• The following sections of A Comprehensive Grammar of The English Language (Randolph Quirk, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech, Jan Svartik, Longman, London & New York, 1985) were consulted in preparing this entry:
Type I prepositional verbs
16.5, 1155-56
prepositional verbs contrasted with phrasal verbs
16.6, 1156-57
Type II prepositional verbs
16.7, 1168-69
also see sections:
16.10-15, 1161-66
• For general information on phrasal verbs see the entry: phrasal verbs.
• For general information on multi-word verbs (of which phrasal verbs are one type) see the entry: multi-word verbs.
note on alternative analysis of clauses with prepositional verbs:
• As well as being analyzable in the way suggested in the prepositional verb entry, a clause like Harry was listening to the ”Moonlight Sonata” can be analyzed in the following way:
[Harry] (was listening) <to the “Moonlight Sonata” >
subject
verb phrase
adverbial (prepositional phrase)
• And a similar analysis, i.e. subject + verb phrase + object + adverbial, can be made of clauses with ditransitive prepositional verbs.
• The existence of these two analyses is discussed by Quirk, et.al., ibid., 16.5, p.1156. They point out that the s + v + adv analysis is preferable in that it supports the frequent possibility of an “adverbial assertion” such as, Harry listened carefully to the “Moonlight Sonata“, but they also point out that the s + v + o analysis has the merit of supporting the “resemblance” between (to use their examples) She looked after her son, and, She tended her son. From the point of view of ESL instruction, this aspect of the s + v + o analysis seems to outweigh by far any advantages that the s + v + a analysis might have.