Why I don't believe in separable verbs
simonpettersson
August 01, 2010 at 02:41 AM posted in General Discussion
This discussion started in the QW episode about separable words. I thought I'd start a new discussion for us grammatically inclined. I've been thinking about the issue overnight and here are my thoughts.
The grammar explanation as presented in QW is false. It's a lie, curtesy of Ockham's razor. There's a simpler explanation that accounts for the facts, which means that the more complex explanation is false. This simpler explanation is that bigrams like "帮忙" and "结婚" are not in fact words but two-word expressions. This explanation means that no special rules need to be invented to explain their behavior; they behave just as one would expect if they were two-words expressions.
This, of course, doesn't mean the "separable verb" explanation not useful. It can be a useful lie. The concept of "separable verbs" seems to be defined by its relation to English (and a Google search on "离合次" mostly turns up results about teaching Mandarin to foreigners), so it figures that it can be useful to English speakers who are learning Mandarin. This site is dedicated to teaching Mandarin to English speakers and not to accurate linguistic theory about the language. I have no beef with CPod about their lesson, which I thought was great, and it obviously helped people.
Turning about once again (if this post seems to be flailing wildly, that's just to keep you on your toes), I would, however, argue that thinking of these expressions as single words is NOT, in fact, useful, and is not going to make your Chinese as fluent as it would be with the two-word explanation.
If it's not useful, how come so many people on the QW discussion page claim the lesson helped them so much? I think that's because they were already thinking of these expressions as single words. CPod, the dictionary and The Man have been teaching these expressions as if they were single words. Learners were confused because they didn't behave as other words do. When the special rules were introduced, they say "Ah, that explains it. There are special rules!" An analogous situation would be a child brought up thinking of crocodiles as mammals. She's confused because crocodiles lay eggs, which mammals generally don't. Her mum then explains that crocodiles are special mammals that don't look like other mammals. That's why they lay eggs. This explanation satisfies the child, despite being false. (Please don't drag platypuses into this. It's just an analogy.)
Now then, why would I argue that this isn't a useful classification that will benefit your Mandarin, when even John (whom I will admit is far superior to me in both Mandarin and linguistics) says it will? Three reasons:
1: As I've already said, people without an explanation tends to think of these as single words. Thus, this explanation will make your Mandarin better than having no explanation would. This is why John says it will make your Chinese more fluent. It will, but that doesn't mean that another explanation won't make it even better.
2: I've seen many people on this webpage talk about how it's important to "think in Chinese" and not in English. This category of words is pretty much defined by how they're translated into English. It's not going to help you break out of your English-centered mindset.
3: The explanation as given has some special rules, but they don't cover all the circumstances. A two-word expression behaves radically different from a single word. The rules presented by the QW crew takes care of the most common situations, but there are situations that slip through the cracks. One such situation is that of measure words.
Now, looking at these expressions as single verbs does not invite you to add measure words to the mix. Measure words belong to the realm of nouns, after all. However, when we think of them as verb + noun, we realize that we can do to the noun part all the wicked things we do to other nouns, like add measure words. I don't think I've ever heard the expression "结这次婚". I recently googled it and got a bunch of results, indicating that it's perfectly legit. This is not an expression you'd come up with if you think of "结婚" as a single word. Or how about an expression like "我帮不了你的忙" or the even cooler "他帮不上太多忙"? Or how about "你在游什么泳"? There are cases where the object comes before the verb, like "这顿饭我吃不下". That one gets a million hits on the HK Google (which, admittedly, is not reliable in these matters, but at least we can conclude it's used). You can also add adjectives, like "出很远的差". If these are really verbs, then we need to do some serious grammatical acrobatics to explain why we can add adjectives to them.
These constructions are easily and naturally constructed if you think of the expressions as one verb and one object. I doubt they come naturally to mind if you think of them as "separable verbs".
As to the identifying of these expressions, you can generally look at the characters. If the first one is a verb and the second one a noun that is the object of the verb in question, it's probably not a single compound word. There are apparently some single words that do have a noun as a second character. Quoting Go_manly: "Li and Thompson have a good discussion of this in Mandarin Chinese: A functional Reference Grammar on pp. 73-78. They say that only a small minority of verb-object compounds do not allow any sort of separation, and they usually have highly idiomatic meaning."
Finishing off, it's possible I haven't thought of all contingencies. John alluded that there are reasons why the "separable word" is a useful classification.
simonpettersson
August 02, 2010 at 02:40 PM
Before I say anything else, I'd like to state that if I seem to be provocative or aggressive here, it's not because this is something I think is set in stone. My hope for this thread is that a discussion will develop that can find out the truth, or something like it. I'm open to be convinced, but it gets tiresome both to write and to read a text covered in "it seems to me" and "maybe" and "I believe that". So, back to the discussion.
I see people disagreeing to me, but I don't really see any arguments against my view. Zhenlijiang says "On whether these are words or two-word expressions, we obviously disagree", but I don't see any arguments against my position. The only argument I've seen is that of Changye's appeal to the authority of the dictionary, but that doesn't really cut it for me. An appeal to authority is not without value, but unsupported by any other arguments, I cannot accept it.
simonpettersson
August 10, 2010 at 06:27 AM
That was sorta my point. VO-compounds are considered words because they're bigrams, and it's a ridiculous definition.
changye
August 10, 2010 at 01:35 AM
Hi simon
In modern Mandarin, two-character words are more likely to be regarded as one word by native speakers, but three-character ones are not necessarily so. For example, “吃白饭” is listed as one word (phrase?) in Chinese dictionaries, but I think most native speakers consider it to be a phrase, but not one word.
simonpettersson
August 10, 2010 at 01:04 AM
It is worth noting, by the by, that "吃豆腐" also has a meaning besides the literal: to take advantage of women. Yet it's not listed as a word in the dictionaries, I suspect.
changye
August 09, 2010 at 12:56 PM
Hi suansuanru
Thank you very much for joining us!
> “你怎么光吃饭不吃菜？”, “吃饭了吗？” 两个“吃饭”的意思不一样。
Interestingly, the same is very true in Korean and Japanese.
suansuanru
August 09, 2010 at 07:36 AM
the word “吃饭” also figuratively means "make a living", which I think is a reason why “吃饭” is listed as a word in 《现代汉语词典》
changye说的有道理。
还有，
“你怎么光吃饭不吃菜？”
“吃饭了吗？”
两个“吃饭”的意思不一样。
johnb
August 03, 2010 at 02:05 PM
Ah, true, I hadn't considered that. Good point about 吃饭 having another meaning outside of its 离合词 context, too!
simonpettersson
August 03, 2010 at 01:04 PM
I'm really struggling not to write this, but I can't help myself. I'm totally repeating myself and not bringing anything new to the table, I know. I'm sorry.
I think that learners have difficulty understanding 离合词 mainly due to thinking about them as words (and the dictionaries are certainly not helping). Because there are two simple facts that I think are hard to deny:
1: Many learners feel that they don't know how to use 离合词.
2: If they know how to use regular verb-object expressions (like "去香港" or "做生意"), they know all the rules for using 离合词.
Number one is evident from many of the comments on the QW episode, and I consider number two proven by now, because I've been repeating myself like a broken record and nobody has contradicted this point.
This is why I feel that the approach taken by the QW team (and, I suspect, most Mandarin teaching materials) is misdirected. It's creating new rules for something you already know how to use, if you only knew what it really was.
changye
August 03, 2010 at 08:33 AM
Hi simon
> Changye's appeal to the authority of the dictionary, but that doesn't really cut it for me. An appeal to authority is not without value, but unsupported by any other arguments, I cannot accept it.
My point is not "to appeal to authority of dictionaries", but the way dictionaries show words to us learners. It seems to me that learners have difficulty understanding 离合词 mainly due to "sloppy" dictionaries that don't show which verb is separable.
changye
August 03, 2010 at 08:05 AM
> In 吃饭, 饭 doesn't really add anything to 吃
This is not always true, because things you 吃 is not always 饭，for example, you can say 吃药 (take medecine). Furthermore, the word “吃饭” also figuratively means "make a living", which I think is a reason why “吃饭” is listed as a word in 《现代汉语词典》, and “吃药” is not. Perhaps by the same token, “喝酒” is usually not shown as a word in Chinese dictionaries.
johnb
August 02, 2010 at 10:35 PM
While I'm very much inclined to take option #4 ( :P ), my feeling is that 吃饭 and 吃肉 and 吃北京烤鸭 are grammatically identical (I agree with Zhenlijiang further up in the thread that "V-O compounds," which is what I was taught to refer to them as, too, is conceptually clearer than the current "separable verbs" moniker). The difference is just in how the expression is understood -- if you say 我刚才吃完饭了 people don't just assume that you've just eaten rice, whereas if you say 我刚才吃完北京烤鸭了 you've without a doubt just polished off some duck. In terms of learning how to manipulate them, I would treat them (and have, internally, I think, treated them) as two-word expressions.
I also agree with Zhenlijiang that not all V-O compounds are created equal. In 吃饭, 饭 doesn't really add anything to 吃, whereas in 结婚, 婚 is very much an active player in delivering the word's meaning.
As for native speakers' opinions, I asked my wife and a few of her friends that were over last night about it, and they all agreed that they saw them as single words, rather than two-word composites. Their opinions were mostly of the "who cares, that's just how things are said" variety, too, which has always been enough for me. :D
zhenlijiang
August 02, 2010 at 03:42 PM
* written / posted before I saw Simon's latest additions above *
I'll explain what I mean about why I see the compounds as words and the individual characters not, when I have time. I'm afraid it will still be peppered with "believe", "seems to me" etc.
To argue your position on not believing in separable verbs, for clarity's sake why don't you take another example, a less "obvious" one than 吃饭 (which I think is exceptional, possibly dismantle-able, as I said in the paragraph you may have found too tiresome to actually read)? I'm repeating now, but not all these V-O compounds are equal. Changye has already said in the QW thread that he's long thought of 吃饭 as just 吃 and a common object.
changye
August 02, 2010 at 03:44 AM
Here is an interesting explanation about 离合词 shown in 百度百科. It seems that there is still no accepted theory about the grammatical definition of so-called "separable verbs" in Chinese.
现代汉语中的“离合词”，是涉及到词汇和语法两个方面的一种特殊现象。在以前的语法书上，都把现在所提的“离合动词”放在十大结构中的“述宾结构”叙述。 就是目前也还有不同看法，有的认为是词，有的认为是词组，有的认为既是词又是词组，有的认为是动宾式的粘连短语，还有的认为是短语词。其实，“离合词”或 “离合动词”的提法未尝不可！
http://baike.baidu.com/view/165257.htm?fr=ala0_1
In any case, I think this issue is more a question of dictionary than a question of grammatical definition for us foreign lerners of Mandarin.
Judging from comments posted so far here in Chinesepod, Chinese dictionaries, except for ones published in China and some East Asian countries, usually don't tell whether a certain verb is separable or not, which makes it more difficult for western people to properly use "separable verbs".
Personally I don't care much whether "离合词" is one word or a phrase, as long as dictionaries tell me whether it's separable or not.
There is often no clear line between a word and a phrase in Chinese. Furthermore, verbs are also often used as nouns and even adjectives. For instance, “革命” is a typical separable verb, and it's also a noun and an adjective according to 《现代汉语词典》.
So, I think that listing “革命” as one word in dictionaries would be the best way ........ provided that it's accompanied by pinyin "ge//ming", for example.
changye
August 03, 2010 at 11:16 PM
Hi henning
What your wife says is very right, and I think this is a typical case of the Chinese saying “当局者迷，旁观者清”, hehe. Actually, "Chinesisch ist auch voll trennbare Verben!"! Incidentally, I found another example, instead of "vorkommen/Vorkommen", namely, "vorhaben" (to plan, verb) and "das Vorhaben" (plan, noun).
henning
August 03, 2010 at 05:27 PM
Hi Changye,
wow, this is the first time I am encountering the word "Partikelverb".
Ironically, after listening to the QW on seperable verbs I started complaining to my wife about those in Chinese. Her reply: "Deutsch ist voll davon!" (German is full of it). This was the first time I noticed this, but well, I guess she is right. :)
changye
August 03, 2010 at 02:29 PM
Hi henning
Interestingly, there is also a separable verb "Partikelverb" that has a "V-O" structure, for example, "teil/nehmen" which is probably a German counterpart of "take part" in English. "Teil/nehmen" is one word in German, but "take part" is not in English.
changye
August 03, 2010 at 07:47 AM
> The difference in Chinese is that there are no blanks and therefore no markers.
Yeah, you're right, and that's the very reason why some "clever" dictionaries show pinyin just like "chi//fan", for example, in order to make it clear it's separable. This way you can easily solve this problem, of course, aside form pure grammatical dispute.
henning
August 03, 2010 at 07:03 AM
Hi Changye,
indeed. This is where many of us still struggle with the correct spelling ("Rad fahren" or "Radfahren") - especially after all those reforms and counter-reforms. Is a piece of vocab written as one word or separated like an expression? When it is optional (which is now often the case) I always prefer to write such words together - which makes them clean words.
The difference in Chinese is that there are no blanks and therefore no markers. In a way, this makes it easier as there is no need to think about the correct spelling - but it contributes to the blur between word and phrase.
changye
August 03, 2010 at 06:52 AM
Hi henning
Thanks a lot for the comment. It seems that "Vorkommen" is not a good example for my argument. Actually, I couldn't find other nouns that have the same spelling as its counterpart verbs, hehe. In any case, Chinese 离合词 always reminds me of German "Partikelverb". Judging from the dispute over "Rad fahren" (and "spazieren gehen/fahren" ? ), it seems that German people also have the same problem, that is to say, "这是单词还是词组？" .
henning
August 03, 2010 at 04:54 AM
Hi Changye,
it is "Rad fahren" now - a result of our highly disputed spelling reform.
That "Vorkommen" and "vorkommen" are listed together is more coincidence.
"das Vorkommen" has a distinct meaning that is not fully covered by a substantivation of the verb "vorkommen". It is esp. used in the context of geology ("Goldvorkommen").
changye
August 03, 2010 at 04:34 AM
Both a German separable verb "vor/kommen" (happen) and a noun "Vorkommen" (existence) are listed as one word in German dictionaries. I think the same logic (约定俗成？) works behind Chinese dictionaries. On the other hand, interestingly, "Radfahrer" (cyclist) is regarded as one word, but "rad fahren" (to ride a bicycle) is not a word anymore in the latest German orthography. I hear the word was listed as one word, "radfahren", in German dictionaries before.
simonpettersson
August 02, 2010 at 02:52 PM
Gah, I just wrote that I wouldn't take into account that "革命" can be used as a noun or an adjective (see below), but now I will, anyway. It's not like this sort of thing doesn't happen in English. I can say "Jimmy has a 'can-do' attitude". Here, "can-do" serves as an adjective, but used in a sentence like "Jimmy can do anything!", nobody would claim "can do" is a single word. Likewise, "free-for-all" is used as a noun, meaning, according to Merriam-Webster, ": a competition, dispute, or fight open to all comers and usually with no rules : brawl; also : a chaotic situation resembling a free-for-all especially in lacking rules or structure ". In English, such usage is marked with hyphens in writing, but this is purely a writing convention and has nothing to do with how the language actually works, just like capital letters in the beginning of sentences. Just like these examples in English, I have no problem claiming that "革命" is two words when acting as verb plus object, and one word when acting as adjective or noun.
zhenlijiang
August 02, 2010 at 09:10 AM
Thanks for that Changye, that is interesting.
词 a word
词组 a phrase
既是词又是词组 a word and also a phrase
动宾式的粘连短语 a phrase where the V and O are stuck together (a V-O compound)?
短语词 ... ??
“离合词”或 “离合动词”的提法未尝不可！ both ways of referring to this are possible!
Am I understanding these terms correctly? Not sure how 词组 and 短语 are different.
Oh and I have to thank you also for telling us that our dictionaries indicate with the // which words (I'm still calling them words) are the "separables". Never noticed that!
zhenlijiang
August 01, 2010 at 05:20 PM
The concept of "separable verbs" seems to be defined by its relation to English (and a Google search on "离合次" mostly turns up results about teaching Mandarin to foreigners), so it figures that it can be useful to English speakers who are learning Mandarin.
I find this interesting and worth pursuing, and would like more evidence and/or expert opinions to support or counter this. One clue in support--my Chinese-Japanese dictionary carries no such term. Another--the class in which I was taught about V-O compounds was teaching Mandarin in English (I'm in Japan, so this is not the norm).
Another--it is taught in 北京语言大学出版社's New Practical Chinese Reader (Lesson 27 in Textbook 3. I just dug out this book from 2006, most of which I never really used) as 离合词 Separable disyllabic verbs. To quote:
Some disyllabic verbs in the Chinese language are separable; one can insert other elements between them. These verbs are called separable verbs. The majority of separable verbs are composed of the "V+O" structure, such as "游泳，吃饭，起床，睡觉，开学，上课，发烧，看病，住院，开车，打的，罚款，过期，化妆", which we have learned in previous lessons, and "说话，聊天" in this lesson. Then it gives examples:
他没有游过泳。
老师说了很长时间的话。
他在银行排了两次队。
我想在这儿聊一会儿天。
我朋友帮了我的忙。
Notes: (1) Separable verbs usually cannot take objects. For example, you cannot say: “我朋友帮忙我。”✗
(2) Time-measure complements or action-measure complements can only be used between the two parts of a separable verb; never after it. For example, you cannot say: “老师说话了很长时间。”✗ “他在银行排队了两次。”✗
Finally, it says
The reduplication form of the separable verb of the "V+O" structure is "AAB", "A一AB", or "A了AB". For example, 散散步，聊一聊天，游了游泳.
This book also gives the part of speech with all 生词 for each lesson. These V-O's are listed as "VO". The entry for 聊天 looks like this:
聊天 VO liáotiān to chat 跟朋友聊天，喜欢聊天，聊一会儿天，聊什么天
Anyone else with thoughts on this?
simonpettersson
August 05, 2010 at 04:14 AM
Did I not specifically tell you not to bring platypuses into this?
tvan
August 04, 2010 at 12:10 AM
Hi changye
That's interesting. I guess that just goes to show that Chinese grammar is changing rapidly as well.
Also, I have to correct my post above; I didn't mean to say that "Chinese doesn't have verbs," rather that "not every sentence has a verb."
changye
August 03, 2010 at 11:46 PM
Hi tran
FYI, 《现代汉语词典》 (the 5th edition, 2005) shows word classes such as 名词 and 动词 for listed words, but the 4th edition (2002) and earlier editions don't.
tvan
August 03, 2010 at 08:29 PM
simonpeterson, re: linguistics trying to make Chinese fit Indo-European language patterns, I couldn't agree more. I have no background in linguistics, but on the face of things, it does seem as though there is some overarching theory that linguists pigeonhole all languages into, regardless of the fit.
For example, in the sentence, “你好," how does "好" qualify as a stative verb? It's an adjective! In English a stative verb usually links the subject to an adjective (e.g. I am good.) However, Chinese states, essentially, "你好/You OK?." Now in English, you might be able to say that there is an implied verb, and this is just a shortened version of the common form, "Are you OK?" However, there is no shortened version in Chinese. You don't say "你是好吗?" you just say "你好” or "你好吗?" But instead of just saying that Chinese doesn't have verbs, academia comes up with this weird definition with no basis in the language itself.
That said, I took quite a bit away from the Qing Wen in question. I think that you can debate the linguistic merits of separable verbs (indeed you are doing just that), but for me the definition had pedagogical value. BTW, platypuses are mammals and they lay eggs! ;-)
changye
August 03, 2010 at 01:47 PM
Hi simon
In China, one-character word is called “字”, and two （or more）-character word is called “词”.
simonpettersson
August 03, 2010 at 01:08 PM
I do have a small additional thought on this. Being interested in language, I've been looking at some linguistics-related stuff in Chinese. In two places (one blog and one forum, I think), I've encountered the sentiment that Chinese linguistics is heavily influenced by Western linguistics, to the point of trying to make Chinese fit the same patterns as Indo-European languages, despite being structurally very different.
Hell, maybe the concept of "word" is just unhelpful in trying to really understand how Chinese works.
zhenlijiang
August 01, 2010 at 04:51 PM
These constructions are easily and naturally constructed if you think of the expressions as one verb and one object. I doubt they come naturally to mind if you think of them as "separable verbs".
I basically agree with you on this thinking Simon. As you can see I know these things as "V-O compounds".
On whether these are words or two-word expressions, we obviously disagree.
zhenlijiang
August 01, 2010 at 01:00 PM
Of course I'm neither a native speaker of Chinese nor English but these are my thoughts:
As an elementary learner I was taught these things are called V-O compounds, was told "this is very important in Chinese grammar". Long before that, I knew words (yes I say they are words) like 结婚，跳舞，唱歌，散步，洗澡 etc. And I've never had trouble with any of that, with treating these as words that have a V-O structure. We have many of the same compounds in Japanese (熟語. Not as verbs though). I'm sure that familiarity makes it easier for us to accept them as words.
I like much less the term "separable verbs". That sounds like we can separate if we feel like it or something; I think it helps confuse and complicate. Actually you should separate the components when you want to say for instance "He has never been married"; should say 他没结过婚 (I am getting a lot of hits for 没结婚过 though).
Anyhow not all V-O compounds are equal. It was suggested by some poddies in the QW discussion that 吃饭 is just a common verb with a very common object, not a word. Same thinking would seem to apply to 洗脸 (how different is that from 看书?). To hazard a guess, 吃饭 is just so fundamental to our existence, that tie so strong, that the verb+object achieved word status perhaps; just means "to eat". Also 吃 is used so widely and frequently in the figurative senses too--吃苦，吃亏 just to name a couple. I think that may also have something to do with why 吃饭 could have come to be considered a word (about 洗脸, well, I don't have as many thoughts).
理发 is one example of what I think is a more "regular" V-O compound that resists dismantling, because the components basically can't stand alone. You can't normally say just 发 to refer to the hair on your head, you need to say 头发. Or it has to be part of a combo like 发型 or 烫发.
Simon's presentation may have a pretty aggressive angle but it's interesting and worthwhile I think, to explore a bit more, and raise questions about, this grammar point.
zhenlijiang
August 01, 2010 at 03:14 PM
Right. I said 理发 is a V-O compound that resists dismantling (as opposed to separating; that would make no sense) because I'd just been discussing 吃饭 and how some people suggested it's actually just a common verb and its very common object (= dismantling 吃饭 as a V-O compound). I was just saying I see 理发 as a very regular V-O compound.
Sorry, guess that was confusing.
go_manly
August 01, 2010 at 01:58 PM
I did a quick google search and came up with a youtube video titled
过年了我要理个发
In fact 理个发 turned up 36 million hits.
go_manly
August 01, 2010 at 06:32 AM
It would be interesting what the native speakers have to say.
Perhaps Connie, Jiaojie or someone else could say whether they feel that these are single vocabulary items which can be split, or as two separate vocabulary items which are often joined.
As I'm asking for a response based on gut feeling, it would be good to get answers from more than one native speaker.
Whatever the outcome, I think it is easier to learn them as a unit in the early days of your studies, and later learn that they are actually more flexible than that. At the Newbie/Elementary level I think treating them as 2 words would be somewhat confusing.
suansuanru
August 09, 2010 at 07:17 AM
I think sue is right.
We never learn"seperable words"when we were little kids. We just say like that.
I have noticed that Seperable words are really very hard and sometimes unreasonable from the day I was in college. I can hardly say there are some easy way to learn it,the only way is just practice speaking and talking with the native speakers.
Sue
August 03, 2010 at 06:35 PM
did you get a reply on this go_manly? usually, native speakers are the least able to "analyse" their language in this way, probably cos they learnt it in a totally different way to 2nd language learners. this was certainly my experience when learning German. I personally find it harder to get my mind round the grammatical terms as such (in English) than just learn a few correct examples (in our case Chinese). anyone else have the same experience ? doesn't a native speaker also learn this way ?
changye
August 01, 2010 at 04:08 AM
Hi simon
I don't feel like buying a Chinese dictionary that doesn't list, for example, “结婚” as one word because it seems not to be helpful in learning Chinese. Incidentally, the character “婚” is used as both noun and verb.
changye
August 01, 2010 at 06:02 AM
In all of my Chinese dictionaries, the word is listed as one word, like “结婚（jie/hun）”, where “/” means the word is separable, which is good enough for me.
simonpettersson
August 01, 2010 at 05:11 AM
Hi Changye!
I can find two interpretations of what you're saying here. Either you're saying you wouldn't buy a dictionary that doesn't list "结婚" at all, and since dictionaries can only list words, it must list it as a word. In that case you'll have to explain why dictionaries cannot list expressions. Possibly you're saying that you wouldn't buy a dictionary that lists "结婚" as an expression, in which case I don't understand why not.
suansuanru
August 09, 2010 at 07:32 AM关于离合词，中国的学者也有一些争论。和离合词有关的学术论文也有不少。
一般的汉语书没有强调很多，可能只会在词语后面写上“VO”。这是为了方便学生学习。还有一些也写“Seperable words”。
一般来说，离合词不分开的话就是词，分开了就是一个短语（至少有两个词）。
很多人拿“吃饭”举例，其实“吃饭”这个词还有点儿特别，有人说是一个动词，有人说是词组（两个词）。
我个人的观点是，离合词是一个词。原因就像zhenlijiang所说，“理发”的“发”不能单独使用。