Does 'Chip Away At' Need the Preposition 'At'?

"Chip away at" has one grammar rule that's easy to get wrong under pressure: whenever the phrase has a stated object, "at" is required, and the phrase cannot be split apart the way some phrasal verbs can.

Two specific errors account for almost every mistake here, and both are worth checking for before you send a sentence.

Error 1: dropping "at"

If there's an object, "at" has to be there. Leaving it out is a common slip, especially for speakers whose first language doesn't mark this kind of grammatical relationship the same way English does.

Wrong: "We need to chip away our margin."

Correct: "We need to chip away at our margin."

The pattern is fixed: "chip away at + noun/noun phrase." There's no version of this sentence with an object where "at" can be safely dropped.

Error 2: treating it as separable

Some English phrasal verbs let you insert the object between the two words — "turn the light off," "turn off the light," both work. "Chip away" is not one of those. It's non-separable: the object always comes after the full "chip away at," never wedged in the middle.

Wrong: "We're going to chip the backlog away."

Correct: "We're going to chip away at the backlog."

If a sentence has "chip [object] away" instead of "chip away at [object]," that's the separable-phrasal-verb error, and it reads as a mistake to a fluent listener even when the underlying meaning is clear.

What happens with no object at all

Not every use of the expression needs "at." When there's genuinely no stated object — the encouragement-only use covered elsewhere — "at" simply doesn't appear, because there's nothing for it to attach to.

Correct, no object: "We just have to keep chipping away."

That's a different case from dropping "at" when an object is present. Here there's no object to begin with, so there's nothing missing.

Why this small error matters

A missing "at" or a separated object usually doesn't obscure the meaning — a native listener will typically still understand what was meant. But it reads as a grammar slip in an otherwise fluent professional sentence, and that's a low-cost but visible fluency signal. In a meeting or an email where the surrounding language is polished, one of these two errors stands out precisely because everything else sounds natural, and it can quietly undercut credibility even when the underlying business point is accurate and well-reasoned.

The fix is mechanical once you know to check for it: whenever you write "chip away" with an object, confirm "at" is there, and confirm the object comes after the whole phrase, not in the middle of it.

Practice scenarios

Practice using chip away at in situations like:

• double-checking a draft email for a missing "at" before sending
• catching a separated object ("chip the backlog away") in your own writing
• explaining the non-separable rule to a colleague who's learning the phrase
• using the encouragement-only form correctly, with no object and no "at"

Useful practice phrases:

• "We need to chip away at [the object] — not chip away [the object]."
• "That's chip away at the backlog, not chip the backlog away."
• "We just have to keep chipping away."
• "Let's double check — did that sentence drop the "at"?"

One small preposition carries the whole grammar rule.

Check for "at," check the word order, and the sentence reads as fluent as it is accurate.

Lyra Practice helps advanced non-native English professionals learn the nuance of high-value workplace expressions and practice using them in realistic scenarios, so their English sounds natural, precise, and senior at work. Try Lyra Practice.