Another type of MWV which is also easily confused with PVs is the ‘free
combination’, which exhibits similar surface forms to PVs. The term ‘free
34
combination of a lexical verb and an adverb, where both elements have ‘distinct
meanings’. That is to say, the verb and the adverb each have their own meaning.
These are exemplified as He walked past (past the place) and I waded across (across
the river). Most importantly, the adverb can be substituted by other adverbs, e.g. He
walked past/along the place.
Researchers such as Dixon (1982) and Quirk et al. (1985) differentiate PVs from
‘free combinations’. Quirk et al. (1985:1152) list three methods to distinguish PVs
from free combinations. First of all, the meanings of PVs cannot usually be predicted
from the combination of the verb and the particle, while in free combinations they can
be inferred from the verb and the adverb. Moreover, unlike PVs which function like a
whole unit, both elements in free combinations, the verb and the adverb, have their
own meanings. Either of them can be substituted by other lexical items, for instance,
put + down/outside/away; take/turn/bring + out. It is also possible to insert an adverb
such as right or straight between the adverb and the verb in free combinations, but
this is unacceptable for PVs, e.g. go right on, walk straight in. Another syntactic
characteristic is also suggested to differentiate PVs and free combinations: the
possibility of positioning the adverb in the first place in a subject-verb inversion
35
Unfortunately, these methods are not without their problems. First, although the
constituents in a PV cannot normally be replaced, in fact, there are some possible
substitutions in an authentic PV such as turn out the light. Both the verb and the
particle here can be replaced by other words (Quirk et al., 1985:1154):
Let’s switch it off.
Let’s put it down.
Second, there are also some ambiguous cases which cannot account for the last
criterion satisfactorily. It is generally true that a free combination allows the particle
to be fronted, but a rare case such as *Away they chattered is not acceptable (Quirk et
al., 1985:1153). Third, among the examples of ‘free combinations’ given by Quirk et
al. (1985:1152-1153, 1162) such as go on, drink up, walk in, come out, chatter away,
bring in, take out, etc., some instances e.g. drink up, chatter away, are
‘semi-idiomatic constructions’ (ibid: 1162). The boundary is not clear when these
instances are concerned. Moreover, with the same form, some PVs can act transitively
or intransitively in different meanings, for example, give in = yield, but give
something in = hand in. This further complicates the judgment of PVs and free
36
Furthermore, in Quirk et al.’s (1985:1152) opinion, the most distinctive
characteristic a free combination has that distinguishes it from a phrasal verb is that a
PV is a whole unit with an unpredictable meaning. Such a distinction is not valid,
because PVs are not always opaque. Some PVs are literal and transparent, which
means that their meaning can be interpreted easily. For example, sit down is such a
literal PV but not a free combination. Although, like a free combination, it is
unidiomatic and denotes a direction of motion, the verb and the particle cannot be
substituted freely in that given sense. The bond between sit and down is tighter than
that between put and down in Please put the cup down. As these differentiation
methods can fail, careful examination is required when attempting to distinguish PVs
from free combinations.
Therefore researchers like Celce-Murcia and Larsen-Freeman (1999), Biber et al.
(1999:403) and Lam (2003:76) consider free combinations and PVs as one group.
Celce-Murcia and Larsen-Freeman (1999:267) do not state explicitly that they
intended to combine the two constructions, but they regard the free combination throw
away (the ball) as a phrasal verb example, which suggests that they were combining
the two. Biber et al. (1999:403) warn that free combinations cannot practically be
37
curtain) down and blow the place up together because he considered them to be “close
enough”. He also observes that free combinations are usually not listed in the
dictionaries of PVs because they are not regarded as real PVs, or because of the huge
number of possible free combinations which makes it unnecessary to list them (Lam,
2003:80).
I agree with these researchers that free combinations and PVs are not separable.
Researchers (Dixon (1982) and Quirk et al. (1985), as seen above) who advocate
dividing these two groups are based on idiomaticity/opaqueness or
wholeness/in-substitutability. As regards idiomaticity, Lindner (1983, cited in Lam,
2003:80) also argues that free combinations and PVs are just the two ends of the
continuum of idiomaticity. It does not make sense to divide one family into two
groups. Regarding in-substitutability, we have seen earlier that some exceptions break
the rules. In consequence, it is better to discuss these two groups as one.