113]

Beam me up Scottie! Yeah, this is a tough one to explain. We had a workshop on teaching articles today. Why do we say "thanks a lot"? Because that's how it's used. It's all about imprinting patterns in your brain so the language comes out naturally, which is why repetetive drills, although sometimes boring, work wonders in classrooms.

[wildphelps]

Actually there are a few rules that govern their usage:

Phrasal verbs can be both transitive:

He turned on the radio
I called off the meeting

or intransitive:

My car broke down.
It really took off.

There are also phrasal verbs the require prepositions:

put up with, look down on, give in to, etc.

These generally need to learned as full unit.

Transitive phrasal verbs can be separated and sometimes they cannot. Intransitive phrasal verbs are not separable. One rule that seems to quite regular: Separation is obligatory when the phrasal verb is transitive and direct object is a pronoun.

Mark threw away the ball / Mark threw it away but NOT *Mark threw away it

There is another category of inseparable phrasal verbs, where the particle cannot be separated from its verb, but some linguists argue that the inseparability comes from the particle actually being a preposition, and thus would naturally precede its object:

I came across a good article yesterday last night but NOT
*I came a good article across last night.

It comes down to knowing the difference between a preposition and a particle. Native speakers never have to worry about it, and I would suggest that we do make numerous mistakes with them all the time. The mistakes, however, rarely affect communication as they are almost always contextual. The other day I listened to Pres. Obama continually use much instead of many (count vs non-count noun errors), yet he still sounded great.

The rules I gave are all paraphrased from The Grammar Book by Celce-Murcia and Larsen-Freeman. Usually available used on Amazon for about $50, it is the best grammar reference for teachers and language professionals (way too advanced for most students).

[Blasphemer]

[wildphelps]

What I like about The Grammar Book is that it goes beyond just rules and includes some discourse analysis and research. It gives examples of the choices that people from different socio-economic backgrounds make when speaking or writing.

I have found it helpful for Business English and advanced/proficiency students to be able to tell them that while it is okay to say or write was versus were in second conditionals, the use of were increases with the educational level of the speaker. Most students respond well to that.

Other grammar reference books provide the rules, but very little commentary on the rules or actual usage. A good example is the use of who to refer to animals in relative clauses. All the books are in agreement - who is for people, that/which for animals. Most native speakers actually use who (or he/she), however, to refer to animals, particularly pets.

I guess it comes down to prescriptive/descriptive approaches.

[Blasphemer]

[dynow]

lots of great info here guys, some great entries. i appreciate it.

unfortunately, i think it would be easier and more practical to simply tell a student "that's just how it is.....memorize it," rather than try and explain some of the grammar pointed out on this thread.

i guess i was hoping some of you would have a few magic bullets on this subject, but thanks again.