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