Download - Preposition Stranding in British English: ?Up with how much constraints do you have to put?
![Page 1: Preposition Stranding in British English: ?Up with how much constraints do you have to put?](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062518/568145bd550346895db2c78f/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Preposition Stranding in British English:?Up with how much constraints do you have to put?
CoGETI Forschungsnetzwerk Constraintbasierte Grammatik:Non-Canonical Structures workshop University of Göttingen, 06.07.-07.07.2006
Thomas Hoffmann
(University of Regensburg)
![Page 2: Preposition Stranding in British English: ?Up with how much constraints do you have to put?](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062518/568145bd550346895db2c78f/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
1. Introduction
(1) About what will I talk?(2) What will I talk about?
![Page 3: Preposition Stranding in British English: ?Up with how much constraints do you have to put?](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062518/568145bd550346895db2c78f/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
1. Introduction
(1) About what will I talk?(2) What will I talk about?
(1) displacement of P about (“pied-piping”) (2) P about “in-situ” without complement (“stranded”)
![Page 4: Preposition Stranding in British English: ?Up with how much constraints do you have to put?](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062518/568145bd550346895db2c78f/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
1. Introduction
Preposition stranding as in (2) looks like normal long-distance filler-slot structure, but:
Not all languages allow P stranding, cf. e.g.:
(3) *Das Thema, das ich über sprechen werde(4) The topic which I will talked about
Which factors affect P stranding/pied-piping in E?
Can all stranded data be captured by a general construction/constraint? [which e.g. licenses SLASH-ed COMP-lists for P]
![Page 5: Preposition Stranding in British English: ?Up with how much constraints do you have to put?](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062518/568145bd550346895db2c78f/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
2. Stranding and Pied-Piping in English
In English stranding occurs in four structures
in which …:
i. Strandingi I’ve heard ofi. [preposing]
ii. Whati is he talking abouti? [open interrogative]
iii. What a great topici he talked abouti! [exclamative]
iv. the structure [whichi he talked abouti]. [wh-relative]
(cf. Pullum and Huddleston 2002: 627)
![Page 6: Preposition Stranding in British English: ?Up with how much constraints do you have to put?](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062518/568145bd550346895db2c78f/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
2. Stranding and Pied-Piping in English
In English stranding occurs in four structures
in which pied piping is an alternative option:
i. Of strandingi I’ve heardi. [preposing]
ii. About whati is he talkingi? [open interrogative]
iii. About what a great topici he talkedi! [exclamative]
iv. the structure [about whichi he talkedi ]. [wh-relative]
(cf. Pullum and Huddleston 2002: 627)
![Page 7: Preposition Stranding in British English: ?Up with how much constraints do you have to put?](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062518/568145bd550346895db2c78f/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
2. Stranding and Pied-Piping in English
In English stranding occurs in four structures
in which pied piping is not possible:
v. the structure [(thati) he talked abouti]. [non-wh relative]
vi. the same stuffi as [I talked abouti]. [comparative]
vii. His talki was easy [to find fault withi]. [hollow clause]
viii. Strandingi has been talked abouti enough]. [passive]
(cf. Pullum and Huddleston 2002: 627)
![Page 8: Preposition Stranding in British English: ?Up with how much constraints do you have to put?](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062518/568145bd550346895db2c78f/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
3. Roadmap: What to Expect
1. P placement across clause types (corpus)
2. Categorical RC data (corpus)
3. Magnitude Estimation experiments
4. Variable RC data (corpus)
5. Conclusion
![Page 9: Preposition Stranding in British English: ?Up with how much constraints do you have to put?](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062518/568145bd550346895db2c78f/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
4. Corpus Data
• Corpus used:
International Corpus of English ICE-GB (educated Present-day BE, written & spoken)
(tagged for Pstranded / parsed “P+Wh“ search)
• Analysis tool:
GOLDVARB computer programme (logistic regression; Robinson et al. 2001) relative influence of various contextual factors (weights: <0.5 = inhibiting factors; >0.5 = favouring)
![Page 10: Preposition Stranding in British English: ?Up with how much constraints do you have to put?](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062518/568145bd550346895db2c78f/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Pstrand/pied-piped token tested for
1. Clause Type
2. displaced element (who, what, NP, etc.)
3. XP contained in (V / N, e.g. entrance to sth. / Adj, e.g. afraid of sth.)
4. level of formality
5. X-PP relationship (Vprepositional, PPLoc_Adjunct, PPMan_Adjunct …)
(e.g. Bergh, G. & A. Seppänen. 2000; Hoffmann 2005; Trotta 2000)
4. P placement across clause types
![Page 11: Preposition Stranding in British English: ?Up with how much constraints do you have to put?](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062518/568145bd550346895db2c78f/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
4.1 Categorical stranding contexts
1. Which PP types occur in categorical stranding contexts?
Type Token %
Passive 97 85
Hollow 14 12
Comparison 3 3
Sum 114
![Page 12: Preposition Stranding in British English: ?Up with how much constraints do you have to put?](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062518/568145bd550346895db2c78f/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
4.1 Categorical stranding contexts
0
20
40
60
80
100prepositionalV
complementPP
V-X-P-idioms
affectedLoc
instrument
accompaniment
Figure 1: Categorical stranding context by PP type (%)
![Page 13: Preposition Stranding in British English: ?Up with how much constraints do you have to put?](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062518/568145bd550346895db2c78f/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Note: P stranding in passive tokens only with lexically specified stored /
associated V-P combinations
4.1 Categorical stranding contexts: Passive
![Page 14: Preposition Stranding in British English: ?Up with how much constraints do you have to put?](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062518/568145bd550346895db2c78f/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
4.1 Categorical stranding contexts: Passive
(5) Prepositional Verb:Maybe his absence is is not properly dealt with
<ICE-GB:S1B-044 #60:2:B> (6) Complement PP:
King 's Canterbury is being spoken of very
highly at the moment <ICE-GB:S1A-054 #88:1:B> (7) V-X-P idiom:
it 'll be taken care of <ICE-GB:S2A-028 #60:2:A> (8) Affected location:
One of the benches had been sat upon
<ICE-GB:W2F-005 #97:1>
![Page 15: Preposition Stranding in British English: ?Up with how much constraints do you have to put?](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062518/568145bd550346895db2c78f/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Note: P stranding in passive tokens only with lexically specified stored /
associated V-P combinations
features of Pstranded in passive sentences combination of:
general Pstranded constraint [which licenses SLASH-ed COMP-lists for P]
general passive construction [affected arguments as Subj]
4.1 Categorical stranding contexts: Passive
![Page 16: Preposition Stranding in British English: ?Up with how much constraints do you have to put?](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062518/568145bd550346895db2c78f/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Preliminaries: several categorical data excluded, e.g.:
• all categorical stranding contexts [cf. above]
• all that/-RCs [cf. later]
• idomatic constructions:What 's it like <ICE-GB:S1A-019 #53:1:B>
• non-finite RCs [cf. Sag 1997]
• all Manner, Degree, Respect PPs [cf. later]
4.2 Variable stranding contexts:
![Page 17: Preposition Stranding in British English: ?Up with how much constraints do you have to put?](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062518/568145bd550346895db2c78f/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
4.2 Variable stranding contexts:
Type Stranded Pied piped
WH-RC N 69 439 508
% 14 86
Free RC N 136 2 138
% 99 1
DirectQ N 103 5 108
% 95 5
Indir Q N 66 7 73
% 90 10
Cleft N 8 49 57
% 14 86
Sum 382 502 884
![Page 18: Preposition Stranding in British English: ?Up with how much constraints do you have to put?](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062518/568145bd550346895db2c78f/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Footnote: ? pied piped free RC data?
(9) This has tended to obscure to what extent Beckett 's early writings possess a coherent , though dislocated rhetoric of their own ...
<ICE-GB:W2A-004 #22:1>
= obscure the extent to which ...
[!But: specific PP type (degree); cf. later!]
4.2 Variable stranding contexts:
![Page 19: Preposition Stranding in British English: ?Up with how much constraints do you have to put?](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062518/568145bd550346895db2c78f/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Interestingly: Statistical analysis revealed
ClauseType * Formality interaction
4.2 Variable stranding contexts:
![Page 20: Preposition Stranding in British English: ?Up with how much constraints do you have to put?](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062518/568145bd550346895db2c78f/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Free RC / Indir Q / Direct Q: not affected by level of formality
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
F_stranded
F_piped
Q_stranded
Q_piped
I_stranded
I_piped
Informal Medium Formal
![Page 21: Preposition Stranding in British English: ?Up with how much constraints do you have to put?](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062518/568145bd550346895db2c78f/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
WH-RC: affected by level of formality
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
R_stranded
R_piped
Informal Medium Formal
![Page 22: Preposition Stranding in British English: ?Up with how much constraints do you have to put?](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062518/568145bd550346895db2c78f/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Cleft-RC: affected by level of formality
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
L_stranded
L_piped
Informal Medium Formal
![Page 23: Preposition Stranding in British English: ?Up with how much constraints do you have to put?](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062518/568145bd550346895db2c78f/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Best Goldvarb model for data: (Fit: X-square(7) = 4,006, p = 0,7784R2 = 0,99 / adjusted-multiple R2 = 0,99
Cross-validation estimate of accuracy = 0,922)
significant factors:
PP-types
Clause*Formal
4.2 Variable stranding contexts:
![Page 24: Preposition Stranding in British English: ?Up with how much constraints do you have to put?](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062518/568145bd550346895db2c78f/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
with respect to pied piping:
<0.5 = inhibiting pied piping / favouring stranding
>0.5 = favouring pied piping / inhibiting stranding
4.2 Variable stranding contexts:
![Page 25: Preposition Stranding in British English: ?Up with how much constraints do you have to put?](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062518/568145bd550346895db2c78f/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
4.2 Variable stranding contexts:
PP type relationship(p = 0.000)
prepositional "X""V-X-P" idioms
subcategorized PP obligatory complement
0,169
optional complements 0,333
movement accompaniment
means/instrument cause/reason/result
0,547
position in timeaffected location
directionposition/location
0,941
Pstrand
Ppiped
![Page 26: Preposition Stranding in British English: ?Up with how much constraints do you have to put?](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062518/568145bd550346895db2c78f/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
4.2 Variable stranding contexts:
Clause*Formal relationship(p = 0.000)
Free RCIndirect QDirect Q
0,028
less formal*
WH-RC/Cleft-RC0,134
more formal*
WH-RC/Cleft-RC0,904
Pstrand
Ppiped
![Page 27: Preposition Stranding in British English: ?Up with how much constraints do you have to put?](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062518/568145bd550346895db2c78f/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Gries 2002: P placement affected by
1) processing effort
2) prescriptive grammar rules
Yes, but also:
3) idiosyncratic combination of both!
4.2 Variable stranding contexts:
![Page 28: Preposition Stranding in British English: ?Up with how much constraints do you have to put?](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062518/568145bd550346895db2c78f/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
processing:stranding more complex than pied piping since
1) Hawkins 2004: potential processing problems
(11) Whoi did John see*i Bill talk toi
(12) To whomi did John see Bill talki
2) Stranding defers filler-gap identification beyond verbal head of clause
4.2 Variable stranding contexts:
![Page 29: Preposition Stranding in British English: ?Up with how much constraints do you have to put?](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062518/568145bd550346895db2c78f/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
“Gap sites and nodes containing them that are predictable on the basis of conventionalized co-occurrence of their subcategorizers are easier to process than adjunct gaps and adjunct clauses.” (Hawkins 2004: 213)
4.2 Variable stranding contexts:
![Page 30: Preposition Stranding in British English: ?Up with how much constraints do you have to put?](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062518/568145bd550346895db2c78f/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
“Gap sites and nodes containing them that are predictable on the basis of conventionalized co-occurrence of their subcategorizers are easier to process than adjunct gaps and adjunct clauses.” (Hawkins 2004: 213)
explains effect of factors in PP type:• lexically specified PPs favour stranding• stranding with adjunct PP: semantic factors
(cf. below)
4.2 Variable stranding contexts:
![Page 31: Preposition Stranding in British English: ?Up with how much constraints do you have to put?](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062518/568145bd550346895db2c78f/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
In languages that have filler-gap structures for both relative clauses and wh-questions, if a gap is grammatical for a relative clause filler in an FGD of complexity n, then a gap will be grammatical for a wh-question filler in an FGD of complexity n. (Hawkins 2004: 200)
4.2 Variable stranding contexts:
![Page 32: Preposition Stranding in British English: ?Up with how much constraints do you have to put?](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062518/568145bd550346895db2c78f/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
In languages that have filler-gap structures for both relative clauses and wh-questions, if a gap is grammatical for a relative clause filler in an FGD of complexity n, then a gap will be grammatical for a wh-question filler in an FGD of complexity n. (Hawkins 2004: 200)
partly explains effect of Clause*Formal:
• Free-RC/Q less complex than RC favour Pstrand
• yet: level of formality interaction effect?
4.2 Variable stranding contexts:
![Page 33: Preposition Stranding in British English: ?Up with how much constraints do you have to put?](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062518/568145bd550346895db2c78f/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
Note: if only processing effect
only need for one general Pstrand construction
Yet: level of formality only associated with Cleft-/WH-RCs
!require extra Pstrand and Ppiped constructions
for these clause types!
4.2 Variable stranding contexts:
![Page 34: Preposition Stranding in British English: ?Up with how much constraints do you have to put?](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062518/568145bd550346895db2c78f/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
As the ICE-GB data showed both stranding and pied piping occur mostly in relative clauses
closer look at RC data
[further constraints beyond formality?]
5. Corpus Study II: Relative clauses
![Page 35: Preposition Stranding in British English: ?Up with how much constraints do you have to put?](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062518/568145bd550346895db2c78f/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
1. relativizer:
all that/Ø-tokens in ICE-GB stranded
176 that+Pstranded-token
(10) a data source on that I can rely
177 Ø+Pstranded-token
(11) a data source on Ø I can rely
ICE-GB result: expected
implications: (2) = (3)? / that WH-
5. Corpus Study II: Relative clauses
![Page 36: Preposition Stranding in British English: ?Up with how much constraints do you have to put?](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062518/568145bd550346895db2c78f/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
2. X-PP relationship:
ICE-data showed: difference between adjunct PPs
claim:
Pstranding restricted to PPs which add thematic information to predicates/events
= processing constraint: allows integration of P within VP
5. Corpus Study II: Relative clauses
![Page 37: Preposition Stranding in British English: ?Up with how much constraints do you have to put?](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062518/568145bd550346895db2c78f/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
2. X-PP relationship:
Categorical effect of non-θ-WH-PPAdjuncts-tokens:
a) just P+WH / no that/Ø+P in ICE-GB: e.g. manner adjunct PPs:
(12) a. the ways in which the satire is achieved <ICE-GB:S1B-014 #5:1:A>
b. the ways which/that/Ø the satire is achieved in
5. Corpus Study II: Relative clauses
![Page 38: Preposition Stranding in British English: ?Up with how much constraints do you have to put?](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062518/568145bd550346895db2c78f/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
2. X-PP relationship:
Categorical effect of θ-WH-PPAdjuncts-tokens:
b) just P+WH / but that/Ø+P in ICE-GB: e.g. locative PP adjuncts
(13) a. … the world that I was working in and studying in
<ICE-GB:S1A-001 #35:1B>
b. … the world in which I was working and studying
5. Corpus Study II: Relative clauses
![Page 39: Preposition Stranding in British English: ?Up with how much constraints do you have to put?](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062518/568145bd550346895db2c78f/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
Claim: comparison of WH- vs that/Ø shows:
P can only be stranded if: PP adds thematic information to predicates/events[= can be semantically integrated by head of RC]
e.g.: manner & degree adjuncts:compare events “to other possible events of V-ing” (Ernst 2002: 59)
don’t add thematic participant Pstrand with these: systematic gap
5. Corpus Study II: Relative clauses
![Page 40: Preposition Stranding in British English: ?Up with how much constraints do you have to put?](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062518/568145bd550346895db2c78f/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
Claim: comparison of WH- vs that/Ø shows:
P can only be stranded if: PP adds thematic information to predicates/events[= can be semantically integrated by head of RC]
e.g.: locative adjuncts:
add thematic participant WH+P with these: accidental gap
5. Corpus Study II: Relative clauses
![Page 41: Preposition Stranding in British English: ?Up with how much constraints do you have to put?](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062518/568145bd550346895db2c78f/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
Comparison of WH- vs that/Ø good evidence, but:“negative data” problem
further corroborating evidence neededIntrospection: Magnitude Estimation study
5. Corpus Study II: Relative clauses
![Page 42: Preposition Stranding in British English: ?Up with how much constraints do you have to put?](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062518/568145bd550346895db2c78f/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
• relative judgements (reference sentence)
• informal, restrictive RCs tested for:
P-PLACEMENT (Pstrand, Ppied-piped)RELATIVIZER (WH-, that-, Ø-)X-PP (VPrep, PPTemp/Loc_Adjunct, PPManner/Degree_Adjunct)
• tokens counterbalanced: 6 material groups a 18 tokens + 36 filler = 54 tokens
• tokens randomized (Web-Exp-software)
• N = 36 BE native speakers (sex: 18m, 18f / age: 17-64)
6. Magnitude Estimation: RC I
![Page 43: Preposition Stranding in British English: ?Up with how much constraints do you have to put?](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062518/568145bd550346895db2c78f/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
18 filler sentences: ungrammatical
a. That’s a tape I sent them that done I’ve myself (word order violation; original source: <ICE-GB:S1A-033 074>)
b. There was lots of activity that goes on there (subject contact clause; original source: <ICE-GB:S1A-004 #067>)
c. There are so many people who needs physiotherapy (subject-verb agreement error; original source: <ICE-GB:S1A-003 #027>)
6. Magnitude Estimation: RC I
![Page 44: Preposition Stranding in British English: ?Up with how much constraints do you have to put?](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062518/568145bd550346895db2c78f/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
ANOVA: significant effects
• P-PLACEMENT: F(1,33) = 4.536, p < 0.05
• RELATIVIZER: F(2,66) = 17.149, p < 0.001
• P-PLACEMENT*X-PP: F(2,66) = 9.740, p < 0.001
• P-PLACEMENT*RELATIVIZER: F(2,66) = 4.217, p < 0.02
6. Magnitude Estimation: RC I
![Page 45: Preposition Stranding in British English: ?Up with how much constraints do you have to put?](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062518/568145bd550346895db2c78f/html5/thumbnails/45.jpg)
-2
-1,5
-1
-0,5
0
0,5
1
1,5
2M
ean
Ju
dg
me
nts
(z-
sco
res)
P+WH
P+That
P+0
prepositional verbs temp/loc adjuncts manner/deg adjuncts
Fig. 1: Magnitude estimation result for P + relativizer
P+WH >> P+that > P+Ø
![Page 46: Preposition Stranding in British English: ?Up with how much constraints do you have to put?](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062518/568145bd550346895db2c78f/html5/thumbnails/46.jpg)
Fig. 2: Magnitude estimation result for P + relativizercompared with fillers
P+that & P+Ø = ungrammatical fillers violation of “hard constraint” (Sorace & Keller 2005)
-2
-1,5
-1
-0,5
0
0,5
1
1,5
2M
ean
Ju
dg
men
ts (
z-sc
ore
s)
P+WH
P+That
P+0
Filler (grammatical)
Filler (*Agree)
Filler(*ZeroSubj)
Filler(*WordOrder)
prepositional verbs temp/loc adjuncts manner/deg adjuncts
![Page 47: Preposition Stranding in British English: ?Up with how much constraints do you have to put?](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062518/568145bd550346895db2c78f/html5/thumbnails/47.jpg)
-2
-1,5
-1
-0,5
0
0,5
1
1,5
2M
ean
Ju
dg
me
nts
(z-
sco
res)
WH+P
That+P
0+P
prepositional verbs temp/loc adjuncts manner/deg adjuncts
Fig. 3: Magnitude estimation result for relativizer + P
WH + P= that + P = Ø + PVPrep > PPTemp/Loc > PPMan/Deg
![Page 48: Preposition Stranding in British English: ?Up with how much constraints do you have to put?](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062518/568145bd550346895db2c78f/html5/thumbnails/48.jpg)
-2
-1,5
-1
-0,5
0
0,5
1
1,5
2M
ean
Ju
dg
me
nts
(z-
sco
res)
X+P
Filler_Good
Filler(*Agree)
Filler(*ZeroSubj)
Filler(*WordOrder)
prepositional verbs temp/loc adjuncts manner/deg adjuncts
Fig. 3: Magnitude estimation result for relativizer + P
VPrep > PPTemp/Loc > PPMan/Deg >> ungrammatical filler violation of “soft constraint” (Sorace & Keller 2005)
![Page 49: Preposition Stranding in British English: ?Up with how much constraints do you have to put?](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062518/568145bd550346895db2c78f/html5/thumbnails/49.jpg)
6. Magnitude Estimation: RC I
Corroborating evidence:
corpus: man/deg PPs: no Pstranded (not even with that/) semantic constraint on Pstranded
experiment:man/deg PPs worst environment for Pstranded yet: better than ungrammatical fillers
(soft constraint violation: processing effect)
![Page 50: Preposition Stranding in British English: ?Up with how much constraints do you have to put?](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062518/568145bd550346895db2c78f/html5/thumbnails/50.jpg)
6. Magnitude Estimation: RC I
What type of hard constraint is P + that?
Sag 1997: case assignment restriction
*P + that = *P + who
new Magnitude Estimation experiment
![Page 51: Preposition Stranding in British English: ?Up with how much constraints do you have to put?](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062518/568145bd550346895db2c78f/html5/thumbnails/51.jpg)
• informal, restrictive RCs, just VPrep tested for:
P-PLACEMENT (Pstrand, Ppied-piped, Pdoubled )RELATIVIZER (who, whom, that-, Ø-)COMPLEXITY (simple, long-distance Ø- and that-C)
• tokens counterbalanced: 36 material groups a 36 tokens + 48 filler = 84 tokens
• tokens randomized (Web-Exp-software)
• N = so far: 13 BE native speakers
• in progress no in-depth statistical analysis
7. Magnitude Estimation: RC II
![Page 52: Preposition Stranding in British English: ?Up with how much constraints do you have to put?](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062518/568145bd550346895db2c78f/html5/thumbnails/52.jpg)
-2
-1,5
-1
-0,5
0
0,5
1
1,5
2
SimplePiped
that who whom zero
Fig. 4: Magnitude estimation result for all relativizers
![Page 53: Preposition Stranding in British English: ?Up with how much constraints do you have to put?](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062518/568145bd550346895db2c78f/html5/thumbnails/53.jpg)
-2
-1,5
-1
-0,5
0
0,5
1
1,5
2
SimplePiped
that who whom zero
Fig. 4: Magnitude estimation result for all relativizers
P + that P + who
![Page 54: Preposition Stranding in British English: ?Up with how much constraints do you have to put?](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062518/568145bd550346895db2c78f/html5/thumbnails/54.jpg)
7. Magnitude Estimation: RC II
if experiment shows
*P + that *P + who
3 separate constructions?:
(thati) ... Pi
wh-i ... Pi
P wh-i ... ti
![Page 55: Preposition Stranding in British English: ?Up with how much constraints do you have to put?](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062518/568145bd550346895db2c78f/html5/thumbnails/55.jpg)
In addition to PP-types and Formality effects, variable corpus data (450 finite WH-token)exhibited two more effects (Hoffmann fc.):
1. NP-contained PPs favour pied piping 0.964
2. restrictive RC favour pied piping: (weight: 0.592) nonrestrictive RC clearly inhibit pied piping
(i.e. favour stranding; weight: 0.248)
(Model: Fit:X-square: p = 0,5610 / R2 = 0,92 / multiple adjusted R2 = 0,90 / Cross-validation estimate of accuracy = 0.916)
8. Corpus Study III: Variable RC data
![Page 56: Preposition Stranding in British English: ?Up with how much constraints do you have to put?](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062518/568145bd550346895db2c78f/html5/thumbnails/56.jpg)
Note: both processing effects
1. NP-contained PPs favour pied piping:
NP itself contained in VP: Pstrand complexity[cf. also Cowart 1997]
2. nonrestrictive RC favour stranding: filler-gap identification process in non-restrictive relative clauses less complex than in restrictive relative clauses (Hawkins 2004: 240ff.)
less complexity Pstrand
8. Corpus Study III: Variable RC data
![Page 57: Preposition Stranding in British English: ?Up with how much constraints do you have to put?](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062518/568145bd550346895db2c78f/html5/thumbnails/57.jpg)
Preposition stranding: non-canonical English structure
• some properties of Pstranding attributable to processing complexity:
Q > RC non-restrictive > RC restrictiveVPrep > thematic PPAdjunct > non- thematic PPAdjunct
• others call for specific constructions:
formality effect with RCsthat-/-RCs
8. Conclusion
![Page 58: Preposition Stranding in British English: ?Up with how much constraints do you have to put?](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062518/568145bd550346895db2c78f/html5/thumbnails/58.jpg)
9. References
Aarts, B. 2000. "Corpus linguistics, Chomsky and Fuzzy Tree Fragments". In Christian Mair and Marianne Hundt, eds. 2000. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory. Amsterdam and Atlanta, GA: Rodopi, 5-13.
Bard, E.G. et al. 1996. “Magnitude Estimation of Linguistic acceptability”. Language 72:32-68.
Bergh, G. & A. Seppänen. 2000. “Preposition stranding with wh-relatives: A historical survey”. English Language and Linguistics 4:295-316.
Cowart, W. 1997. Experimental Syntax: Applying Objective Methods to Sentence Judgements. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Gries, S.Th. 2002. “Preposition stranding in English: Predicting speakers' behaviour”. In V. Samiian, ed. Proceedings of the Western Conference on Linguistics. Vol. 12. California State University, Fresno, CA, 230-241
Hawkins, J. A. 2004. Efficiency and Complexity in Grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
![Page 59: Preposition Stranding in British English: ?Up with how much constraints do you have to put?](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062518/568145bd550346895db2c78f/html5/thumbnails/59.jpg)
9. References
Hoffmann, T. 2005. "Variable vs. categorical Effects: Preposition pied piping and stranding in British English relative clauses". Journal of English Linguistics 33,3: 257-297.
Hoffmann, T. fc. “’I need data which I can rely on’. Corroborating Empirical Evidence on preposition placement in English relative clauses”. W. Sternefeld et al., eds. Linguistic Evidence 2006. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter
Huddleston, R. et al. 2002. “Relative constructions and unbound dependencies”. In: G.K. Pullum & R. Huddleston, eds. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1031-1096.
Jackendoff, R. 2002. Foundations of Language: Brain, Meaning, Grammar, Evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Nelson, G. et al. 2002. Exploring Natural Language: Working with the British Component of the International Corpus of English. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Pesetsky, D. 1998. “Some principles of sentence production”. In: Pilar Barbosa et al., eds. Is the Best Good Enough? Optimality and Competition in Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 337-83.
![Page 60: Preposition Stranding in British English: ?Up with how much constraints do you have to put?](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062518/568145bd550346895db2c78f/html5/thumbnails/60.jpg)
9. References
Pickering, M. & G. Barry. 1991. “Sentence processing without empty categories”. Language and Cognitive Processes 6:229-259.
Quirk, R. et al. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.
Robinson, J. et al. 2001. “GOLDVARB 2001: A Multivariate Analysis Application for Windows”. <http://www.york.ac.uk/depts/lang/webstuff/goldvarb/manualOct2001>
Sag, I.A. 1997. “English relative constructions”. Journal of Linguistics 33:431-484.
Sampson, G. 2001. Empirical Linguistics. London, New York: Continuum.
Trotta, J. 2000. Wh-clauses in English: Aspects of Theory and Description. Amsterdam and Philadelphia, GA: Rodopi.
Van der Auwera, J. 1985. “Relative that — a centennial dispute”. Journal of Linguistics 21:149-179.