Teaching multi-word verbs (MWVs)
If you have followed the language analysis guide to multi-word verbs you will be aware that it is not always easy to disentangle the 3 sorts of these:
- phrasal verbs which can be intransitive (e.g., Look out!) or transitive and must be separated by the pronoun (e.g., look it up)
- prepositional verbs which are not separable and can be transitive (e.g., account for) or transitive and intransitive, with or without the preposition (e.g., insist and insist on)
- phrasal-prepositional verbs which work similarly (e.g., run out of, look forward to)
Before you go on,
you should have the distinctions clear in your head.
You should also be clear why the verb in He turned down the lane
is not a multi-word verb but the one in He turned down the offer
is.
You have to understand this area before you can hope to teach it
successfully.
Why are MWVs difficult for learners? |
One obvious reason is that lots of languages don't have them.
Something like MWVs do exist in a number of Germanic languages (of which
English is one) so learners with those languages will not be surprised
by them. Usually, in these languages, these sorts of verbs are
simply called separable verbs. There is some evidence of a few
verb + particle combinations in Polish, Italian, Spanish and French but
they are not of the type of complexity and commonness we find in
English.
Other languages (Japanese and Hindi, for example) do exhibit something
called compound verbs made up of two related words but they are a far
cry from multi-word verbs in English.
In summary, most learners of English will find MWVs novel and taxing to
learn.
Here is an example of MWVs in action, taken from the language analysis guide:
Pattern 1 | verb phrase | + | particle | + | object noun |
He pushed | + | up | + | the lever | |
Pattern 2 | verb phrase | + | particle | + | object pronoun |
He pushed | + | for | + | it | |
Pattern 3 | verb phrase | + | object noun | + | particle |
He pushed | + | the boat | + | away | |
Pattern 4 | verb phrase | + | object pronoun | + | particle |
He pushed | + | them | + | over |
Think for a moment and come up with one problem relating to form and
one to meaning which will make this sort of language difficult for
learners. If you can think of more than one problem in each
section, that's good.
Click here when you are ready.
Form problems |
-
Separability
We can have
He pulled up the lever
and
He pulled the lever up
but
*He pushed it for
and
*He pushed over them
are not possible (and
?He pushed away the boat
is a slightly doubtful case.
Learners have to know a) what sorts of MWVs are separable and b) what can be used to separate the verb from its particle.
A phrasal verb, strictly speaking, must be separated from its particle when the object is a pronoun. We can't have
*He looked up it in the dictionary
When the object is not a pronoun, the verb can optionally be separated so we can have either
He looked the word up
or
He looked up the word.
A prepositional verb, on the other hand, is not separated from its particle by the object at all so we can't have
*He looked it at
or
*He looked the timetable at
The same applies to phrasal-prepositional verbs such as run out of.
That's just hard to learn.
The result of the complication is that learners will separate when they shouldn't or not separate when they should. -
Transitivity
We can have
He pulled up the lever
and
He pulled up at the parking space
but intransitivity in the second case changes the verb's meaning.
Intransitive phrasal verbs (such as those in
The plane took off
The car broke down
Get up early
etc.) are possibly easier to learn because there's no problem with separability of course, but remembering which particle goes with which for each meaning is still difficult. There is a problem with the inappropriate insertion of adverbs:
*He's growing quickly up
However, prepositional verbs are a different matter.
Some are always transitive and take their particle with them wherever they go. For example, rely on, account for and long for are always transitive and occur with the prepositions.
Others are less accommodating. For example, insist, object and complain can be used intransitively
I insisted / objected / complained
but when they take an object, learners need to remember which preposition to tack on to the verb (on, to, about, respectively).
One result of this complication is that learners may pick the wrong particle. If I can say
The inscription wore away
why can't I say
*The painkiller wore away?
Another result is that learners will use intransitive verbs transitively
*I insisted the changes
*I argued him
and the other way around
*I relied for the information
Often, this is because transitivity is variable across even closely related languages.
To add fuel to the fire, many verbs can be used both ways. For example, something can blow up and you can blow something up. Some will also change the meaning when transitivity changes: work out means to discover something when it's transitive but means either exercise or succeed when it's used intransitively. -
Pronunciation
In MWVs we do not usually reduce the vowel in the particle to its weak form. Compare the pronunciation of for in
He waited for ages
and
He waited for his friend. -
Where does the verb stop?
It's not always easy for learners to identify which bit is the MWV and which is a following prepositional phrase. In something like
He pulled up by the church
some might be tempted to try to learn pull up by as a MWV and produce
*He pulled up by outside
After all, we can have three-part phrasal-prepositional verbs such as get on with, stick up for and put up with so it's not a mysterious error. The reason for it is that the learner has not recognised that by the church is a prepositional phrase replaceable by many others (in the garden, on the bridge, outside the police station etc.) and up here is an adverb particle. Telling learners about prepositions and adverbs is rarely productive. It's better to make sure that the presentation and practice make the distinctions clear – context and co-text, yet again. -
Where is the verb?
This appears under Form but could just as well be under Meaning. Consider a sentence like
They had to give their dream of saving up enough money to buy their first house in London up
The main verb here is give up but the object (the dream) separates the particle from the verb by 14 words. There's also another MWV in the sentence to confuse the learner.
Meaning problems |
-
Noncompositionality
That's a nice, long technical word which simply means that many MWVs cannot be understood by knowing the meaning of the verb and the usual significance of the particle. This is not always true: some MWVs are transparent in meaning and some are wholly opaque but most fall somewhere in between.
For example,
Look at the cat
can be readily understood, as can
Load up the car
but
Don't put up with it
is probably completely opaque and
Stand by your decision
is only interpreted with some understanding of metaphorical use. The fact of the matter is that most so-called opaque meanings can be traced to a more transparent use of the MWV, often a prepositional verb which has evolved other meanings. -
Polysemy
While not unique to MWVs, of course, multiple meanings of a single item can cause problems. For example, give in can be used transitively to mean hand in (an essay, for example) and intransitively to mean surrender. In the same way, we can have
I'll break down the figures
and
The car broke down
This problem is also one of form because the meaning in which the verb is used may affect transitivity and separability. See above under transitivity for another example.
This also applies to the particles. For example, the distinction between I give up and I give in is sometimes so subtle as to be almost invisible. -
Style
It is often stated that MWVs are stylistically less formal than any one-word equivalents. That's often true but not always the case. Corpus research has done much to explode this myth. MWVs appear in even the most formal academic texts and, in any case, there isn't always a one-word equivalent for some MWVs. For example, what one-word equivalent can you think of for slow down, take off (clothes), deal with, consist of?
A term such as slow down, for example, is just as likely to appear in an academic text as an informal text. In fact, decelerate, is really very uncommon. The truth of the matter is that MWVs are not some kind of substandard colloquialisms; they are important and indispensable lexemes in their own right.
Learners who have been told that MWVs are always informal may be tempted to produce pompous prose such as
She donned her track suit
rather than using put on in a natural way.
On the other hand, in an effort to substitute a one-word equivalent and avoid using a MWV at all, learners can also sound overly formal and distant.
The moral: don't give learners half-truths. Treat each item in terms of its style as you would for any lexis. -
Collocation
Allied to the style issue is the one of collocation. Many MWVs and their one-word 'equivalents' collocate very differently. For example, this is OK:
He decelerated coming into the hairpin
but this is not acceptable:
*He knew he was talking too fast for me to understand so he decelerated
As another example, you can call off a wedding, a party, a meeting and a trip but you can't call off a holiday or a private lesson. Then you have to use cancel.
Teaching multi-word verbs |
Don't do it! |
There's quite a strong argument in favour of not deliberately focusing on MWVs at all but treating them as and when they arise in the same way as any other lexeme. This view is based on some underlying beliefs:
- that MWVs are so complex in form and meaning that any lesson which attempts to cover the ground is doomed to fail
- that learners will become disheartened and demoralised by the sheer number of form and meaning complexities
- that focusing on a single verb such as set and then adding particles to it (set off, set up, set by etc.) will actually encourage confusion
- that, equally, focusing on a particle and then on verbs that go with it (set down, bring down, put down, hold down etc.) will be confusing
What counter arguments can you develop for these four views? Think for a moment and then click here.
Here are some thoughts:
- Yes, MWVs are complex but so are a number of structures in every language (tense forms and affixation rules in English, cases in German, irregular verbs in Greek etc.) but that doesn't stop you teaching them. It's just a matter of breaking things down and teaching bit by bit
- If this is true, then we wouldn't teach words at all. There are millions of them and they nearly all have associated grammar and collocational issues
- This may be true if you overdo it (as some coursebooks do) but teaching sets such as drive off, drive back, drive away, drive over, drive by etc. makes perfect sense in terms of how the brain stores concepts together
- But actually, as we saw, the particles often do have similar meanings with a range of verbs. For example, off is usually associated with a concept of detachment or separation in verbs like break off (a piece), put off (a meeting), switch off (a light), turn off (a tap), take off (leave the ground), call off (a dog), clear off (go away) etc.
Even if you take the first view, you are going to have to deal with MWVs in some way or other. If you take the second view, i.e., that we should focus on this important and difficult area explicitly, then we need some strategies to help. Here are some ideas.
Plan and focus |
There's little point in planning a lesson which includes separable, transitive, prepositional, phrasal and phrasal-prepositional verbs all in the same materials – that will confuse your learners. So introduce verbs which share formal characteristics together.
- Dealing with separability and intransitivity.
Idea 1
You could focus a lesson on transitive prepositional verbs such as abstain from, comment on, quarrel about, react to and talk about in a lesson on the topic of friends meeting and talking to plan an event or a formal meeting to discuss a local problem or whatever. It's not difficult to develop a text containing them if the context is clear. For example:
They met to talk about the party they were planning for John's 50th but soon began quarrelling about whether it should be a surprise or not. Mary, in particular reacted badly to the idea saying that John hated being surprised by events like this ... etc.
All these prepositional verbs share a common structure: they are both transitive and inseparable. Your learners will not be tempted into mistakes such as
*They talked the problem about
by analogy with a transitive separable verb such as in
They tossed the ball about. - Dealing with separability and intransitivity.
Idea 2
Equally, you could plan a lesson which does focus on separability of transitive MWVs such as call off, think through, call up, count in, pass on, set up etc. and the same idea of planning a party for someone would work well as a topic to hang it on along the lines of:
They decided not to give the party idea up but to set it up for the following Saturday. Unfortunately, they had to call the event off when it was clear ... etc.
All these phrasal verbs share a common structure: they are both transitive and separable. - Dealing with noncompositionality.
Idea 1
Focus on a particle, such as the example of off above, and choose to introduce verbs which show the gradual transition from literal to metaphorical meaning.
For example, for the idea of progress towards a target, you could select get on, then go on, then carry on, then keep on, then move on then hurry on. The idea that on often has the sense of towards a goal (but some meanings are slightly metaphorical) is easy to grasp.
Later, you could select another meaning of on, that of connection or joining, and introduce tie on, stick on, turn on, switch on, hold on etc. If you look at the final table in the analysis guide, you'll find some more candidates.
Although it looks nice, the following sort of presentation is flawed
for two reasons:
a) we actually have multiple meanings of the particle out (exit, emerge, clearness, disappearance) and
b) there's no exemplification or context to help the learners.
There's nothing wrong in principle with this kind of presentation or in getting your students to construct one but you have to maintain focus and contextualise with examples. It would be better like this
because here we have one meaning only of out (the idea of making something disappear or go away) and there are examples to help the learners. - Dealing with noncompositionality.
Idea 2
If you focus on a verb rather than a particle then you need to show the connected meanings of the particles in the same way. You can, for example use the sense of break (as in destroy or interrupt) to show how the particles alter its meaning with, e.g.:
break into a meeting
break out of a meeting
break up a meeting
and then go on to try a different verb such as call with
call someone up
call on someone
call someone in
etc. There are (in)separability issues with this approach with both verbs.
You can use the same kind of presentation (or get your learners to construct one) as above but again, you need to keep the focus and exemplify. - Dealing with polysemy
Try to make sure that the materials you use don't confuse, especially at early stages. It may be tempting to add, when explaining
The car broke down
"But understand that this verb can be used with an object to mean something completely different, you know."
That's very rarely helpful. Make sure you have context and co-text to help understanding. - Dealing with collocation and style
Not telling learners that MWVs are always informal is a good beginning (see above).
When you do use the one-word equivalent to explain, e.g., the meaning of speed up as accelerate, make sure that you focus on the fact that you can't accelerate your speaking or reading but you can accelerate a car or an object in a physics lesson. - Remembering the particles
Intransitive phrasal verbs and transitive prepositional verbs are not separable. In the first case, of course, because they have no object. This means they can be taught, practised and remembered as single items.
There's no need to teach people that
I wake up at six every morning
is an example of wake plus an adverb particle. It, along with a host of other verbs can be taught as a single word with a space in the middle.
Equally, rely on, account for, talk about etc. can be taught and practised as if they were single words.
Doing this may help your learners not to separate the verbs with other adverbs and say things like
*I get early up
*She relies definitely on him
and so on.
It is possible to use adverbs in this way
She talked loudly about ...
but never necessary so why confuse people when they are acquiring the system? Such subtleties can wait till advanced levels (or even longer). - Finding the verb.
Idea 1
If you are dealing with a complex expression such as
He dropped me off by the cinema
get students to notice the difference between a preposition introducing a phrase such as by the cinema and get them to come up with alternatives (near, next to, opposite the cinema etc.).
That will help them to understand that drop off is actually the verb they should learn. - Finding the verb.
Idea 2
The problem of verbs being separated by lots of text from their adverb such as the example above
They had to give their dream of saving up enough money to buy their first house in London up
is not easy to tackle but once the learners are alerted to the fact that the meaning of the main verb is relinquish, they can begin to look for the MWV that they know. Exposure to already known MWVs in this kind of environment is useful but if the MWV is not known it's far too challenging to find it. Build up the challenge slowly and focus on simple ones that are already familiar in sentences such as
He handed his essay and mine in
He handed his essay and the ones that his classmates gave him in
He gave all the sweets and chocolate away
He gave all the sweets, the chocolate, the cakes and most of the rest of the food away
An alternative is to start with a 'normal' ordering such as
They had to give up their dream of saving up enough money to buy their first house in London
and then focus on the fact that it is possible to move the particle to the end without changing the meaning. Then get the students to do it with, e.g., a sentence or two like
He pointed out the new buildings and many of the other surprising changes in the city to me.
Practice of this sort will help learners to avoid panicking when they are reading texts that do this and to keep calm and look for the particle if the verb alone is making no sense.
Two cautions |
- MWVs, despite what is said above under problems of style, are
very common in spoken communication and it's tempting only to
introduce and practise them that way. Remember, however, that they are
difficult, especially for learners whose languages don't use
them (i.e., the majority) so it makes sense to introduce them
and practise them in writing before asking people to produce
them orally.
Learners need space and time to absorb hard concepts and forms. - Make sure that what you are dealing with actually
is a MWV. We started the analysis in
the guide with the distinction between
Turn down the lane
and
Turn down the offer.
Look carefully at lexemes that come up in a text or in a lesson and ask yourself if it really is a MWV.
She walked across the road
is not an instance of a MWV; it is the verb walk followed by a prepositional phrase telling you where and could be replaced with through the park, down the street, up the hill, over the bridge and many other phrases.
However, in
She walked me through the procedure
we are dealing with a MWV, meaning to show or guide, and if we substitute something else we change the meaning of the verb, e.g.:
She walked me over the road / through the park
meaning helped me or accompanied me.
If you don't do this, you will actually be wasting your learners' time getting them to remember walk across as if it were a single lexeme rather than being able to deploy prepositional phrases to say what they mean.
Materials |
Almost all coursebooks at appropriate levels will have something (often quite a lot) on MWVs. When assessing the value of materials think about:
- Is the material logically presented?
Does it jumble up different forms and structures – transitive and intransitive, phrasal and prepositional verbs, separable and inseparable verbs and so on? - If it focuses on a verb, does it make the meaning clear?
Does it use the verb to cover many different meanings? - If it focuses on particles, does it do so in a way which
shows a single significance, such as connection or superior
relationship etc. which will help learners to grasp its
essential meaning?
Does it jumble, say, up to mean 'higher' (bring up, hold up, look up to, sit up, set up etc.) with up meaning 'complete' as in clean up, blow up, cover up, finish up, clear up, lock up and wash up?
If the answer is yes to the second part of each of these three tests, don't use the material or, if you do use it, amend it in a way that makes it usable.
Related guide: | |
the first guide to MWVs | for the background analysis |
for a list of multi-word verbs | |
polysemy and homonymy | for more on extended meanings, metaphor and figurative uses of language |
the essential guide to MWVs | for a simpler guide to the area |
If you have recently taught a successful lesson in this area or have other ideas to share, why not send the materials to ELT Concourse? Click here to see how.