Search results for 'tag:Phrasal verbs tag:Vocabulary' matching tags 'Phrasal verbs' and 'Vocabulary'

Test, FCE, phrasal verb "take"

Fandorin — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 20:23:44 GMT

Hi there. There is a quiz from book "Grammar and vocabulary for First Certificate", preparing for the ESOL First Certificate in English (FCE) (Cambridge University) . It's extracted from one module, devoted to Phrasal Verbs : take. It implies upper-intermediate level. I hope it would be useful.

1.[test] We ought to get rid og this table, it takes "up|out|on|off|after|in|back|to" far too much space.
2. If you're hot, you can take "off|out|on|up|after|in|back|to" you jacket.
3.This meat can't be fresh, it smells awful - I'm taking it "back|out|on|off|after|in|up|to" to the butcher.
4.John has always been difficult - he must take "after|out|on|off|up|in|back|to" his dad.
5. You shouldn't take "on|out|up|off|after|in|back|to" more responsobilities you can handle.
6. It must be difficult to give "up|out|on|off|after|in|back|to" teaching in order to travel.
7.We'll need to take "on|out|up|off|after|in|back|to" some temporary teachers for the summer.
8. She took "off|out|on|up|after|in|back|to" her glasses when she had her photograph taken.
9. He was such a charmer - he took me "in|up|out|on|off|after|to|back" completely.
10. Rachel took me "out|up|on|off|after|in|back|to" to lunch.[/test]

Re: a question for all native speakers of English

CalifJim — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 18:17:35 GMT

Anonymous
Have you ever come across words or vocabulary or slang or phrasal verbs in your everyday conversation or in the newspapers or movies or songs that you don't know or understand their meanings that you have to guess? Are there a lot of them you don't know?

Yes, it occasionally happens to me, but not often. Usually it's an unusual new word invented by teenagers. Since I seldom converse with teenagers, it hardly ever happens.

As for newspapers, I sometimes come acoss technical terms that are unfamiliar to me.

a question for all native speakers of English

Anonymous — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 17:45:16 GMT

Have you ever come across words or vocabulary or slang or phrasal verbs in your everyday conversation or in the newspapers or movies or songs that you don't know or understand their meanings that you have to guess? Are there a lot of them you don't know?

Re: English for dentists

Anonymous — Fri, 02 May 2008 13:53:24 GMT

There is lots of profession specific language in all medical fields. This includes the obvious things such as vocabulary but also grammar such as phrasal verbs e.g.

Dentist: Oh yes, that tooth has got to be removed. I can see why it's given you so much pain.

Patient: Can you just get it out!

Re: I confuse myself when i try to use phrasal verbs in conversation!!

Mister Micawber — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 08:30:48 GMT

Acquiring phrasal verbs is no different from acquiring any other vocabulary: listen, use, practice, review.

Re: Correspond to + verb + ing??

Anonymous — Fri, 17 Aug 2007 15:58:14 GMT

Thanks for your kind explanation. The propositional verb has been a headache for me for so long.

I wonder if you or anybody can tell me what is "dictionary form of the verb" and what is a phrasal verb. I was taught that "agree to do" is a phrase, but to me here "agree" and "do" both are verbs, there is no way for me to identify the function of "to" in this phrasal verb but to memorize!! That is hard for a foreigner.

And there are so many phrasal verbs in English (not to mention the vocabulary).If I cannot get the phrasal verb right, I can never speak good English.

Re: serious / deep

Diamondrg — Mon, 28 May 2007 00:14:25 GMT

Mister Micawber wrote:

If the test is anything like the ETS tests (TOEFL, etc), Clive, then it tests both grammar and vocabulary. The TOEIC section offers the two types of questions in a roughly 50/50 ratio.

It is among the vocabulary set. The section which this question is in consists of 18 questions. 10 vocabulary questions (2 nouns, 2 adjectives, 2 adverbs, 2 verbs, 2 phrasal verbs] and the rest is grammar. So it is fixed. Maybe I should have posted it in the vocabulary section.

Re: Is grammar essential for learning a language?

CalifJim — Wed, 11 Apr 2007 20:32:51 GMT

"Grammar and exercises are only requirements of the syllabus, not of learning a language. Did you learn the grammar of your mother-tongue when you were acquiring it? Most of you may still not know the grammar of your mother-tongue but you speak it effortlessly."

If grammar means identifying the names of parts of speech, the names of the tenses, and that sort of knowledge of terminology (Past Perfect Progressive), then this is certainly not a requirement of learning a language.
If grammar means the knowledge of which words and word-forms go together to make coherent communications within a language, even if instinctively applied, then I think we'd have to say that grammar is a requirement of some kind.

I agree that I did not learn the grammar of my mother-tongue when I was acquiring it -- in the first sense of 'grammar'.
I do think, however, that I "learned"/acquired the grammar of my mother-tongue when I was acquiring it -- in the second sense of 'grammar'. In fact, except for vocabulary, which is a simple matter of stimulus-response, it seems to me that the acquistion of a language IS the acquisition of its grammar.

It is believed that between the ages of six and ten, the cells in the language acquistion portion of the brain die off or take on a different function, so that it is impossible to acquire language after approximately age 10, certainly after puberty. Remember that the acquistion of language is like birds "learning" to fly. They don't exactly study a flight manual before taking off on their first flight!

Nevertheless, though the language acquisition window closes around puberty, most likely for biological reasons, and we may no longer be able to acquire a new language, we can certainly still learn one. At this point, we are usually forced to use a lot of artificial techniques to help us. The logic of a language is no longer as easily grasped instinctively, but must be, we might almost say, 'computed', at least in the beginning stages. The rules for these 'computations' are called grammar. The 'computation' is not thinking within language but thinking about language, examining language somewhat more objectively than is typical within the language we first acquired. Sometimes the computational aspect is presented very formally to the learner. In such systems there is an underlying belief (in the mind of the instuctors) that the terminology is so useful in explaining the grammatical machinery that it cannot be dispensed with. In other methodologies a more flexible approach is used, sometimes out of fear of the very real possibility (I think) that knowledge of the terminology will be seen as more important than the ability to express oneself in the target language.

Regardless of how formal or informal, or how rigid or flexible the presentation, I don't see how anyone can learn a language without exercises, despite the obvious fact that we all acquired one without exercises. We can't expect our muscles to grow strong without exercise, and the failure of some to see the analogy with mental activity is quite puzzling. And the exercises that are needed are language exercises (practicing using the language), not grammar exercises (practicing using the terminology of grammar). I find it disheartening to see questions on this very forum in which it is obvious that students must negotiate the fine points of the terminology: Is this a participle acting as a noun acting as an adverbial complement of a phrasal verb used idiomatically or is this a progressive tense in the passive voice accompanied by an adverbial dependent clause of concession? Apparently, within the educational system of such students these matters pass as learning English. So in that sense, I'm against 'exercises'!

In any case, the struggle for the learner is always making the conversion from 'computing' utterances (assembling them by applying grammatical rules) to generating meaningful utterances spontaneously. The more role models the learners have, whether in terms of number of speakers they have contact with or in terms of the number of written and spoken resources they have available, the smoother the transition. At the extreme, if the learner is thrown into a sink-or-swim situation -- immersion -- it may be possible to shortcut the 'computational' period considerably. The final goal is the same in any case: meaningful language that is automatically produced and instinctively felt without any further consciousness of or need for the 'computational' (grammatical) aspects which were so prominent and necessary in the learning stages.

In summary, I believe the author of the quote above is taking grammar to mean excessive preoccupation with terminology and exercises to mean exercises designed to learn the terminology of grammar. Taken in this way, I must agree with the author. Of course, it is possible to interpret those words differently, which is why the statement has generated so many comments. I prefer to give the author the benefit of the doubt and say that he or she was merely describing an approach which concentrates more on the target language and less on the terminology.

CJ

Re: Is by an adverb or a preposition in "laid by"?

Aperisic — Fri, 11 Aug 2006 10:36:31 GMT

Grammar Geek wrote:

So "to lay by" is a phrasal verb meaning "to store away"? New vocabulary for me!

But anyway, when you have a phrasal verb like that (or like "look up" (as a word in a dictionary) or "write down") - do the prepositions act like normal prepositions, or because they are inextricably linked to the verb, are they just treated as if they were part of the verb itself?

A particle in phrasal verbs

A particle after the phrasal verb could be

preposition (speak for...)
adverb (look up, write down...)

(Sometimes there are two particles but it is adverb + preposition combination.)

Both adverb and preposition change the meaning of a main verb in such a manner that without the particle the meaning of the verb would not be the same (or at least the meaning would not be stressed the same way).

Thus, an adverb or preposition is the essential part of a phrasal verb.

When we have a preposition

A preposition changes a verb in such a manner that without it almost always you can't know what the verb means at the end. The meaning of a phrasal verb is strongly divided between the verb and the particle and the two are inseparable. Next, we have a preposition when an object is needed and always and without exception is placed after the particle. [If we can still separate a particle and a verb with an object it is only because we have two objects (preface with: I'll preface the question with an explanation).]

speak for - to act as a representative

I'll speak for you.

speak - talk

for - instead of

Without a preposition:

I'll speak you ??? not only that it does not have the same meaning it does not have a meaning at all.

close on - to make a distance shorter

I close on him.

close - to put in a separate space

on - continuing + connecting + attacking

I close him - I put him in a separate space, different meaning

When we have an adverb

We have an adverb when the verb holds the main part of the meaning. Its particle makes this meaning more precise or special. That is why, very frequently, we can place an object (especially pronouns) between a verb and its particle. In this case a particle defines a direction of action, the end or delay of action, space of action, action timing... (We could say that particle defines a vector of action :o) After an adverb in the phrasal verb we can place a regular preposition in the sentence as with any other verb.

pay back - repay, take revenge

I pay back for everything.

pay - settle debt

back - in return

I pay for everything - still defines well that I settle debt, but says nothing why or to whom.

patch up - to repair (temporarily)

I will patch it up.

patch - fix, arrange

up - improving + constructing + finishing + delaying

I patch it - still defines that I fix something, but it does not say that it is quickly or probably temporarily

When a verb has a figurative meaning

Sometimes verb itself has a figurative meaning. This has nothing to do with a phrasal verb formation, though it can create difficulties in deciding what is what.

harp on - chatter annoyingly

harp - a noun not a verb, a large string instrument

on - continuation

hawk about - to try to sell something around

hawk - attack, hunt

about - around the place

These cases are rare, do not break the rules, and frequently belong to idioms.

A particle as an adverb or as a preposition

Sometimes the same particle serves as an adverb and as a preposition. However, this happens only when we have a regular phrasal verb with a preposition that has a meaning even without any object added

I'll get off bus. (off is a preposition, test1: I'll get bus ??? test2: I'll get bus off ???)

I'll get off here. (off is an adverb)

The wine soaked through the cotton. (through is a preposition, test1: The wine soaked the cotton. not the same meaning; test2: The wine soaked the cotton through. No, through says about a direction of action)

The wine soaked through and now it is gone. (through is an adverb)

Final note

A particle is always an essential part of the phrasal verb. In case a particle is a preposition it is so inseparable both in meaning and in position that we can consider them both together as one logical unit. In case a particle is an adverb the connection is not so strong and very frequently we can place an object between a verb and a particle (in case an object is a pronoun we have to do so). If a particle is an adverb it gives a precise definition of place, time, sense... of action, but the name of the action is contained in the verb. The position of an object is very important for a phrasal verb. If we can place an object between a particle and a verb (or a phrasal verb does not require an object at all) a particle is an adverb. [A double-object case is an exception.]

If you note that a particle added to a verb works on its own and does not follow any of the rules given here, it is probably not a phrasal verb at all.

Lay by case

Lay by is a phrasal verb.

Lay is a major action - to leave, put, set

by - defines place and time aside + postpone

Thus, lay by is in a group of phrasal verbs with adverbs and a normal usage of such verbs is

lay something by
lay by something

Source of confusion:

one can confuse lay and lie especially if past form is used (laid)
by is used in a passive form
by means near, next to
lay by is not as frequent as its synonym lay aside (Usually in discussions or dictionaries, you place both versions this way: lay something aside/by)

Thus, to use an example with lay by to explain to anyone how to use, anyhow a very complex subject of, phrasal verbs is a crime against humanity. Every normal person (including me) would think that by in laid by the crops is a preposition. I object such an attempt of teaching gravely. Additionally, it is a trick because a normal order of words of a phrasal verb is laid the crops by, and lay by is no exception.

In any case, I beg you, do not use laid by the crops to learn anything about phrasal verbs. You are going to confuse everything. It is not simple anything about phrasal verbs, I agree, but it is not infeasible either. Start with simple cases as given here above.

Re: Is by an adverb or a preposition in "laid by"?

Grammar Geek — Fri, 11 Aug 2006 01:08:29 GMT

So "to lay by" is a phrasal verb meaning "to store away"? New vocabulary for me!

But anyway, when you have a phrasal verb like that (or like "look up" (as a word in a dictionary) or "write down") - do the prepositions act like normal prepositions, or because they are inextricably linked to the verb, are they just treated as if they were part of the verb itself?