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)
60
Embed
Preposition Stranding in British English: ?Up with how much constraints do you have to put? CoGETI Forschungsnetzwerk Constraintbasierte Grammatik: Non-Canonical.
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
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)
1. Introduction
(1) About what will I talk?(2) What will I talk about?
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”)
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]
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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.)
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:
“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:
“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:
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:
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:
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:
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Comparison of WH- vs that/Ø good evidence, but:“negative data” problem
further corroborating evidence neededIntrospection: Magnitude Estimation study
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
Preposition stranding: non-canonical English structure
• some properties of Pstranding attributable to processing complexity:
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.
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.
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.