Parts of Speech: 3. Particles

What exactly are “particles,” relative to English language? 

They are the little words that are part of what are sometimes called “phrasal verbs”: the off in “take off,” the down in “sit down,” and so on. Some grammarians say “particles” are a part of speech, and include in the category any word that cannot be classified easily as a noun, pronoun, verb, adverb, adjective, conjunction, article, or interjection. 

It is true that there are some words that do not instantly leap into established categories—and are easy to throw into a pile called “particles.” That category can be useful when one is teaching linguistics, or teaching English as a second language, or teaching prospective tourists Italian idioms. . . .


But the category “particles,” in a serious discussion of English grammar, reminds Ms. Picky of her own personal file folders: “Finance,” “Anglo-Indian Silver,” “Legal Documents,” “Gites in Provence,” “Love Letters,” and—unfortunately the largest—“Miscellaneous.” Every once in a while, of course, she  must tackle the “Miscellaneous” folder, because the folder’s contents aren’t really miscellaneous at all, and need to be systematically dispersed among the other folders.


Using “particles” as a category for parts of speech is like putting papers in the “Miscellaneous” folder. Let’s take a closer look.

Wikipedia speaks of grammatical particles: 
“In grammar, a particle is a function word that does not belong to any of the inflected grammatical word classes (such as nouns, pronouns, verbs, or articles). It is a catch-all term for a heterogeneous set of words and terms that lack a precise lexical definition.” 

Most other dictionaries’ definitions are similar to Wikipedia’s. As discussed here before, there is no room for discussion about interjections’ and conjunctions’ being particles; they are not, not even a little bit. But is there perhaps some room for negotiation in the area of “phrasal verbs,” the combination of a verb and another word that, standing on its own, would be called  a preposition: in, out, up, off, down, and so forth?

What do these words become when they are combined with verbs? Does English grammar even allow for “particles” or “phrasal verbs”? Or are those only linguistic concepts?

Here are some examples for discussion:

1. Clarence finished off the rest of the apple tart.

2. Deidre and Felicia worked out the dinner check.

3. Deidre and Felicia went to work out.

4. Rod dusted off his fishing tackle.
5. She sat down on the banquette.

Let’s take the sentences individually:

1. Clarence finished off the rest of the apple tart.

What is the nuance of meaning added by “off”? How does it differ from simply finishing the tart? Think about it: If Clarence finishes the tart, he simply consumes the remainder. End of story. If he finishes it off, however, that’s a whole other matter: Oh, there now, here’s this little scrap of something too small to save; I’ll just finish it off.

2. Deidre and Felicia worked out the dinner check.

In this case, “work” is transitive (it takes an object), and, in terms of sense, one cannot work a dinner check the way one can work a piece of fabric or metal. The addition of “out” expands the meaning of the verb “work” to something entirely different from “work” alone; it implies the resolution of some sort of puzzle or negotiation, often financial (as indeed is conveyed in the noun formed from “work” and “out”: the “workout” of a bankruptcy).

3. Deidre and Felicia worked out.

In this sentence, even though most of the words are identical to those in the previous sentence, we know immediately that Deidre and Felicia have left the restaurant and gone to the gym. “Work,” here, is intransitive, but it still needs “out” to change the meaning from “working” (performing mental or physical labor) to something that means engaging in strenuous physical exercise for its own sake. Deidre and Felicia are not running a corporation or digging a ditch, but exercising; “out” is used to specify or enhance the verb “worked.”

4. Paul dusted off his fishing tackle.

This example is more like the first than like the second or third. If Paul had simply dusted his fishing tackle, it would have been like dusting a table or a picture—a general tidying up. If, however, he is “dusting off” his fishing tackle, the implication is that it has long been in a state of disuse, perhaps in the attic or the basement, and he is taking it out, inspecting it, and preparing to use it again.

5. She sat down on the banquette.
Without “down,” the sentence “She sat on the banquette” would be timeless; there would be no indication of when she began sitting on the banquette; she may have been sitting for hours. Adding “down,” however, narrows the action to a precise moment in time: when she went from standing to sitting.

So what part of speech are these words: off, out, down, and so forth?

Let’s look at a definition:

A word or phrase that modifies or qualifies an adjective, verb, or adverb, by expressing a relation of place, time, circumstance, manner, cause, or degree.

That sounds like what these words are doing, doesn’t it? Well, guess what: That is the definition of an adverb. And so now we see what these so-called particles really are: Although they might, standing alone, be considered prepositions—when used in combination with verbs, they are adverbs.

Of course, it’s easier to throw all “little” words we’re unsure about into a category called “particles” than it is to parse the sentence and find out what they really are—just as it’s easier to file papers in the “Miscellaneous” folder than it is to read through them and figure out where they really belong. 

_____

Journalism Wall of Shame

The Journalism Wall of Shame displays errors in grammar, punctuation, or language that have appeared recently in the press. Submissions are welcome. Please include the publication's name and date, the story title, and the reporter's name. The publication of these errors in no way places blame for them on a particular person. Sometimes it is the reporter, sometimes the editor, sometimes the headline writer, but—somewhere in the system—somebody should have known better.

“Verizon customers eagerly awaited the February 2011 arrival of the hot smartphone as AT&T had reined as gatekeeper over it since its debut in 2007.”

—Andrea Ludke, “iPhone 5 Launch Pushed to October: Report,” CNBC.com, Aug. 1, 2011

This sentence has more than one problem. First of all, we have the not-insignificant problem of the wrong homophone. One can only assume Ms. Ludke meant “reigned” [as gatekeeper] rather than “reined [an action used to direct a horse].”

Then we have the misconceived metaphor. Gatekeepers can guard, or can keep gates perhaps, but they cannot reign; kings and queens reign. 

“As,” here, should have been “because,” because the action in in the first clause is the result of the action in the second clause, and occurred after it; the two sentences are not simultaneous events.

And, finally, a comma should have separated the two clauses.

The prognosis: This sentence cannot be saved; it should be put out of its misery, and a new sentence composed.

_____

This blog has been read in Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Bangladesh, Brazil, Canada, China, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, France, Greece, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Malaysia, Mali, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Nigeria, Pakistan, Peru, the Philippines, Poland Russia, Singapore, Slovenia, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, Thailand, the U.A.E., the U.K., Ukraine, Uruguay, the U.S.,  Vietnam, and even in Washington, D.C., where U.S. senators and representatives have finally ended the debt deadlock—at least for now.

Wherever you are, if you would like to subscribe to weekly links to this blog, please click Subscribe, and Ms. Picky will add your email address to her list.