English Language & Usage Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for linguists, etymologists, and serious English language enthusiasts. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Are they synonymous, or not?

Looking at wake up as a phrasal verb it seems that the more correct way is "I will wake up Joe" rather than "I will wake Joe up", but the second rolls better off my tongue…
I had a look around but could not find a rule.

share|improve this question
Note that if you replace Joe with any pronoun, suddenly there is a strong preference for the second: "Wake up him" vs. "Wake him up". No contest. – Kosmonaut Mar 7 '11 at 14:08
Yes - I knew that. Just wanted to get the rules right – mplungjan Mar 7 '11 at 14:23
I am pointing it out for those who are not aware. – Kosmonaut Mar 8 '11 at 0:42
Also note that, the longer the noun phrase is, the better the first option sounds, and the worse the second: "Wake up the man I saw yesterday wearing a red tie" vs "Wake the man I saw yesterday wearing a red tie up". First option is much better. – Kosmonaut Mar 8 '11 at 1:25
Infuriating at EL&U when people downvote without letting us know why! – mplungjan Mar 19 '14 at 10:09
up vote 7 down vote accepted

Either can be used in many situations, but Verb Noun Adverb is the common order for all of these.

Put the jacket on. / Put on the jacket.

Pull up your pants. / Pull your pants up.

But sometimes the reversal doesn't work because the preposition seems to apply to the noun rather than the verb.

Get your clothes on. / Get on your clothes.

Work the lotion in. / Work in the lotion.

In the second versions here, you might be telling someone to stand on top of their clothing or work while covered in lotion. Certainly it is fine to say "Put on your clothes." It all depends on the verb being used.

Other times it would sound odd to reverse the order because the preposition means something else depending on the order:

Get the lead out! / Get out the lead!

The first means get moving more quickly; the second means to furnish forth some quantity of lead you may have.

share|improve this answer
I would not characterise "up" as an adverb here, but as part of the phrasal verb "wake up". As psmears says, the "up" tends to be after the direct object (but the longer the object is, the less likely this is). If the verbal complement does happen to be a preposition then putting it in front of the object risks an alternative interpretation where it absorbs the object to make an indirect object. The more plausible (semantically and pragmatically) this alternative interpretation is, the less likely it is that the complement will precede the object. – Colin Fine Mar 7 '11 at 15:14

"Wake up Joe" and "Wake Joe up" are both OK, and as you say the second flows better. But if a pronoun is used then the second form is not only better, it is compulsory: "Wake him up" works, but "*Wake up him" is ungrammatical.

This is almost always the case when the preposition in a phrasal verb is used as an adverb rather than strictly as a preposition... e.g. here "up" is an adverb because it specifies the "direction" of the waking, rather than applying to Joe specifically...

share|improve this answer

As an alternative to this 'either/or' scenario, I would suggest eliminating the word "up" from the phrase entirely. The result is perhaps more traditional, but I don't believe the word "up" is necessary in the example phrase, nor is it needed in most cases.

  1. "Go and wake Joe."
  2. "The drunk woke upon hearing the door slam."
  3. "I must wake at dawn in order to arrive on time."

Whether we are performing the waking action (transitive, Ex 1&3) or simply describing the waking (intransitive, Ex 2) the word "up" is not necessary. My understanding is that "up" came to be used because of the associated phrase "get up", as in "I got up in the morning".

One would not use "up" alongside other synonyms for most "waking" situations:

  1. "Joe rose from his drunken stupor." vs. "Joe rose up from his drunken stupor."
  2. "I must rise at dawn." vs. "I must rise up at dawn."

In these cases, the former sounds clean and proper, whereas the latter sounds a bit like the subject is rising from the dead or preparing for battle. I'd like to see more discussion on this topic, as I have also done searching outside of this forum and have had a hard time locating other opinions.

share|improve this answer
+1 just what I was also thinking. But "Joe rose from ..." and "Joe rose up from ..." have different tones to me, and they might both be valid. Including "up" seems to make the act sound more purposeful, and a less casual act. – David Aldridge May 3 '13 at 8:22

I would suggest the difference is one of emphasis. In the case of "wake up Joe", the implication would be "wake up Joe", rather than, say, put a mouse in his bed. In the other, "wake Joe up", it would mean "wake Joe up", rather than any of the other drunks lying around on the floor.

share|improve this answer
Neither of the distinctions you mention is sound. For the first case, with two people looking at Joe sleeping, needing him awake, both of "Wake up Joe" and "Wake Joe up" typically mean the same, and either Joe's name or a pronoun for him are needed in the utterance; in your second case, where Joe is one of many, again "Wake up Joe" and "Wake Joe up" have the same meaning. – jwpat7 Mar 2 '12 at 20:33

Since wake up is separable phrasal verb and not all separable phrasal verbs doesn't change the meaning 'wake up Joe' means that the speaker is waking Joe up. On the other hand, 'wake him up' means that the speaker is asking someone to wake Joe up.

For example:

Wake up Joe, it's time!

Tony, wake Joe up, it's time!

share|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.