Going After the Phrasal Verb: An

Alternative Approach to Classification

CLAYTON M. DARWIN
University of Georgia

LORETTA S. GRAY
Central Washington University

This article critiques past approaches to identifying phrasal verbs and

proposes an alternative approach. Instead of requiring verb + particle
combinations to demonstrate specific features in order to be identified
as phrasal verbs, the new approach calls for researchers and teachers to
consider all verb + particle combinations to be potential phrasal verbs
until they can be proven otherwise. This approach clarifies the process
of classifying phrasal verbs and eliminates curriculum-based problems
encountered by students.

T he phrasal verb is generally defined as a verb + particle combination

that functions as a single verb, both parts giving up meaning in
order to form a new lexical item. Some examples are bring about, take on,
and give up. For students and teachers in the field of ESL, there is little
doubt that this construction is problematic. Many consider mastering
phrasal verbs to be a very difficult task for the ESL learner (Celce-Murcia
& Larsen-Freeman, 1999), and using them correctly in speech, a true test
of fluency (Cornell, 1985). This is especially true for ESL learners with
non-Germanic L1s because verb + particle combinations are rarely found
outside of the Germanic family (Celce-Murcia & Larsen-Freeman, 1999,
p. 425). Thus, the phrasal verb is a syntactic oddity in the language
world, which, as Dagut and Laufer (1985) and later Laufer and Eliasson
(1993) show in their study of Hebrew-speaking ESL students, often
causes learners both to misinterpret received messages and to avoid
using the construction by opting for single-word verbs instead. This
avoidance, of course, only compounds the problem, preventing learning
and causing unnatural speech, such as I encountered an old photograph for
I came across an old photograph (Celce-Murcia & Larsen-Freeman, 1999).
Not only learners with non-Germanic native languages experience this
difficulty with phrasal verbs, however. Continuing the work of Dagut and

TESOL QUARTERLY Vol. 33, No. 1, Spring 1999 65

Laufer (1985), Hulstijn and Marchena (1989) have shown that Dutch
ESL learners also have a tendency to misunderstand or avoid English
phrasal verbs even though there are similar constructions in their native
language. The problems ESL learners have with phrasal verbs, whether
syntactic, semantic, or a combination, are increased by the highly
productive nature of the phrasal verb in English. Although they were
once thought to be common only in speech and informal writing, it is
now accepted that phrasal verbs are found in all registers, from comic
books and street slang to the most academic forms of the language
(Cornell, 1985). Thus, although phrasal verbs are more common in less
formal language, it should come as no great shock that Lincoln used
brought forth in the first line of the Gettysburg Address or that the
translators of the King James Version of the Bible used lie down in the
Twenty-Third Psalm because the phrasal verb is virtually unavoidable
without lengthy and often pretentious circumlocutions. After all, to show
off is to show off, not to impress another with one’s prowess by performing
difficult yet completely unnecessary feats.
To further complicate the problem, native speakers of English have an
understanding, albeit unconscious, of the meaning and use of particles
that allows them to create, almost at will, new phrasal verbs. Indeed,
Bolinger (1971) considers the phrasal verb to be the “most prolific
source” of new words in English (p. xiii). For example, as Side (1990)
explains, “If I tell somebody to bog off, that person is well aware that what
I am saying has nothing to do with bogs and everything to do with
beating a retreat” (p. 146). The ESL student, however, cannot be
expected to have such an understanding. Thus, being told to bog off
would be confusing.
Clearly, to alleviate the difficulties phrasal verbs present, ESL teachers
and material writers need to approach the problematic areas of
phrasal-verb pedagogy systematically, developing and presenting mate-
rial in a manner that avoids unnecessary confusion and loss of time for
both student and instructor. This, however, is not the practice. In
research and pedagogy, approaches to the phrasal verb have been, and
still are, rather arbitrary. By saying so, we do not wish to imply that what
has been done is not valid or useful but simply that the understanding of
the phrasal verb, by both students and instructors, has not progressed as
far as it might have if a more systematic approach had been used. The
purpose of this article is to provide such an approach.
The reasons for the lack of progress in the understanding of
phrasal-verb pedagogy seem to be threefold, the first having to do with
definition. Although the phrasal verb is usually defined as a verb +
particle combination acting as a single verb, the application of that
definition produces conflicting results. Thus, Brinton (1988) would
admit drink up, but Quirk and Greenbaum (1990) are uncertain about its

66 TESOL QUARTERLY
categorization, using the verb phrase as an example of both a phrasal
verb (p. 336) and a free combination (p. 337).
The confusion among sources, obviously, leads to confusion for
students and instructors. For instance, if students are told that particles
in phrasal verbs cannot be fronted yet are given examples like improve on
(Cornell, 1985) and go down (McArthur, 1989), which do permit fronting
of the particle, one can expect students’ avoidance of phrasal verbs.
Another reason for the somewhat arbitrary presentation of phrasal
verbs is that very little has been done to determine the frequency of
particular phrasal verbs. Thus, instructors, curriculum designers, and
researchers are left working with what they determine by intuition to be
the most common or most needed phrasal verbs. Their intuition,
though, may not be correct. As an example, in conducting his research
on the number of phrasal verbs the average advanced ESL learner
knows, Cornell (1985) selected phrasal verbs that he regarded as
“commonly used” (p. 271), yet when the 60 common phrasal verbs used
by Cornell (1975, p. 272) were compared with the results of a count we
made while preparing this article, only 4 matched (Gray & Darwin,
1998).
At the extreme, this use of arbitrary lists of phrasal verbs means that
the instructor, though having the best intentions, may be presenting the
student with a list of terribly difficult phrasal verbs that have very little
use in the world outside the classroom. To remedy this, Cornell (1985)
has called for the assembling of a “core of phrasal verbs” (p. 276). To
assemble such a core, a systematic basis for selection is necessary.
The third reason for a limited understanding of phrasal verbs is the
continued use of a method for presenting phrasal verbs that usually
consists of grouping them together according to the verb (Side, 1990, p.
144). For example, Frank (1993) presents five phrasal verbs that begin
with bring, four that begin with make, and five that begin with take.
Likewise, Raimes (1990) includes an exercise in which students write
sentences with phrasal verbs, of which four begin with take, five begin
with look, and four begin with turn. Although this method may help a
student become aware of the idiomatic nature of these combinations,
one would speculate that it does little to promote their use.

DEFINING THE PHRASAL VERB

Classification of phrasal verbs may be slippery, as Bolinger (1971)

points out: “being or not being a phrasal verb is a matter of degree” (p.
6). Thus, to avoid an ambiguous classification procedure, linguists must
agree upon a definition, thereby requiring them to begin from the same
point. To this end, the definition in Quirk, Greenbaum, Leech, and

GOING AFTER THE PHRASAL VERB 67

Svartvik (1985) has served as the standard. Of course, this is not to say
that A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language is the only source of
a usable definition for the phrasal verb, only the most clearly delineated;
Bolinger (1971, p. xii), Celce-Murcia and Larsen-Freeman (1999, p.
265), Fraser (1976, p. v), Kilby (1984, p. 99), and Palmer (1968, p. 180)
propose similar definitions.
According to Quirk et al. (1985), the phrasal verb is defined in two
parts. The first is primarily syntactic: A phrasal verb is a verb (which, for
distinction, will be called the verb proper, as it is in Bolinger’s 1971 work)
followed by a morphologically invariable particle, which functions with
the verb as a single grammatical unit (p. 1150). As an illustration of
grammatical unity, the phrasal verb turn on (excite), diagramed according
to Celce-Murcia and Larsen- Freeman’s (1999) guidelines, branches off
the verb phrase (VP) as a phrasal verb (PV), which consists of a verb (V)
and a particle (Prt). However, turn on (become hostile) does not fall as a
unit under the VP. Rather, turn is the verb, whereas on is diagramed as
the preposition (P) in a prepositional phrase (PrepP).
The second part of Quirk et al.’s definition is lexical: “The meaning of
the combination manifestly cannot be predicted from the meaning of
the verb [proper] and particle in isolation” (p. 1152); hence, they
function as a single lexical unit as well. The lexical unity of the phrasal
verb is noted in the verb proper’s frequent inability to carry the same
meaning when its particle has been deleted or replaced. For example, the
plane touched down is not the same as the plane touched or the plane touched
downward, even though down and downward could be considered syn-
onyms. Thus, in the phrasal verb touch down, touch and down combine,
losing some of the significance they have outside this phrasal verb, to
form a lexical item roughly equivalent to the verb land.
Celce-Murcia and Larsen-Freeman (1999) describe three semantic
categories of phrasal verbs: literal, idiomatic, and aspectual. Literal
phrasal verbs have constituents that appear to retain much of their
meaning. For example, the meanings of take and down in take down the
picture are recoverable. In idiomatic phrasal verbs such as make up (be
reconciled), however, the usual meanings of make and up seem to be lost.
The meanings of aspectual phrasal verbs are more transparent than
those of idiomatic phrasal verbs but perhaps not as transparent as those
of literal phrasal verbs. Whereas the verb proper in aspectual phrasal
verbs can be understood literally, the particle contributes meanings, not
commonly understood, about the verb’s aspect. For example, up in They
ate up all the chips and drank up all the soda signals that the actions are
complete.

68 TESOL QUARTERLY
CHARACTERISTICS OF PHRASAL VERBS
Knowing that the verb + particle combination acts as a single word
both syntactically and lexically, one would suspect that the phrasal verb
would have the same characteristics as single-word verbs, and, with one
exception, this is exactly the case. There are transitive phrasal verbs (e.g.,
I filled out the form), intransitive phrasal verbs (e.g., First I passed out, then I
came to), and ergative phrasal verbs (e.g., The firewood burned up). Most
transitive phrasal verbs form passives (e.g., The form was filled out) and
form action nominals as well (e.g., the filling out of forms . . . .). There are
also phrasal verbs, termed phrasal-prepositional verbs by Quirk et al. (1985,
p. 1160), that require specific prepositions. Examples are put up with
(tolerate) and come up with (devise).
Even in the area of phonology, phrasal verbs tend to follow the
patterns of single-word verbs. That is, like the final syllable in many verbs
(e.g., conSUME), the final syllable in phrasal verbs (e.g., USE UP)—
which will be the particle—will receive some degree of stress (Celce-
Murcia, Brinton & Goodwin, 1996, p. 143).
The phrasal verb veers from verb norms because the particle can often
be separated from the verb proper in a position after the object. Thus,
with many transitive phrasal verbs there is a choice as to where the
particle appears:

I looked up his name in the phone book.

I looked his name up in the phone book.

Bolinger (1971) postulates that this flexibility in particle placement may

be a result of prosodic need, allowing a movement in stress to match
speech rhythm. He also believes that this flexibility may account in part
for the popularity of the phrasal verb.

THE PARTICLE
From the phrasal-verb definition given above, one learns that particles
are morphologically invariable. This fact carries two major implications,
the first being that all inflections are of the verb proper. Thus, you’re
putting me on and he makes up lies are expected whereas *you’re put me
onning and *he make ups lies are reserved for children, ESL learners, and
slips of the tongue. The second implication is that morphologically
variable words do not serve as particles. Thus, multiword combinations
that seem to be acting as verbs but have what are usually considered
nouns, personal pronouns, adjectives, or verbs in the particle position
are not considered phrasal verbs (e.g., set straight and get it).

GOING AFTER THE PHRASAL VERB 69

 Another reason, aside from morphology, that these examples are not
considered phrasal verbs is that according to the second part of the
definition, the particle and verb proper must function as a single unit
both lexically and syntactically. In the above cases, the phrase-final words
are acting as their usual parts of speech—adjective and personal pro-
noun—even if the phrase is being used figuratively. This idea of unity
also rules out words usually considered adverbs of manner, frequency,
and time and the remaining types of pronouns because these words seem
incapable of losing any of their normal meanings or functions (e.g., pay
handsomely).
What is left, then, are words usually considered to be prepositions or
spatial adverbs; the most frequently encountered (or, according to
Fraser, 1976, all that have been observed to function in phrasal verbs) are
about, across, along, around, aside, away, back, by, down, forth, in, off, on, out,
over, and up (p. 5). To this list one could add those from Kennedy’s
(1920): at, for, to, through, and with. Bolinger (1971) even includes
nautical particles such as aboard and aft (p. 18). To distinguish the role of
the particle, O’Dowd (1994) shows how on a continuum some of the “P”s
(O’Dowd’s label for particles, adverbs, and prepositions) mentioned
above are used more often as particles (viz., up, out, down, away, back)
whereas others (viz., with, of, for, from) are used as prepositions. The
remaining “P”s fall into the midsection of the continuum.
Referring to a standard dictionary does not alleviate confusion about
what constitutes a particle. For example, The American Heritage Dictionary
of the English Language (3rd ed., 1992) includes several definitions of up as
an adverb:

2. In or to an upright position: sat up in bed. . . . 4. Into view or existence:

draw up a will. 5. Into consideration: take up a new topic. . . . 9. With or to a
greater intensity, pitch, or volume: turn the sound up. 10. Into a state of
excitement or turbulence: stir up; rouse up. 11. Completely; entirely: drink it
up in a gulp; fastened up the coat. 12. Used as an intensifier of the action of
a verb; typed up a list. (s.v. “up”)

As one can see, all of the above definitions are derived from the
phrasal verbs given as examples. Thus, the unwary dictionary user may
not realize that up is an adverb particle in these cases. For example, take
up is used to show that up means into consideration. Yet take up is listed as
a phrasal verb under take.
As Side (1990) has indicated, it is good that dictionaries are beginning
to include these alternate definitions. But if dictionaries give the
meanings under the heading of adverb without mentioning that they
occur only in phrasal verbs, they can be quite misleading, as such
designations divide up along semantic lines combinations that function

70 TESOL QUARTERLY
as a single unit. Perhaps defining them under the heading of adverb
particle would help. Clearly, it would be useful to list aspectual particles
(e.g., sleep away, drink up) as described by Brinton (1988) and Jackendoff
(1997).

TESTS FOR PHRASAL VERBS

The traditional remedy for confusion in classification has been to
develop a series of tests to prove, in a sense, that a verb + particle
combination is indeed a phrasal verb. In this section we describe and
discuss the nine tests Bolinger (1971) presents.

1. Replacement. The most common test to determine whether a verb +

particle combination is a phrasal verb is to replace it with a single-word
verb. Although it is true that many phrasal verbs can be replaced with
single-word verbs, such as assume for take on and experience for take in,
using this test alone is problematic in two ways. First, many phrasal verbs
do not have single-verb equivalents; examples are take over (assume
control) and pay off (be worthwhile). The other problem with this test is
that it accepts as phrasal verbs combinations that are not so. Most would
consider refer to and improve on to be prepositional verbs (i.e., verbs in
which the second part assumes the syntactic role of preposition);
however, these combinations can be easily replaced by the single-word
verbs mention and improve.

2. Formation of passives. Transitive phrasal verbs are also generally

thought to occur in the passive voice. Indeed, Palmer (1968) claims that
all phrasal verbs other than the intransitives have a corresponding
passive (p. 180). Again, this is true for many transitive phrasal verbs, but
some transitive phrasal verbs do not form passives:

I came across some old letters in the attic.

*Some old letters were come across in the attic.

The train picked up speed.

*Speed was picked up (by the train). (Quirk et al., 1985, p. 1155)

In addition, some prepositional verbs do form passives (e.g., The incident

was alluded to).

3. Formation of action nominals. The idea behind this test is that action
nominals can be derived from transitive phrasal verbs (Lees, 1963).

GOING AFTER THE PHRASAL VERB 71

Thus, from He brought up the facts, one derives his bringing up of the facts.
Bolinger (1971) finds this test unsatisfactory because of problematic
applications, such as The running up of the hill was a matter of minutes (p. 8),
in which the combination is clearly free.
To rectify this problem, Fraser (1976) adds that the phrasal verb does
not allow separation of the verb proper and particle in the action
nominal (*the throwing of his dinner up) whereas free combinations do (the
throwing of the ball up) (p. 3). However, Fraser’s test seems equally
unsatisfactory because it does not account for phrases such as The
handing of anything over that has so much value must be attended by proper
safeguards (Bolinger, 1971, p. 10). Further, some transitive combinations
that most would consider phrasal verbs do not form acceptable action
nominals:

I came across an old photograph.

*the coming across of an old photograph

4. Object movement. This test states that the particle can be placed either
before or after the direct object of transitive phrasal verbs, and this is
indeed the case with many:

He looked up his friends.

He looked his friends up. (Bolinger, 1971, p. 10)

And the test can be used to rule out prepositional verbs and free
combinations:

Let’s focus on the facts.

*Let’s focus the facts on.

She walked past the school.

*She walked the school past.

The problem is that some transitive phrasal verbs are inseparable

(Celce-Murcia & Larsen-Freeman, 1999):

They came across a problem.

*They came a problem across.

And in some, object movement causes changes in meaning:

Why don’t you run down the list? (review)

Why don’t you run the list down? (find)

72 TESOL QUARTERLY
 I don’t want to take on Jill. (hire)
I don’t want to take Jill on. (challenge)

5. Pronoun placement. According to this test, direct-object pronouns are

placed before the particle in transitive phrasal verbs:

Let’s take them on in a game of chess.

*Let’s take on them in a game of chess.

Although this is usually the case, some inseparable transitive phrasal

verbs prove to be exceptions to the rule, as in the above test. Also, in
some odd cases, such as phrasal verbs with reflexives and multiple
objects, object pronouns are not placed before the particle (Bolinger,
1971, p. 40):

Excuse me, Mr. Robber, should we tie up ourselves?

No, I’ll tie up you and the rest.

6. Adverbial insertion. This test distinguishes phrasal verbs from other

combinations by showing that phrasal verbs do not allow the insertion of
adverbs between the verb proper and the particle. With adverbs that end
in -ly, this is usually a good indication; however, some examples are
questionable:

?“The mine caved quickly in.” (Fraser, 1976, p. 4)

A few types of adverbials act as intensifiers of the particle, which are

usually acceptable violations of this test’s predictions. Quirk et al. (1985)
note right and straight (p. 1152), and Fraser (1976) adds adverbials
involving all (p. 25) and expletives such as the hell (p. 27):

They set right off for home.

You messed it all up.

7. Stress. As mentioned earlier, phrasal verbs tend to follow established

patterns of stress, placing some degree of stress—if not primary stress—
on the particle, even when it is separated from the verb (Celce-Murcia et
al., 1996, pp. 142, 143). Thus, one finds the following:

He FIGured OUT the problem.

He FIGured it OUT.

GOING AFTER THE PHRASAL VERB 73

Noting stress is very useful when distinguishing particles from preposi-
tions because prepositions, not being content words, do not receive
stress (Celce-Murcia et al., 1996, pp. 142, 143):

They WALKED to it.

This test, however, does have exceptions. First, any word can receive
primary sentence stress if for some reason it is emphasized or contrasted
with another word (Bolinger, 1971, p. 14). Therefore, the following
sentences are perfectly acceptable in the right context:

I said, “What are you looking UP, not what are you looking AT.”

In addition, bisyllabic prepositions, such as after, upon, around, and

over, do receive some degree of stress (i.e., cannot be completely
reduced; Bolinger, 1971, p. 14; Quirk et al., 1985, p. 1157).
The test also fails to satisfactorily account for free combinations. In
verb + adverb combinations, the adverbs, being content words, cannot be
completely reduced (Celce-Murcia et al., 1996, p. 153) and thus may
have stress patterns similar to those of phrasal verbs (The elevator WENT
UP).

8. Definite noun phrases. According to Bolinger (1971), this test is a

refinement of the object movement test. Instead of noting the particle’s
occurrence following a noun phrase, it highlights its ability to “precede a
simple definite noun phrase (a proper noun or the plus a common
noun) without taking it as its object” (p. 15). Thus, we expect to find They
pushed in the door but not *They pushed inward the door and Why don’t you
bring over John? but not *Why don’t you bring here John? Although the test
seems very reliable in distinguishing between particles and adverbial
adjuncts, the results are less clear in making the distinction between
particle and preposition. The definite noun phrase the word appears in
the same position in both look up the word and focus on the word, but only
look up is a phrasal verb.

9. Listing. The final idea Bolinger (1971) reports, which is not a test at all,
is to define phrasal verbs by simply listing them, but as he points out, this
method has two obvious faults. The first is that the phrasal verb is one of
the most productive ways to create new lexical items in English. Thus, the
list would be out-of-date before it was created. The other problem is that
of regional differences. A citizen of Great Britain and a citizen of the U.S.
find many of each other’s phrasal verbs odd.
Perhaps more practical, suggests Bolinger (1971), would be to list the
particles, as they are a relatively closed class of words (p. 17). As

74 TESOL QUARTERLY
mentioned earlier, some analysts have attempted this type of list but not
without controversy. Fraser (1976) says that only 16 words have been
observed to act as particles (p. 4) whereas Bolinger’s (1971) list seems
not to end (p. 18). Moreover, listing is not a test because words that
appear as particles may also appear as other parts of speech.

AN ALTERNATIVE APPROACH TO PHRASAL VERBS

The above nine tests presented by Bolinger are no doubt useful.

Indeed, each provides a better understanding of the various characteris-
tics of the phrasal verb. However, each admits noteworthy exceptions.
The result is a problematic lack of agreement among those who study
phrasal verbs as to exactly which verb + particle combinations are or are
not included in this category. In fact, of the many works cited here, all
contain examples of phrasal verbs that would be excluded in at least one
other. Although scholars may readily tolerate this disagreement, it can
seriously impair the learning of phrasal verbs by ESL students, prevent-
ing the placement of verb + particle combinations in a grammatical
paradigm.
What is needed, then, is a more systematic classification of the phrasal
verb, one that will promote greater agreement among the experts and
better presentation of verb + particle combinations to the ESL learner.
This may not be possible with the traditional approach; however, it does
seem possible with a reversal in perspective.
Again, the current approach to phrasal-verb classification tries to
prove that a potential combination is a phrasal verb by showing that it
has distinctive characteristics. Thus, look up is a phrasal verb because, by
the nine tests of Bolinger (1971), it can be replaced by one word (find),
it forms a passive (is looked up), it yields an action nominal (the looking up
of ), the particle can occur after the direct object (look the word up), direct
object pronouns normally precede the particle (look it up), most adverbials
cannot be placed between the verb proper and the particle (*look it
quickly up), the particle receives stress (LOOK UP the word), and up is on
Fraser’s (1976) list of particles.
Of course, look up is the perfect example. When the tests are used with
an intransitive combination, only three of the nine apply (replacement,
stress, and listing), and almost any free combination can pass these. Go
back, sail back, and drive back all mean return, place stress on back, and have
a particle on Fraser’s (1976) list, yet few would consider them phrasal
verbs as they do not work as single items; that is, they can be divided up
as in Back he went.
The alternative to this system of exceptions and ambiguities is to take
the opposite stance. Rather than excluding a verb + particle combination

GOING AFTER THE PHRASAL VERB 75

from the phrasal verb category until it is proven to belong, linguists
should consider all verb + particle combinations to be potential phrasal
verbs until they can be proven otherwise. That is, linguists should make
it their business to throw out rather than to throw in. Using this
approach has two advantages. The first is that it adds a degree of
definiteness. Although combinations in the phrasal-verb category will
range widely, from loosely connected to tightly bound, idiomatic to
literal, one can say that those outside the category are definitely not
phrasal verbs for such and such a reason.
Perhaps the idea is best understood through analogy. In a way, the
difference between past attempts to classify phrasal verbs and the
throw-it-out approach lies in qualifications versus performance. Thus,
one can say, for example, that if an institution were hiring for a tenured
teaching position, the sensible course would be to grant tenure after a
trial period during which performance could be evaluated rather than at
the time of hire. This procedure eliminates the possibility of granting
tenure to an individual who, although initially having the required
qualifications, lacks the ability to perform satisfactorily in the classroom.
In much the same way, the throw-it-out approach gives all potential
phrasal verbs a trial period so that their performance can be observed
but grants tenure only to those which cannot be dismissed for violating
the definition, eliminating the possibility of including verb + particle
combinations that do not perform as phrasal verbs. The past approach is
thus faulty because it bases inclusion mainly on characteristics, or
qualifications, rather than on performance. The alternative approach
proposed here should make it easier to distinguish phrasal verbs and
thus promote greater agreement among those studying verb + particle
combinations.
The second advantage to this approach is that it eliminates some of
the curriculum-based confusion students have with phrasal verbs. As
mentioned in the introduction, students are often given a set of
characteristics for phrasal verbs—written as rules—along with a list of
phrasal verbs that do not have the listed characteristics. Developing a set
of criteria and a list of phrasal verbs based on the throw-it-out approach
will decrease greatly—in fact virtually eliminate—the number of excep-
tions. That is, if the experts who study the phrasal verb cannot prove why
a particular combination is not a phrasal verb, then it is unlikely that ESL
students will or will need to.
Such an approach, however, necessitates a standard for deciding
whether a combination should be discarded. Fortunately, this standard
seems to be well in place, as the definition of a phrasal verb presented
earlier is widely accepted. Combining the two parts yields the following
definition, which is deemed the standard in the discussion that follows: A
phrasal verb consists of a verb proper and a morphologically invariable

76 TESOL QUARTERLY
particle that function together as a single unit both lexically and
syntactically.
The other necessity for this approach is a set of criteria or tests based
on the standard that can be used to judge a potential phrasal verb’s
performance. We establish these tests by focusing on the idea of a single
unit expressed in the definition (which is the essence of the phrasal
verb). Using this focus, one can say that any test showing that the verb
proper and the particle in a potential phrasal verb are not functioning as
a single item, lexically or syntactically, has provided sufficient grounds
for exclusion. Such criteria are advantageous in that one needs only a
single test showing a division between a potential verb proper and
particle to eliminate it instead of having to use several tests and an
educated guess to determine if a verb + particle combination should be
included in the phrasal-verb category.
Note that when referring to “division” and “not functioning as a single
item,” we do not include the idea of separation discussed earlier, as it is
a characteristic of many transitive phrasal verbs. Here the discussion is
only of function, specifically syntactic and lexical function. As a means of
preventing any confusion between these ideas, we use the phrasal verb
divide up to describe the act of demonstrating that a verb + particle
combination is not functioning as a single unit syntactically or lexically,
whereas we continue to use the concept of separation to describe the
role of the phrasal verb in relation to the direct object.
Seven tests constitute this approach. Each focuses on semantics,
phonology, or syntax, although there is some overlap. Assuredly, other
tests exist, but those listed have served well; we tried and discarded
several others. Note that not all the tests apply to all combinations, nor
do they need to. Only one of the following tests is needed to divide up a
combination. If, however, a particular test yields unclear results, it should
be discarded for another that provides better results.

1. Particle repetition. Because the meaning of a particle is dependent on

its inclusion in a phrasal verb, the repetition of a particle without its verb
proper, other than in rare instances that call for contrast, is not
acceptable (Fraser, 1976, p. 2):

In
*I looked up, up, up your name.
*I looked up your name, up her name, and up his name.
*Bring on the music, on the wine, and on the merriment.

Prepositions and adverbs, on the other hand, may be repeated without

the verb:

GOING AFTER THE PHRASAL VERB 77

 Out
I looked up, up, up to the very highest point.
I looked up one aisle, then up the next.
They brought wine on one tray and cheeses on the next.

This test is useful in dividing up combinations like talk about (discuss) and
go on (continue), which initially seem to be phrasal verbs:

Out
We talked about life, about love, and about marriage.
He went on and on until I couldn’t stand it anymore.

2. Where questions. Because many particles resemble spatial adverbs,

asking where questions is often useful in determining the status of
potential particles because adverb and prepositional phrases are needed
to answer them. That is to say, if the particle retains its non-phrasal-verb
meaning, which it needs to in order to answer a where question, it is not
part of a phrasal verb. In the first example below, up retains its
non-phrasal-verb meaning, whereas in the second example it does not.
Hence, look up is a phrasal verb.

Out
He ran up the alley.
Where?
Up the alley.

In
I looked up the address.
Where did you look?
*Up the address.

3. Fronting. By definition, the particle in a phrasal verb follows the verb

proper, and in observing the characteristics of phrasal verbs, one finds
that inverting this normal order produces unacceptable utterances:

In
He made up a story.
*Up he made a story.
*Up a story he made.

78 TESOL QUARTERLY
In contrast, prepositional phrases and adverbs are often placed on either
side of the verb in acceptable sentences (Celce-Murcia & Larsen-Freeman,
1999):

Out
Up the tree he went.

Celce-Murcia and Larsen-Freeman (1999) have suggested two tech-

niques to implement the fronting test (p. 430). The first, phrase
fronting, is simply to begin the sentence with the particle, and the noun
phrase if there is one, as was done in the examples above. The second is
to form questions using an interrogative pronoun:

Out
I came across the river.
Across which river did you come?

In
I came across a dollar.
*Across which dollar did you come?

A third technique described by Celce-Murcia et al. (1996) is to use a

relative clause:

Out
The river across which you came is the Columbia.

In
*The dollar across which you came is mine.

4. Verb insertion. This test divides up a potential phrasal verb by inserting

an additional verb between the verb proper and the potential particle. If
the original combination is working as a single unit, then both verbs
proper cannot share the particle. Conversely, if the sentence stands with
the original verb proper not losing meaning, the original combination
has been divided up.

Out
He pulled on the lever, but it was stuck.
He pulled and jerked on the lever, but it was stuck.

GOING AFTER THE PHRASAL VERB 79

The sentence is acceptable because on is not working with pull or jerk as
phrasal verbs. In the following, foul steals the particle, forms foul up, and
leaves mess in a mess. That is, I really messed on my test differs greatly in
meaning from the original sentence. Hence, both foul up and mess up are
phrasal verbs.

In
I really messed up on my test.
*I really messed and fouled up on my test.

5. Adverb insertion. In our discussion of Bolinger’s (1971) tests, we noted

that adverbial insertion is problematic for the following reasons: Some
people are more willing to accept adverbial insertion in certain in-
stances, and almost everyone accepts the insertion of particle intensifiers.
However, with a few modifications, this test becomes useful, the reason
being that adverbs modify verbs that occur before or after them but not
constituents that occur on both sides. Therefore, in order to modify a
phrasal verb in its entirety, the adverb must lie outside the combination.
The problems associated with this test lie in the modification of the
particle, which is a partial modification of the phrasal verb. That is,
adverbs like all, right, straight, and the hell are intensifiers of the particle,
not of the entire phrasal verb. For this problem to be eliminated, two
things must be done. First, only adverbs ending in -ly should be used, and
second, following Fraser’s (1976) suggestion that the chances of separa-
tion decrease as the distance of separation increases, two adverbs should
be used. This makes the following unacceptable:

In
*The mine caved quickly and forcefully in.
*I came suddenly and unexpectedly across an interesting article.

The test, then, is to insert two -ly adverbs between the verb proper and
the particle of a potential phrasal verb. If the sentence is acceptable, the
combination is not a phrasal verb:

Out
They crept slowly and silently down the hall.

6. Stress. A phonological test based on Bolinger’s (1976) seventh test is

also useful in determining phrasal verbs. Bolinger notes that phrasal
verbs follow the typical stress patterns of many verbs, requiring some

80 TESOL QUARTERLY
degree of stress on the phrase-final syllable of the combination. This
pattern, of course, means the particle will receive some degree of stress.

In
She RAN UP a huge bill.

Knowing only this, one can conclude that any verb + particle combina-
tion whose particle can be completely reduced cannot be a phrasal verb.

Out
She RAN to the park.

7. Intonation units. This phonological test involves the insertion of a pause

between the verb proper and particle of a potential phrasal verb. In their
discussion of intonation in discourse, Celce-Murcia et al. (1996) refer to
Chafe’s (1980) notion that spoken English is divided into intonation
units that “correspond to phrases, clauses, or longer utterances that
reflect how speakers organize their thoughts” (p. 225) and are marked
by pauses before and after a single prominent element, an intonation
contour, and a grammatically coherent structure. They also note that
incorrectly placing pauses will lead to “difficulty in processing and
comprehending the overall message” (p. 176).
Using the above information, one can speculate that a phrasal verb
lies entirely within an intonation unit for the following two reasons: (a)
The intonation unit corresponds to phrases or larger elements, and the
entire phrasal verb is contained within the verb phrase; and (b) dividing
a phrasal verb into two intonation units would cause them both to lack
grammatical coherence because they would contain only part of the
verb. What this means is that a pause, which would mark the intonational
unit boundary, cannot be placed between the verb proper and particle of
a phrasal verb without an adverse effect on prosody and comprehension.
For demonstration, we denote a 1-second pause by a slash (/):

In
*I passed / out in the doctor’s office.

On the other hand, this pause insertion is permissible, if not neces-

sary, between verbs and preposition or adverbs:

Out
I hid / behind the door.

GOING AFTER THE PHRASAL VERB 81

CONCLUSION

We piloted these tests on 2,100 pages of introductory academic texts

(viz., world history, psychology, and sociology texts) and derived a list of
phrasal verbs freshman college students may need to know for their
reading assignments (Gray & Darwin, 1998). When we compared our list
of the 20 most frequently occurring phrasal verbs with the phrasal verbs
presented in a typical ESL grammar book (Raimes, 1990), we found that
students using the grammar book would have the opportunity to learn
only 3 of the 20 phrasal verbs on our list. This comparison is not meant
to show the shortcomings of a grammar book but rather to suggest that
this new approach will help determine purposefully which phrasal verbs
to present to ESL students in order to eliminate the confusion previously
mentioned.
In closing, we note that the alternative approach to phrasal-verb
classification presented here is really nothing new. It is simply an
adjustment of the perspectives of work already accomplished. Our hope
is that by using this alternative approach, those who study and teach
phrasal verbs will be able to establish clearer guidelines for and reach an
agreement on the classification of verb + particle combinations. This
would be a great advancement in the field of ESL.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We thank the anonymous reviewers of the original manuscript for their helpful
suggestions and encouragement.

THE AUTHORS
Clayton M. Darwin, who holds an MA in English/TESL from Central Washington
University, has taught most recently as a Professor of English at Instituto Tecnológico
y de Estudios Superiores, Campus Siniloa (Mexico). Currently he is a research
assistant and doctoral student in linguistics at the University of Georgia, Athens.

Loretta S. Gray, Associate Professor of English, teaches composition and applied

linguistics at Central Washington University. She is the author of the series Mastering
Idiomatic English (National Textbook Co.).

REFERENCES
Bolinger, D (1971). The phrasal verb in English. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Brinton, L. (1988). The development of English aspectual systems. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Celce-Murcia, M., Brinton, D. J., & Goodwin, J. M. (1996). Teaching pronunciation: A

82 TESOL QUARTERLY
 reference for teachers of English to speakers of other languages. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Celce-Murcia, M., & Larsen-Freeman, D. (1999). The grammar book: An ESL/EFL
teacher’s course (2nd ed.). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Chafe, W. (1980). The pear stories III: Advances in discourse processes. Norwood, NJ:
Ablex.
Cornell, A. (1985). Realistic goals in teaching and learning phrasal verbs. Interna-
tional Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 23, 269–280.
Dagut, M., & Laufer, B. (1985). Avoidance of phrasal verbs: A case for contrastive
analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 7, 73–79.
Frank, M. (1993). Modern English: A practical reference guide (2nd ed.). Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Regents/Prentice Hall.
Fraser, B. (1976). The verb-particle combination in English. New York: Academic Press.
Gray, L., & Darwin, C. (1998, March). Frequently used phrasal verbs in freshman texts.
Paper presented at the 32nd Annual TESOL Convention, Seattle, WA.
Hulstijn, J. H., & Marchena, E. (1989). Avoidance: Grammatical or semantic? Studies
in Second Language Acquisition, 11, 241–252.
Jackendoff, R. (1997). Twistin’ the night away. Language, 73, 534–559.
Kennedy, A. G. (1920). The modern English verb-adverb combination. Stanford, CA:
Stanford University Press.
Kilby, D. (1984). Descriptive syntax and the English verb. Dover, England: Croom Helm.
Laufer, B., & Eliasson, S. (1993). What causes avoidance in L2 learning: L1-L2
difference, L1-L2 similarity, or L2 complexity? Studies in Second Language Acquisi-
tion, 15, 35–48.
Lees, R. B. (1963). The grammar of nominalizations. The Hague, Netherlands: Mouton.
McArthur, R. (1989). The long-neglected phrasal verb. English Today, 185, 38–44.
O’Dowd, E. (1994). Prepositions and particles in English: A discourse-based, unifying
account. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Colorado, Boulder.
Palmer, F. R. (1968). A linguistic study of the English verb. Coral Gables, FL: University
of Miami Press.
Quirk, R., & Greenbaum, S. (1990). A student’s grammar of the English language. Essex,
England: Longman.
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of
the English language. New York: Longman.
Raimes, A. (1990). How English works: A grammar handbook with readings. New York: St.
Martin’s Press.
Side, R. (1990). Phrasal verbs: Sorting them out. English Language Teaching Journal,
44, 144–152.

GOING AFTER THE PHRASAL VERB 83