The main types of phrasal verbs in modern english

pop up — appear suddenly
Every time I open this site, a new window pops up saying that I won a free prize.
scroll down — move (a page) down
There was a long list of names on the webpage and I had to scroll down to view all of them.
dial up — dial a number that connects a computer with an Internet service provider
Sometimes it takes my computer for ever to dial up to my Internet service provider.
plug in — insert a plug into an electric outlet
She forgot to plug in her printer and was wondering why it didnt work.
log in — enter a computer by providing username and password
I log in to my bank account every week to check my balance.
set up — establish
I asked my friend help me set up my email account.
It is sensible to back up your files regularly. That way you can always restore an important document if it gets deleted.
Wait till the PC boots up, then log in and run the programs you need.
My PC broke down and I couldn't use it until somebody came and fixed it for me.
I can't listen to music on my computer because my speakers are not connected up.
The computer went down and when I booted up again the report I'd been working on had disappeared!
You must log in to the local network to be able to share files with other people.
You must log out and then log in again for the changes to take effect.
There's something wrong with my printer: it lets me print out one page at a time only.
I don't see any point in shutting down my PC when I go to lunch - I rarely spend more than fifteen minutes away from the computer during the working day.
Make sure you save all the documents you've been working with before you switch off your PC.
Some older PCs don't allow you to switch them on by clicking your mouse or pushing a key on the keyboard.
To post a message on this forum, type in your name and your message, then hit the 'Submit' button.
The virus wiped out all the data stored on the computer.
The terminology of phrasal verbs is inconsistent. Modern theories of syntax tend to use the term phrasal verb to denote particle verbs only; they do not view prepositional verbs as phrasal verbs. The EFL/ESL literature (English as a foreign or second language), in contrast, tends to employ the term phrasal verb to encompass both prepositional and particle verbs. The terminology used to denote the particle is also inconsistent. Sometimes it is called an adverb, and at other times an intransitive prepositional phrase. The inconsistent use of terminology in these areas is a source of confusion about what does and does not qualify as a phrasal verb and about the status of the particle or a preposition.
Concerning the history of the term phrasal verb, Tom McArthur writes:
"...the term phrasal verb was first used by Logan Pearsall Smith, in Words and Idioms (1925), in which he states that the OED Editor Henry Bradley suggested the term to him."
The value of this choice and its alternatives (including separable verb for Germanic languages) is debatable. In origin the concept is based on translation linguistics; as many single-word English and Latinate words are translatable by a phrasal verb complex in English, therefore the logic is that the phrasal verb complex must be a complete semantic unit in itself. One should consider in this regard that the actual term phrasal verb suggests that such constructions should form phrases. In most cases however, they clearly do not form phrases. Hence the very term phrasal verb is misleading and a source of confusion, which has motivated some to reject the term outright.
When a particle phrasal verb is transitive, it can look just like a prepositional phrasal verb. This similarity is another source of confusion, since it obscures the difference between prepositional and particle phrasal verbs. A simple diagnostic distinguishes between the two, however. When the object of a particle verb is a definite pronoun, it can and usually does precede the particle. In contrast, the object of a preposition can never precede the preposition:
a. You can bank on Susan. – on is a preposition.
b. *You can bank her on. – The object of the preposition cannot precede the preposition.
a. You can take on Susan. – on is a particle.
b. You can take her on. – The object of the particle verb can precede the particle.
a. He is getting over the situation. – over is a preposition.
b. *He is getting it over. – The object of a preposition cannot precede the preposition.
a. He is thinking over the situation. – over is a particle.
b. He is thinking it over. – The object of the particle verb can precede the particle.
The object of a preposition must follow the preposition, whereas the object of the particle verb can precede the particle especially if it is a definite pronoun, since definite pronouns are very light.
The aspect of phrasal verb constructions that makes them difficult to learn for non-native speakers of English is that their meaning is non-compositional. That is, one cannot know what a given phrasal verb construction means based upon what the verb alone and/or the preposition and/or particle alone mean, as emphasized above. This trait of phrasal verbs is also what makes them interesting for linguists, since they appear to defy the principle of compositionality. An analysis of phrasal verbs in terms of catenae (=chains), however, is not challenged by the apparent lack of meaning compositionality. The verb and particle/preposition form a catena, and as such, they qualify as a concrete unit of syntax. The following dependency grammartrees illustrate the point:^[14]
The words of each phrasal verb construction are highlighted in orange. These words form a catena because they are linked together in the vertical dimension. They constitute units of meaning, and these units are stored as multi-part wholes in the lexicon.
Verb semantic classes are then constructed from verbs, module exceptions, which undergo a certain number of alternations. From this classification, a set of verb semantic classes is organized. We have, for example, the classes of verbs of putting, which include Put verbs, Funnel Verbs, Verbs of putting in a specified direction, Pour verbs, Coil verbs, etc. Other sets of classes include Verbs of removing, Verbs of Carrying and Sending, Verbs of Throwing, Hold and Keep verbs, Verbs of contact by impact, Image creation verbs, Verbs of creation and transformation, Verbs with predicative complements, Verbs of perception, Verbs of desire, Verbs of communication, Verbs of social interaction, etc. As can be noticed, these classes only partially overlap with the classification adopted in WordNet. This is not surprising since the classification criteria are very different.
Let us now look in more depth at a few classes and somewhat evaluate the use of such classes for natural language applications (note that several research projects make an intensive use of B. Levin's classes). Note that, w.r.t. WordNet, the classes obtained via alternations are much less hierarchically structured, which shows that the two approaches are really orthogonal.
There are other aspects which may weaken the practical use of this approach, in spite of its obvious high linguistic interest, from both theoretical and practical viewpoints. The first point is that the semantic definition of some classes is somewhat fuzzy and does not really summarize the semantics of the verbs it contains. An alternative would be to characterize a class by a set of features, shared to various extents by the verbs it is composed of. Next, w.r.t. the semantic characterization of the class, there are some verbs which seem to be really outside the class. Also, as illustrated below, a set of classes (such as movement verbs) does not include all the `natural' classes one may expect (but `completeness' or exhaustiveness has never been claimed to be one of the objectives of this research). This may explain the unexpected presence of some verbs in a class. Finally, distinctions between classes are sometimes hard to make, and this is reinforced by the fact that classes may unexpectedly have several verbs in common. Let us illustrate these observations with respect to two very representative sets of classes: verbs of motion and verbs of transfer of possession (notice that a few other classes of transfer of possession, e.g. deprivation, are in the set of classes of Remove verbs).
Verbs of Motion include 9 classes:

• 
  Inherently directed motion (arrive, go,...),
  
• 
  Leave verbs,
  
• 
  Manner of motion:
  
  • 
    Roll verbs (bounce, float, move, ...),
    
  • 
    Run verbs (bounce, float, jump, ...),
    
• 
  Manner of motion using a vehicle:
  
  • 
    Vehicle name verbs (bike, ...),
    
  • 
    Verbs not associated with vehicle names (fly,..),
    
• 
  Waltz verbs (boogie, polka, ...),
  
• 
  Chase verbs (follow, pursue, ...),
  
• 
  Accompany verbs.
  

Note that the labels `Roll' and `Run' do not totally cover the semantics of the verbs in the corresponding class. Also, the difference between the two classes is not very clear. Waltz and chase verbs are interesting examples of very specific classes which can be constructed from alternations. However, few domains are represented, and major ones are missing or under-represented (e.g. type of movement, medium of movement, manner of motion, etc.).
Verbs of transfer of possession include 9 classes:

• 
  Give verbs (feed, give, lease, ...),
  
• 
  Contribute verbs (distribute, donate, submit, ...),
  
• 
  Providing:
  
  • 
    Fulfilling verbs (credit, provide, ...),
    
  • 
    Equip verbs (arm, invest, ...),
    
• 
  Obtaining:
  
  • 
    Get (book, buy, call, cash, order, phone, ...),
    
  • 
    Obtain (accept, accumulate, seize, ...),
    
• 
  Future having verbs (advance, assign, ...),
  
• 
  Exchange verbs,
  
• 
  Berry verbs (nest, clam, ...).
  

In this example, the difficulty of defining the semantics of a class is evident, e.g.: fulfilling, future having: these terms do not exactly characterize the class. Note also the Get class is very large and contains very diverse verbs. Domain descriptions (family, education, law, etc.) as well as moral judgements on the transfer (legal, illegal, robbery) are not accounted for in this classification.
It is of much interest to analyze in depth the set of verbs which undergo an alternation. It is also interesting to analyze exceptions, i.e. verbs not associated with an alternation but which are closely related to verbs which are associated with it, in order to narrow down the semantic characterization of this alternation.
Besides the theoretical interest, the underlying semantics conveyed by syntactic construction plays an important role in semantic composition and in the formation of lexicalization patterns.
There is, first, a principle of non-synonymy of grammatical forms: `a difference in syntactic form always spells a difference in meaning' which is commonly assumed. We have, for example, the following syntactic forms with their associated Lexical Semantic Template (Goldberg 94):

• 
  Ditransitive: X causes Y to receive Z,
  
• 
  Caused Motion: X causes Y to move Z,
  
• 
  Resultative: X causes Y to become Z,
  
• 
  Intransitive Motion: X moves Y,
  
• 
  Conative: X directs action at Y.
  

From these general observations, we see that form and meaning cannot be considered apart. From the point of view of the principle of compositionality, the meaning of a sentence should not only be derived from the meaning of its components, but it should also include the implicit, partial semantics associated with the syntactic construction. Let us now consider several example
The problem addressed here is the identification in verbs of those meaning components which determine whether a verb does or does not undergo a certain alternation, explains that in the conative construction, where the transitive verb takes an oblique object introduced by the preposition at instead of a direct NP, there is the idea that the subject is attempting to affect the oblique object, but may not succeed. But the conative alternation applies to much narrower sets of verbs than those whose actions could be just attempted and not realized. For example, verbs of cutting and verbs of hitting all undergo the alternation, but verbs of touching and verbs of breaking do not.
It turns out, in fact, that verbs participating in the conative construction describe a certain type of motion and a certain type of contact.
The same situation occurs for the Part-possessor ascension alternation (Ann cuts John's arm   Ann cuts John on the arm) which is also accepted by verbs of motion followed by contact. Here verbs of breaking do not participate in that alternation whereas verbs of hitting and touching do.
Finally, the Middle alternation, which specifies the ease with which an action can be performed on a theme, is accepted only by verbs that entail a real effect, regardless of whether they involve motion or contact. Therefore, verbs of breaking and of cutting undergo this alternation whereas verbs of touching do not.
As can be seen from these examples, a common set of elements of meaning can be defined for a set of alternations, such as motion, contact and effect, which contributes to differentiating the semantics conveyed by alternations, and therefore to characterizing quite precisely verbs which potentially undergo an alternation or not. Therefore, membership of a verb in a class depends on some aspects of meaning that the semantic representation of the verb constrains. These aspects may moreover be surprisingly subtle and refined, and difficult to identify and to describe in a formal system. These observations reinforce the arguments in favor of a certain autonomy of lexical semantics.