Thomas Hoffmann University of Regensburg Preposition Stranding in

Thomas Hoffmann (University of Regensburg) Preposition Stranding in British English: ? Up with how much constraints do you have to put? Co. GETI Forschungsnetzwerk Constraintbasierte Grammatik: Non-Canonical Structures workshop University of Göttingen, 06. 07. -07. 2006

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) * (4) Das Thema, das ich über sprechen werde 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. iii. iv. Strandingi I’ve heard ofi. [preposing] Whati is he talking abouti? [open interrogative] What a great topici he talked abouti! [exclamative] 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. iii. iv. Of strandingi I’ve heardi. [preposing] About whati is he talkingi? [open interrogative] About what a great topici he talkedi! [exclamative] 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:

3. Roadmap: What to Expect 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. P placement across clause types (corpus) Categorical RC data (corpus) Magnitude Estimation experiments Variable RC data (corpus) 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)

4. P placement across clause types Pstrand/pied-piped token tested for 1. Clause Type 2. displaced element (who, what, NP, etc. ) 3. XP contained in 4. level of formality 5. X-PP relationship (Vprepositional, PPLoc_Adjunct, PPMan_Adjunct …) (V / N, e. g. entrance to sth. / Adj, e. g. afraid of sth. ) (e. g. Bergh, G. & A. Seppänen. 2000; Hoffmann 2005; Trotta 2000)

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

4. 1 Categorical stranding contexts Figure 1: Categorical stranding context by PP type (%)

4. 1 Categorical stranding contexts: Note: P stranding in passive tokens only with lexically specified stored / associated V-P combinations Passive

4. 1 Categorical stranding contexts: Passive (5) Prepositional Verb: Maybe his absence is is not properly dealt with <ICE-GB: S 1 B-044 #60: 2: B> (6) (7) Complement PP: King 's Canterbury is being spoken of very highly at the moment <ICE-GB: S 1 A-054 #88: 1: B> V-X-P idiom: it 'll be taken care of <ICE-GB: S 2 A-028 #60: 2: A> (8) Affected location: One of the benches had been sat upon <ICE-GB: W 2 F-005 #97: 1>

4. 1 Categorical stranding contexts: Note: Passive 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. 2 Variable stranding contexts: 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: S 1 A-019 #53: 1: B> • non-finite RCs [cf. Sag 1997] • all Manner, Degree, Respect PPs [cf. later]

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 Direct. Q 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

4. 2 Variable stranding contexts: 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: W 2 A-004 #22: 1> = obscure the extent to which. . . [!But: specific PP type (degree); cf. later!]

4. 2 Variable stranding contexts: Interestingly: Statistical analysis revealed Clause. Type * Formality interaction

Free RC / Indir Q / Direct Q: not affected by level of formality

WH-RC: affected by level of formality

Cleft-RC: affected by level of formality

4. 2 Variable stranding contexts: Best Goldvarb model for data: (Fit: X-square(7) = 4, 006, p = 0, 7784 R 2 = 0, 99 / adjusted-multiple R 2 = 0, 99 Cross-validation estimate of accuracy = 0, 922) significant factors: PP-types Clause*Formal

4. 2 Variable stranding contexts: with respect to pied piping: <0. 5 = inhibiting pied piping / favouring stranding >0. 5 = favouring pied piping / inhibiting stranding

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 position in time affected location direction position/location Pstrand Ppiped 0, 547 0, 941

4. 2 Variable stranding contexts: Free RC Indirect Q Direct Q Clause*Formal relationship (p = 0. 000) 0, 028 less formal * WH-RC/Cleft-RC 0, 134 more formal * WH-RC/Cleft-RC 0, 904 Pstrand Ppiped

4. 2 Variable stranding contexts: Gries 2002: P placement affected by 1) 2) processing effort prescriptive grammar rules Yes, but also: 3) idiosyncratic combination of both!

4. 2 Variable stranding contexts: 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 cooccurrence 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 cooccurrence 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 Ppiped constructions for these clause types!

5. Corpus Study II: Relative clauses 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: S 1 B-014 #5: 1: A> is achieved in b. the ways which/that/Ø the satire

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: S 1 A-001 #35: 1 B> and studying b. … the world in which I was working

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 needed Introspection: Magnitude Estimation study

6. Magnitude Estimation: RC I • 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: 18 m, 18 f / age: 17 -64)

6. Magnitude Estimation: RC I 18 filler sentences: ungrammatical a. That’s a tape I sent them that done I’ve myself (word order violation; original source: <ICE-GB: S 1 A-033 074>) b. There was lots of activity that goes on there (subject contact clause; original source: <ICE-GB: S 1 A-004 #067>) c. There are so many people who needs physiotherapy (subject-verb agreement error; original source: <ICE-GB: S 1 A-003 #027>)

6. Magnitude Estimation: RC I 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

Fig. 1: Magnitude estimation result for P + relativizer P+WH >> P+that > P+Ø

Fig. 2: Magnitude estimation result for P + relativizer compared with fillers P+that & P+Ø = ungrammatical fillers violation of “hard constraint” (Sorace & Keller 2005)

Fig. 3: Magnitude estimation result for relativizer + P WH + P= that + P = Ø + P VPrep > PPTemp/Loc > PPMan/Deg

Fig. 3: Magnitude estimation result for relativizer + P VPrep > PPTemp/Loc > PPMan/Deg >> ungrammatical filler violation of “soft constraint” (Sorace & Keller 2005)

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)

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

7. Magnitude Estimation: RC II • 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

Fig. 4: Magnitude estimation result for all relativizers

Fig. 4: Magnitude estimation result for all relativizers P + that P + who

7. Magnitude Estimation: RC II if experiment shows *P + that *P + who 3 separate constructions? : (thati). . . Pi wh-i. . . Pi P wh-i. . . ti

8. Corpus Study III: Variable RC data 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 / R 2 = 0, 92 / multiple adjusted R 2 = 0, 90 / Cross-validation estimate of accuracy = 0. 916)

8. Corpus Study III: Variable RC data 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 nonrestrictive relative clauses less complex than in restrictive relative clauses (Hawkins 2004: 240 ff. ) less complexity Pstrand

8. Conclusion Preposition stranding: non-canonical English structure • some properties of Pstranding attributable to processing complexity: Q > RC non-restrictive > RC restrictive VPrep > thematic PPAdjunct > non- thematic PPAdjunct • others call for specific constructions: formality effect with RCs that-/ -RCs

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.

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/manual. Oct 2001> 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.