The main argument for a phrasal analysis is that SCVs are separable: in root clauses, the tensed verbal form appears in second position, whereas the other part of the SCV is stranded in its underlying position, as in Hans belt zijn moeder opHans calls his mother. We also see the separability of SCVs in the phenomenon of Verb Raising. Sentence (7a) represents the underlying SOV word order. The main verb wildewanted selects a sentential complement with a particle verb. When the verb of an embedded clause is raised to the matrix clause, the SCV can be split, as in (7b), but it can also be treated as a unit, as in (7c):

Sentence (7c) shows that there is the possibility that the SCV forms a unit for Verb Raising. They can also behave as a unit in the Progressive construction aan het + infinitiveat the V-INFV-ing (example (8a)), though aan het can also occur between the preverb and the verb, as in (8b).

Whereas opbellen can appear after aan het (example (8a)), this is not the case for the VP zijn moeder bellen (example (9a)). The only possible construction is (9b), where the object precedes aan het. This shows that opbellen has a special syntactic status.

Moreover, the separability of Dutch SCVs can be observed in the location of the infinitival particle te that occurs between the two constituents of SCVs, as in op te bellen, and in the form of the past participle, with the prefix ge- in between the particle and the verbal stem: opgebeldop-ge-bel-d. Past participles are formed in Dutch by means of the simultaneous attachment of the prefix ge- and the suffix -t/-d/-en. Ablauting verbs choose the suffix -en, regular verbs select -t when the stem ends in a voiceless obstruent, and -d otherwise. In derivational morphology, SCVs behave similarly; for instance, the ge-nominalization of opbellen is opgebelop-ge-bel, with the nominalizing prefix ge- between the particle and the verbal stem.

The separability of the two constituents of SCVs has prompted some linguists to give a syntactic account of such complex predicates. This account usually takes the form of a so-called Small Clause-analysis: the particle is considered as the predicate of a Small Clause (SC), a subject-predicate combination without a copula, which is then raised to the matrix clause, and Chomsky-adjoined to the verb of the matrix clause (Hoekstra 1988). In such an analysis the following surface structure is assigned to the verb phrase het huiswerk afmaken to finish one’s homework (t is the trace of the moved PP af ‘finished’): [[het huiswerk](NP)[t(i)]](PP)](SC) [[af(i)](PP)[maken](V)](V). The SCV afmaken is a structural unit, which can thus take part in Verb Raising. The particle in this structure expresses the result of the action expressed by the verb. In such an analysis, particle verbs are instantiations of regular syntactic structures that express a resultative meaning (Hoekstra 1988).

The word-like properties, however, have led a number of linguists to take the opposite view that particle verbs are morphological constructions created by a pre-syntactic morphological component (Ackema 1999a, 1999b, Neeleman 1994, Neeleman & Weerman 1993). Such analyses necessitate a weakening of the principle of Lexical Integrity by allowing syntactic rules to move parts of complex words.

The debate on the proper analysis of SCVs as being either morphology or syntax reflects a view of the architecture of the grammar in which there is sharp divide between morphological operations and the lexion on the one hand and syntax on the other. This sharp boundary between lexicon and syntax has been challenged in the theoretical framework of Construction Grammar. In particular the notion 'constructional idiom' has been used to do justice to both the phrasal and the word-like properties of SCVs. The following analysis is proposed in Booij (2010):

Preverbs are words that have the status X0 (bare head), which means that they do not project a full phrase. SCVs consist of these non-projecting elements and a verb. They have the syntactic structure [X0 V0]V' where X0 = P, Adv, A or N. The V'-node, a level of projection directly above V, captures their phrasal nature and hence their syntactic separability.

The conventionalized aspect of the meaning of SCVs is expressed as a property of the whole construction. Subcases with specific meanings may form semantic chains, related by semantic extension mechanisms like metaphor and metonymy. For instance, the particle op, which is also a locative adposition, shows up with the following meanings in particle verbs (Blom 2004: 14):

Recurrent bound meanings of particles can be accounted for by assuming constructional idioms for each of these particles. A constructional idiom is a (phrasal or morphological) pattern in which some positions are specified, and others are left open.  For instance, we may assume a construction idiom for particle verbs with the particle door, which expresses continuation: [door-V](V’) to continue V-ing(Booij 2002).

The following adverbs can serve as preverbs in SCVs:

The meaning of separable complex verbs with these adverbs is usually quite transparent, and the meaning of the verb is preserved. In this respect, they differ from particle verbs, which often have an idiosyncratic meaning.

There is a systematic correlation between the gender of a converted noun and the form of the corresponding verb. If a verb is simplex, the converted noun has common gender and selects the definite article de in the singular; if the verb is prefixed, the corresponding noun has neuter gender and selects the definite article het: bouwento build > de bouwthe construction, vallento fall > de valthe fall, but besturento govern > het bestuurthe board/ administration/ management, gebruikento use > het gebruikthe use. Prefixed verbs correspond with het-nouns, but particle verbs with de-nouns. This is exactly what is expected, since conversion operates on the head of the particle verb which is simplex in nature: aanvallento attack > de aanval the attack, aftrappen to kick off > de aftrap the kick-off.